Q&A: Until the Chafetz Chaim Came Along
Until the Chafetz Chaim Came Along.
Question
Hello and greetings to the Rabbi.
In the introduction to his book, the Chafetz Chaim counts more than thirty commandments from the Torah (17 prohibitions and 14 positive commandments)
in which those who engage in evil speech and its derivatives may stumble.
And I would like to ask: if the weight of this prohibition is so significant, why did our rabbis throughout the generations before him (almost) not deal with it? And likewise, the rabbis of his time and those who came after him apparently did not dispute him at all, but upheld and accepted his words as they were given…..
Thank you in advance.
Answer
Greetings.
My general impression is that the Chafetz Chaim created a halakhic topic here almost out of nothing. Until him, this was not seen as a truly halakhic topic. Some of the sources he brings are also aggadic, and he draws halakhic conclusions from them. The dynamics of how and why a book like this and an approach like this are accepted or not accepted are a mystery that I do not know how to solve.
Even if this is truly Jewish law, it is still clear that it is hard to set firm rules in this area, and perhaps that is why they did not deal with it.
Beyond that, they did deal with the various prohibitions that one also violates when speaking evil speech.
Discussion on Answer
With Heaven’s help, 4 Cheshvan 5778
The foundations of the laws of evil speech are explained in the Talmud in tractate Arakhin and in Maimonides in chapter 6 of the Laws of Character Traits, where he defines the prohibition of talebearing as something that leads to bloodshed, and continues: “There is an even graver prohibition than this, and that is one who speaks disparagingly of his fellow.” In other words: evil speech is more severe than the prohibition of talebearing, which leads to bloodshed!
The novelty of the Chafetz Chaim is דווקא in detailing the conditions under which one may speak about another person for a constructive purpose, such as warning someone about possible harm, protesting against a wrongdoer who does not accept rebuke, and the like. Here the Chafetz Chaim gathered the conditions for permission that are mentioned in the Talmud and in the halakhic decisors in scattered places, and combined them and made them accessible to learners, so that the use of those conditions for permission would not go beyond the law.
Best regards, S.Z. Levinger
Yishai, regarding all the details — without any doubt.
And indeed they also greatly exaggerated the prohibition of wasting seed. Many weaklings have already trodden that path.
Laws of Forbidden Relations, chapter 21, halakhah 18
To S.Z.L.,
Just so you know, in the book Chafetz Chaim there are 19 principles, and all of them deal with branches of the prohibition and its details
(not including the opening on positive commandments and the opening on prohibitions).
Except for principle 10, where, as you said, he deals (partly) with how to put it… with “permitted” evil speech…
(and also in principle 2, where he deals with the “permission” (?) of saying something in the presence of three, and qualifies it with countless restrictions).
I do not think that the generations before the Chafetz Chaim were convinced that from a few passages in Arakhin and in Maimonides (and the other aggadic passages in the Talmud) that you cited, one can derive such an elaborate dimension of prohibition.
The main novelty of the Chafetz Chaim was definitely to innovate regarding the severity of the prohibition of evil speech
(on which he hangs the main cause of the exile; see the introduction) and to spread this to the public,
certainly not as you wrote, that the main novelty in the Chafetz Chaim is detailing the conditions and assumptions under which it is permitted to speak.
With Heaven’s help, 4 Cheshvan 5778
Certainly the Chafetz Chaim raised awareness of the prohibition of evil speech and talebearing and of their severity, but in this he did not innovate. These things are explained in the words of the Talmud in Arakhin and in Maimonides in chapter 6 of the Laws of Character Traits.
What Maimonides treated briefly was the side of permission, and on that the Chafetz Chaim expanded.
In the laws of evil speech, principle 2, where he explained the parameters of “in the presence of three.” In principle 4, sections 5-11, he explains when and to whom it is permitted to reveal about a person who committed a transgression or has bad character traits; in principle 6 he explains when it is permitted to listen to things about another person when there is concern that he is about to cause harm, in which case one must be concerned, but not believe it definitively; in principle 7 he discusses the conditions for permission to accept information in cases such as “a persistent rumor,” “trusted like two witnesses,” “matters that are evident,” and the like. In principle 8, sections 5-8, he discusses the permission to speak about someone who is not included in “your fellow” and about quarrelsome people; in principle 10 he discusses when someone who was harmed may tell others.
In the laws of talebearing, principle 2 discusses the parameters of “in the presence of three” regarding talebearing. Principle 5 discusses hearing talebearing in order to be concerned; principle 6 discusses hearing talebearing in order to be concerned when it comes from someone “trusted like two witnesses” or from evident matters; principle 9 explains the conditions under which there is no prohibition of talebearing.
When one knows when it is permitted to speak and listen and when not, the law becomes workable.
Best regards, S.Z. Levinger
Again to S.Z.L.,
To derive more than 30 Torah prohibitions around one prohibition — that’s not a novelty?
Where does that appear in Maimonides?
The handful of heavily qualified permissions in the Chafetz Chaim’s book do not provide the ability to apply this.
Especially since sometimes he notes before and after that one should be stringent even in those cases. (That’s not how one writes innovations either…)
And that is enough.
See the Rabbi’s practical view here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%9C%d7%A9%d7%95%D7%9F-%d7%94%D7%A8%D7%A2/
It’s clear that in some of the details there really is exaggeration, and there it seems to me that the situation is similar to that of wasting seed. There, they created the prohibition itself based on aggadic sources. With evil speech there is a clear prohibition, and even a few detailed laws (for example, saying something in the presence of three) that are based on regular halakhic sources.
Are the sources for this more aggadic than those for the prohibition of wasting seed?