Welcome to the Judaism community on Codidact!

Will you help us build our community of learners? Drop into our study hall, ask questions, help others with answers to their questions, share a d'var torah if you're so inclined, invite your friends, and join us in building this community together. Not an ask-the-rabbi service, just people at all levels learning together.

Post History

60%

+1 −0

Q&A Is Lashon Hara L'toelet Hutra or Dechuya?

Rav Yitzchak Berkovits (also spelled as Berkowitz, an expert in the laws of loshon hara) understands that if one follows all the requirements of toeles, there is no prohibition at all. It's not tha...

posted 4y ago by robev‭ · edited 4y ago by robev‭

Answer

#14: Post edited by

robev‭ · 2020-09-01T00:25:22Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that if one follows all the requirements of *toeles*, **there is no prohibition at all**. It's not that it's *loshon hara* that's allowed. Seemingly this would mean it's *hutra* (but see the end).
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance resulted in only one source that he used to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> [The prohibition is] that if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.
However, **an important caveat** is defining *letoeles*. The requirements of the **Chofetz Chaim** to define something as *letoeles* makes your chosen *nafka mina*/practical difference not relevant. It's actually the case that if you say something "extra" or unnecessary, that wouldn't be called *letoeles*. The **Chofetz Chaim** also says if you have an alternative, you can't say the *loshon hara*, as again it wouldn't be *letoeles*. So it's going to be hard to find a real *nafka mina* how to define it.

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that if one follows all the requirements of *toeles*, **there is no prohibition at all**. It's not that it's *loshon hara* that's allowed. Seemingly this would mean it's *hutra* (but see the end).
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance resulted in only one source that he used to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> [The prohibition is] that if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.
However, **an important caveat** is defining *letoeles*. The requirements of the **Chofetz Chaim** to define something as *letoeles* makes your chosen *nafka mina*/practical difference not relevant. It's actually the case that if you say something "extra" or unnecessary, that wouldn't be called *letoeles*. The **Chofetz Chaim** also says if you have an alternative, you can't say the *loshon hara*, as again it wouldn't be *letoeles*. So it's going to be hard to find a real *nafka mina* for how to define it.

#13: Post edited by

robev‭ · 2020-09-01T00:24:18Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that if one follows all the requirements of *toeles*, **there is no prohibition at all**. It's not that it's *loshon hara* that's allowed. Seemingly this would mean it's *hutra* (but see the end).
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> [The prohibition is] that if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.
However, **an important caveat** is defining *letoeles*. The requirements of the **Chofetz Chaim** to define something as *letoeles* makes your chosen *nafka mina*/practical difference not relevant. It's actually the case that if you say something "extra" or unnecessary, that wouldn't be called *letoeles*. The **Chofetz Chaim** also says if you have an alternative, you can't say the *loshon hara*, as again it wouldn't be *letoeles*. So it's going to be hard to find a real *nafka mina* how to define it.

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that if one follows all the requirements of *toeles*, **there is no prohibition at all**. It's not that it's *loshon hara* that's allowed. Seemingly this would mean it's *hutra* (but see the end).
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance resulted in only one source that he used to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> [The prohibition is] that if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.
However, **an important caveat** is defining *letoeles*. The requirements of the **Chofetz Chaim** to define something as *letoeles* makes your chosen *nafka mina*/practical difference not relevant. It's actually the case that if you say something "extra" or unnecessary, that wouldn't be called *letoeles*. The **Chofetz Chaim** also says if you have an alternative, you can't say the *loshon hara*, as again it wouldn't be *letoeles*. So it's going to be hard to find a real *nafka mina* how to define it.

#12: Post edited by

robev‭ · 2020-09-01T00:21:44Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that if one follows all the requirements of *toeles*, **there is no prohibition at all**. Seemingly this would mean it's *hutra* (but see the end).
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> [The prohibition is] that if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.
However, **an important caveat** is defining *letoeles*. The requirements of the **Chofetz Chaim** to define something as *letoeles* makes your chosen *nafka mina*/practical difference not relevant. It's actually the case that if you say something "extra" or unnecessary, that wouldn't be called *letoeles*. The **Chofetz Chaim** also says if you have an alternative, you can't say the *loshon hara*, as again it wouldn't be *letoeles*. So it's going to be hard to find a real *nafka mina* how to define it.

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that if one follows all the requirements of *toeles*, **there is no prohibition at all**. It's not that it's *loshon hara* that's allowed. Seemingly this would mean it's *hutra* (but see the end).
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> [The prohibition is] that if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.
However, **an important caveat** is defining *letoeles*. The requirements of the **Chofetz Chaim** to define something as *letoeles* makes your chosen *nafka mina*/practical difference not relevant. It's actually the case that if you say something "extra" or unnecessary, that wouldn't be called *letoeles*. The **Chofetz Chaim** also says if you have an alternative, you can't say the *loshon hara*, as again it wouldn't be *letoeles*. So it's going to be hard to find a real *nafka mina* how to define it.

#11: Post edited by

robev‭ · 2020-09-01T00:20:10Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> [The prohibition is] that if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.
However, **an important caveat** is defining *letoeles*. It happens to be that your chosen *nafka mina*/practical difference isn't relevant. It's actually the case that if you say something "extra" or unnecessary, that wouldn't be called *letoeles*. The **Chofetz Chaim** also says if you have an alternative, you can't say the *loshon hara*, as again it wouldn't be *letoeles*. So it's going to be hard to find a real *nafka mina* how to define it.

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that if one follows all the requirements of *toeles*, **there is no prohibition at all**. Seemingly this would mean it's *hutra* (but see the end).
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> [The prohibition is] that if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.
However, **an important caveat** is defining *letoeles*. The requirements of the **Chofetz Chaim** to define something as *letoeles* makes your chosen *nafka mina*/practical difference not relevant. It's actually the case that if you say something "extra" or unnecessary, that wouldn't be called *letoeles*. The **Chofetz Chaim** also says if you have an alternative, you can't say the *loshon hara*, as again it wouldn't be *letoeles*. So it's going to be hard to find a real *nafka mina* how to define it.

#10: Post edited by

robev‭ · 2020-08-31T23:01:02Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> [The prohibition is] that if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.
However, **an important caveat** is defining *letoeles*. It happens to be that your chosen *nafka mina*/practical difference isn't relevant. It would happen to be if you day something "extra" or unnecessary, that wouldn't be called *letoeles*. The Chofetz Chaim also says if you have an alternative, you can't say the *loshon hara*, as again it wouldn't be *letoeles*. So it's going to be hard to find a real *nafka mina* how to define it.

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> [The prohibition is] that if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.
However, **an important caveat** is defining *letoeles*. It happens to be that your chosen *nafka mina*/practical difference isn't relevant. It's actually the case that if you say something "extra" or unnecessary, that wouldn't be called *letoeles*. The **Chofetz Chaim** also says if you have an alternative, you can't say the *loshon hara*, as again it wouldn't be *letoeles*. So it's going to be hard to find a real *nafka mina* how to define it.

#9: Post edited by

robev‭ · 2020-08-31T23:00:10Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> [The prohibition is] that if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
~~We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.~~

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> [The prohibition is] that if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.
However, **an important caveat** is defining *letoeles*. It happens to be that your chosen *nafka mina*/practical difference isn't relevant. It would happen to be if you day something "extra" or unnecessary, that wouldn't be called *letoeles*. The Chofetz Chaim also says if you have an alternative, you can't say the *loshon hara*, as again it wouldn't be *letoeles*. So it's going to be hard to find a real *nafka mina* how to define it.

#8: Post edited by

robev‭ · 2020-08-31T22:48:11Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> [The prohibition is] that if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

#7: Post edited by

robev‭ · 2020-08-31T22:47:32Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.&rlm;
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

#6: Post edited by

robev‭ · 2020-08-31T22:46:35Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation. When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation (sheet one, source one). When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

#5: Post edited by

robev‭ · 2020-08-31T22:45:46Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a "*heter*" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation. When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a *heter*/"permit" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation. When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

#4: Post edited by

robev‭ · 2020-08-31T22:44:30Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning there is no prohibition at all.
I heard this from him in a class on Loshon Hara L'Toeles (8 minutes in). I can't find it online for free anymore. I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows. The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, known for his expertise and works on the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a "*heter*" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has detailed source sheets on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation. When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning **there is no prohibition at all**.
I heard this from him in a class on *Loshon Hara L'Toeles* (8 minutes in). I'm sorry but I can't find it online for free anymore (I downloaded it 5+ years ago). I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows: The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, *the* source for the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is defined as **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a "*heter*" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has [detailed source sheets](http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/wp-content/uploads/download/BerkowitzSheets/Bein_Adam_LaChaveiro/9_TOELES.pdf) on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation. When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

#3: Post edited by

robev‭ · 2020-08-31T22:40:59Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits** (also spelled as Berkowitz, a world-renowned expert in the laws of *loshon hara*) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning there is no prohibition at all.
I heard this from him in a class on Loshon Hara L'Toeles (8 minutes in). I can't find it online for free anymore. I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows. The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, known for his expertise and works on the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a "*heter*" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has detailed source sheets on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation. When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

[**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits) (also spelled as Berkowitz, an [expert in the laws of *loshon hara*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzchak_Berkovits#cite_ref-7)) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning there is no prohibition at all.
I heard this from him in a class on Loshon Hara L'Toeles (8 minutes in). I can't find it online for free anymore. I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows. The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, known for his expertise and works on the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a "*heter*" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has detailed source sheets on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation. When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

#2: Post edited by

robev‭ · 2020-08-31T22:40:14Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits** (Berkowitz) understands that it is hutra, meaning there is no prohibition at all.
I heard this from him in a class on Loshon Hara L'Toeles (8 minutes in). I can't find it online for free anymore. I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows. The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, known for his expertise and works on the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a "*heter*" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has detailed source sheets on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation. When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits** (also spelled as Berkowitz, a world-renowned expert in the laws of *loshon hara*) understands that it is *hutra*, meaning there is no prohibition at all.
I heard this from him in a class on Loshon Hara L'Toeles (8 minutes in). I can't find it online for free anymore. I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.
The way he explains it is as follows. The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, known for his expertise and works on the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.
He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a "*heter*" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.
He has detailed source sheets on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation. When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:
> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.
We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

#1: Initial revision by

robev‭ · 2020-08-31T22:38:16Z (about 4 years ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

**Rav Yitzchak Berkovits** (Berkowitz) understands that it is hutra, meaning there is no prohibition at all.

I heard this from him in a class on Loshon Hara L'Toeles (8 minutes in). I can't find it online for free anymore. I did find it [here](https://torahmedia.com/search/fileinfo.php?sid=9ix5h0f91x1h5un&cid=&directlink=14990&frompage=) for purchase.

The way he explains it is as follows. The way he understands the **Chofetz Chaim**, known for his expertise and works on the laws of *loshon hara*, is that the prohibition of *loshon hara* is **lowly speech**. Meaning, it goes against human dignity to speak badly about another person. As such, if the person is saying something solely for a positive purpose, and follows all the conditions to ensure that is is for a positive purpose, what can be lowly about it? There's no prohibition at all.

He justifies this understanding from the fact that we don't have a "*heter*" of *toeles* for any other prohibition. I can't eat pork for good intentions. I can't embarrass another with good intentions. The difference is then that speaking "negatively" about another for a positive purpose isn't lowly speech. As such, there is no prohibition.

He has detailed source sheets on the topic of *toeles*. A quick glance only showed one source he brings to corroborate this explanation. When the [**Sefer HaChinuch** § 236](https://thetaryag.com/chinuch/236) brings the prohibition of *rechilus* (which includes *loshon hara*), he defines the prohibition as follows:

> שאם נשמע אדם מדבר רע בחברו, שלא נלך אליו ונספר לו פלוני מדבר כך וכך, אלא אם כן תהיה כונתנו לסלק הנזקין ולהשבית ריב.
>
> That if a person hears something bad about his friend, he shouldn't go and tell his friend that someone is saying such and such about them. **Unless** his intent is to remove damage and to end a quarrel.

We see in the definition of the prohibition itself that it doesn't include positive intentions.

Communities

Post History