Judaism in the Workplace Correspondence
March, 2003

Question: Could you please send me the source for the concept of l'toelet (permissibility to speak lashon hara to prevent loss)? Is it in Chofetz Chayim? Where? Or is it elsewhere? This is a terrific website. Many thanks. RG

Response: Thank you very much for your question and feedback. Thanks for the chizuk. The concept of letoelet is developed, organized, and explained by the Chafetz Chaim, but, as he shows in the Beer Mayim Chaim (his footnotes on the Sefer Chafetz Chaim), its source is in the Talmud, as clarified by the Rishonim. Expect a further email from us clarifying what the major sources are for the heter of l'toelet. Thanks for your patience.
Kol tuv
Eliezer Kwass
Darche Noam Website

Reader RG: Many thanks for your swift and helpful reply. I do look forward to learning yet more on the heter of l'toelet as you compile the rabbinic sources. I lead a ten-fifteen minute iyun/discussion on lashon hara once a week following our morning minyan using "Guard Your Tongue" (R. Pliskin's adaptaion of the Chafetz Chaim), and our entire group too will benefit from your (and my ensuing) research. Again, rov todot. L'Shalom, RG

Response:
Shalom
This morning I am able to get back to responding to your question about the sources that it is permissible: to speak negatively about another in order to prevent a loss, and to believe negative information about another in order to save from loss.

The Chofetz Chaim (Beer Mayim Chaim, Rekhilut, beginning of Klal 9) maintains (based on the Gemara and Rishonim) that the Biblical prohibition of "Lo taamod al dam reiekha," (Vayikra 19:16 - Do not stand idly by while your friend's blood is spilled) applies not only to death but also to loss. In other words, it is prohibited to watch a potential financial loss coming upon another and not prevent it. Therefore, one may pass on information (even though it would otherwise be classified as lashon hara) to a potential victim in order to prevent loss.

A classic example of this is reporting accurately - even negative information - to a potential employer about an job applicant to prevent the boss from getting stuck with a bad worker. The Chofetz Chaim cautions that this is only permissible if a number of other conditions are met (such as verifying the information, only altruistic intent, attempting other methods of stopping the loss, etc).

The Talmudic source for this is Sanhedrin 73a: "How do we know that if a person is drowning in a river, an animal is dragging him, or robbers are approaching him that you are obligated to save him? For it says, 'Lo taamod al dam reiekha,' (Do not stand idly by while your friend's blood is spilled). And do not say, says the Chofetz Chaim, that, "robbers are approaching him," only refers to a death threat (if you do not give them the money). Another source, the Mechilta, establishes that if a witness refuses to testify on behalf of a litigant and he thereby loses money, he also transgresses 'Lo taamod al dam reiekha,' even though it only involves causing a monetary loss.

The Rambam brings this down in Sefer Hamitzvot 297, and the Chofetz Chaim also brings proofs based on the Rashbam (Bava Batra 39b), Tosafot (same page), and the Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzva 237).

The source for the second heteir (in short), that it is permissible to take into account (though not to believe 100%) lashon hara in order to prevent loss is a Talmudic passage in Nida 61a (Beer Mayim Chaim, Lashon Hara, beginning of Klal 6, note 25). The Gemara indicts Gedalya ben Achikam (governor of Israel after the destruction of the Temple) for not taking seriously advisor Yochanan ben Karach's warnings that opposition leader Yishmael ben Netanya was planning an attack on him. Despite Gedalya's pious intentions, to avoid Lashon Hara, he was considered responsible for the attack.

I hope this is helpful.
B'hatzlacha on your communal learning of the laws of Lashon Hara.
Kol tuv
Eliezer Kwass
Darche Noam Website