LEV997 Speaking lashon hara very often involves another prohibition, that of onaas devarim (hurting someone with words). This prohibition is commonly violated when one humiliates another person by mentioning his past misdeeds, a flaw in his family, his minimal knowledge in Torah or in his line of work (each person according to his particular field), or by making any other comment that upsets or unnerves the other person and leaves him defenseless. One who makes such a comment transgresses the prohibition of לֹ֤א תֹונוּ֙ אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־עֲמִיתֹ֔ו, “Do not distress a member of your nation” (Vayikra 25:17), which refers to onaas devarim, as explained in Bava Metzia (58b). This prohibition applies even if the speaker offends the other person in private, and it applies all the more if he offends the other person in the presence of others. Accordingly, one who disparages another person before others by speaking lashon hara or rechilus about him and his presence not only violates the prohibitions of lashon hara and rechilus, as we wrote above, but also violates the prohibition of onaas devarim.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV999 The Talmud adds two more examples of oppressive speech: If a person is visited by suffering, afflicted with disease, or has buried his children, one must not speak to him as Job's companions spoke to him, “Is not your piety or confidence, your integrity your hope? Think now, what innocent man ever perished? Where have the upright been destroyed? As I have seen, those who plow evil and sow mischief reap them” (Job 4:6-8). If ass-drivers sought grain from a person, he must not say to them, “Go to so-and-so, who sells grain” when knowing that he has never sold any. Rabbi Judah said: “One must not feign interest in a purchase when he has no money, since this is known to the heart only, and of everything known only to the heart it is written [in that Torah], ‘And you shall fear your God’” (Leviticus 25:17). Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 58b. The first of the Talmud’s examples is telling sick people that their past sins are the reason for their suffering. Even if a person with lung cancer smoked three packs of cigarettes a day or a person who had a stroke is obese, so that there is indeed a probable link between their past behavior and their present illness, one may not mention that when visiting the ill person. However, if the person will recover, the doctor may--and probably should--describe that connection and ways of stopping smoking or avoiding overeating because that may have some practical benefit in avoiding a recurrence of the disease; but even a doctor should refrain from blaming the ill for their disease if they have no hope of it for recovery. People outside the field of medicine who have no practical reason to mention this language are definitely prohibited from saying to the ill that they are responsible for their illness, and the Mishnah compares those who do to Job’s “friends” who similarly blamed a job for his troubles and who were ultimately chastised by God for doing so (Job 42:7-9). [Note that in asserting that such language is oppressive speech, the Rabbis of the Mishnah seemed to prefer the way the Book of Job addresses human suffering to the theology of Deuteronomy 28:58-61, which does link sickness to sin. The Talmud’s second example of oppressive speech--telling someone seeking grain to go to someone whom the speaker knows has none-- is another instance of warning us against “placing a stumbling block before the blind to” (Leviticus 19:14)—this time, before the cognitively blind, people who lack information and can be misled by those who give them false directions. To do that is oppressive speech, because it steals not only the questioner’s time, but also his or her trust in other people and even his or her self-respect as someone whom others will not intentionally lead astray. Clearly, this does not apply to games where the whole point is to deceive one another (card games such as poker or I Doubt It come to mind), for then everyone enters into the game with the intention of having fun by seeing how acute one is in identifying false information. It certainly does constitute oppressive speech, though, when children taunt each other in this way. Even in less personally charged situations, when, for example, one is asked for directions, one must prefer to say “I don't know” if one in fact does not know, rather than sending someone “on a wild goose chase.” Harming another's money or property is clearly prohibited, as the passage in Leviticus 25 that we have been discussing spells out in detail. Even so, after explaining what is included in the category of oppressive speech, as quoted above, the Talmud poignantly indicates why verbal oppression is even worse than that: Rabbi Yochanan said on the authority of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: “Verbal wrong is worse than monetary wrong because with regard to the former it is written, ‘And you shall fear your God (Leviticus 25:17), ‘but not of the second” [in Leviticus 25:14, which the Rabbis interpret to prohibit monetary wrongs]. Rabbi Eleazar said: “The former [verbal oppression] affects his [the victim's] person, the other [only] his money.” Rabbi Samuel bar Nahmani said: “For the latter [monetary wrongs] restoration is possible, but not for the former [verbal wrongs].”

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1000 Whatever is relegated to the heart [i.e., what one knows to be wrong in his heart, though its wrongness does not appear on the surface] -- of such things it is written: "And you shall fear your God" [who probes the heart] (Kiddushin 32b)

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV998 Great reward awaits the man who guards himself against envy and desire. For with most of the transgressions a man stands to suffer shame if he transgresses, and he restrains himself because of this. For example, he restrains himself from robbery and theft out of fear that he will be revealed, exposed, and publicized, and that he will be put to shame and suffer a great loss. But envy and desire are in the heart and not subject to public scrutiny, but only to one's conscience. About such matters it is written [this verse]: "And you should fear your God." Even though envy is an extremely evil trait, there is an area in which it is extremely good and noble--the area of fear of Hashem, as it is written (Mishlei 23:17): "Let your heart not envy sinners, but be in the fear of Hashem all the day." It is in this regard that our Rabbis of blessed memory said (Bava Bathra 21a): "The envy of the scribes increases wisdom." If one sees another learning, he should generate envy in his heart and say: "He learns a whole day; I will do likewise." The same applies to all mitzvos and good traits--everyone should envy his neighbor and seize upon his good traits. If one sees an evildoer with a single good trait, let him envy him for the trait and emulate it.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1001 We are forbidden to hurt the feelings of others. This verse prohibits words that will cause anguish (Bava Metzia 58b) even if they will not cause embarrassment (Chofetz Chayim, Introduction, B'air Mayim Chayim 14). The Torah writes: "You shall fear your Lord," because at times a person might say something that appears to be an innocent remark while in reality he maliciously says it to cause someone anguish or pain (Rashi). Below are the basic laws of this prohibition: [Transcriber's note: Author provides many details and examples.]

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1002 It is a negative commandment not to oppress one's fellow-man with words for Scripture says, And you shall not wrong one another [this verse]. [This means] that we should not say to a penitent person, "Remember your original actions"; or to the son of converts to Judaism, "Remember the behavior of your forefathers"; or to ask a matter of wisdom from someone who does not know any wisdom, in order to distress him -- and so any similar way of wronging with words.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1008 See [[LEV980]] Leviticus 25:14 wrong AMEMEI 6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1015 Very often, human beings put others down and cause them to feel anguish. Where does the Torah discuss this? What is the actual definition of the sin, and where and when is it permitted or prohibited? In three verses in the Torah, it says the words "Lo Tone" twice, which can be translated as "You shall not defraud," or more accurately, "You shall not cause distress" to your neighbor [this verse and Leviticus 25:14]. Why twice? What is the difference between the two verses? Rashi explains based on the Talmud (and it is clear from the context of the verse) that the first verse refers to defrauding or distressing a customer in a sale, since the verse refers to selling. This signifies that it is forbidden to overcharge a customer for an item, make the sale price significantly greater than the going rate (usually at least one-sixth above market value). The second verse refers to causing distress to a person with words. When Rashi explains this verse, he brings two different cases that cause distress to a person and represent the sin. First he says it is forbidden to "Yaknit," which is most accurately translated as teasing a person--i.e., making the person feel anguish by saying something that will distress him. The second example is asking the advice of a person in an area that he or she has absolutely no knowledge or expertise. Like the teasing, this will expose the person, make him or her feel embarrassed, and cause psychological pain. Therefore, both types of Ona'ah, grief, which cause a person needless distress--financial and psychological--are forbidden (Rashi commentary on this verse.]

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1006 Do not wrong one another with words. Our Sages give us many warnings about this matter, for we must be very careful never to cause people pain or embarrassment. The Midrashim are replete with stories to drive home this important point of ethics. One should always be sensitive to others’ feelings and guard one’s tongue so that nothing one says might cause even a trace of embarrassment to anyone, for the Torah is very particular about this matter. People are offended and embarrassed very easily and care more about their honor than their money. It is impossible to enumerate all that can cause pain and embarrassment to people, but each of us must be careful about this matter, for even if someone harms his fellow through a subtle hint, Hashem is aware of it. Even regarding minors, we must be very careful not to scold them too harshly. Not verbal abuse but constructive criticism is required, so that they learn proper behavior. Even with respect to one's own children and the members of his household, one must exercise extreme caution. By avoiding causing undue pain with one's words, one attains life, blessing and honor. Key concepts: To promote peace and harmony. Great is peace, for through it great blessings come into the world. Strife causes only woe and numerous curses and stumbling blocks arise from it.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

LEV1016 When Violations of Dignity Nullify Consent. The concerns are different when we consider the other sexual behaviors over which Jim and Sarah disagree [in case study-AJL]. First, even the more liberal school of thought in Jewish tradition, which allows for a wide range of sexual expression, requires mutual consent. And, second, we are dealing here with fetishes such as demeaning talk, spanking, and sado-masochism, which are by their very nature and design degrading. These kinds of behaviors violate the principles outlined above of dignity, respect, and modesty. They are, in fact, a violation of kevod ha-beriyot, the universal standards of dignity and respect that are due to everyone. Because respect for kevod ha-beriyot is really respect for God, as humans are created in the divine image, this is not a subjective matter. Just because I want something and I do not consider it degrading to me does not mean that it is not a violation of human dignity. “Do not wrong one another” (Leviticus 25:17) prohibits me from causing any kind of emotional distress to another person. This is called ona’at devarim (verbal wronging), under which rabbinic interpretation includes not only speech, but any action that damages others’ emotional well-being (See Rashi to Leviticus 25:17) or causes them emotional or psychological pain (See Rashi, Bava Metzi’a 59b, s.v. hutz; Maimonides, Sefer ha-Mitzvot, no. 251.) The rabbis of the Talmud punished the sage R. Rehumi for causing his wife to cry because they knew how damaging the emotional pain one person inflicts on another can be (Babylonian Talmud, Ketubbot 62b). Furthermore, physical violence is prohibited by the Torah. Not only may we not harm another, we may not harm ourselves (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Shevu’ot 5:17, Hilkhot Hovel u-Mazik 5:1; Bava Kamma 92a]. Even raising a hand against anyone in a threatening way is outlawed (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 58b). Technically, these acts—ona’at devarim and assault--are prohibited only if they are committed in a malicious or harmful manner. If they are done to achieve a positive benefit, they may be permissible. In this case, Sarah and Jim claim that these acts will give them sexual pleasure. However, these acts are not benign; they violate the spirit of the law, which frowns on violence, aggression, and cruelty. They are also harmful to this relationship. While Sarah likes to be spanked, Jim personally finds the thought of spanking his wife to be degrading to her. What may appear to be a positive benefit to one partner causes hurtful distress to the other. Degrading speech, slapping, sado-masochism and the like are degrading acts and are a violation of the human dignity of both the actor and the person being acted upon. We may not violate others’ dignity, and we may not violate our own either. It is for this reason, suggests rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, that Jewish law compares those who behave in undignified ways to dogs (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 40b. See, The Lonely Man of Faith, 13). We must insist that others treat us with respect. The first chief rabbi of pre- state Israel, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, insisted that “protecting [the respect] one rightfully deserves is not a matter of arrogance; on the contrary, there is a mitzvah to do so.” Finally, cross-dressing and menage a trois are both violations of local prohibitions. Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits cross-dressing, especially when done to elicit erotic pleasure (See Rashi to Deuteronomy 22:5). And marriage is designed to be monogamous and modest: the Ten Commandments ban adultery (Exodus 20:13), even when consensual. A person may not think of one person while being intimate with another (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayyim 240:2); and a couple may not have intercourse, a private and intimate act that demands modesty, when someone else is present (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayyim 240:6). Jewish law prohibits someone from even sleeping in the same room with a married couple for fear that another's presence might restrain the couple from intimacy (Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 63b; Shulchan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 25:5; Mishneh Brurah to Orach Chayyim 240:52). These forbidden acts are viewed as violations of the mandates of respect, dignity, and modesty owed to one's partner and due to oneself. (By Mark Dratch).

SHOW FULL EXCERPT