Reviewed by Rabbi Mordechai Shuchatowitz, Head of the Baltimore Bais Din

 Shemiras halashon – observing the Torah laws of proper speech – is among the basic obligations of a Jew striving for care in performance of mitzvos. This has especially been so in klal Yisrael since the Chofetz Chaim published his sefer on the halachos of shemiras halashon nearly 150 years ago. While the halachos of Hashem are immutable, the methods of communication have definitely changed in significant ways in modern times. The invention of the telephone in 1876 was arguably the first invention which made shemiras halashon relevant to modern methods of communication. In today’s world, we can add email, social media, and all forms of electronic communication to the list of communication methods that are subject to the halachos of shemiras halashon.

The Chofetz Chaim dedicates the last chapter of the halachos of Lashon Hara to the halachos of toeles: conveying negative information for a constructive purpose. We have all heard about its application to shidduchim. Other examples that the Chofetz Chaim gives are taking on a business partner or making a loan. There is another area in which these halachos become quite relevant: when passing information about the services of a professional or the purchase of merchandise from a vendor. This article will examine what halacha has to say with regards to passing information about these different providers.

We will now give some case studies through which to examine these halachos:

*  *  *

Case #1

Malky and Leah are among 50 women in a WhatsApp group. Malky is having a minor plumbing crisis; her pipes are leaking from the main floor of her house into the basement, and she needs a plumber fast. She asks the group for a referral for a good plumber. She also mentions the name of Paltiel the plumber.

Leah has what to say. A few years back she also had a plumbing emergency with a leaky faucet. She called Paltiel, who spent five minutes working and told Leah that the problem was fixed. He promptly handed her an invoice for $350.  However, a few hours later, the faucet continued to leak. When she called Paltiel again, he was clear that he would additionally charge to come back. Leah was highly dissatisfied with that answer. She found another plumber, Pinchas, who came through. He fixed the leak for $150, and the problem did not return. What is Leah allowed to share with Malky, and what can she share with the group?

Case #2

Yanky and Shmuli are two yeshiva bachurim who are on the lookout for a good MP3 player. They enter an electronics store, and both of them purchase a new MP3 player that is highly recommended by the store owner. They go home and attempt to charge the player. However, they both find that there seems to be some issue with the battery; the MP3 player does not hold a charge and only works for about 10 minutes before it dies. They return to the electronics store. While the store owner fully acknowledges the defect, he does not offer any refund. He offers an exchange for another player, but all other MP3 players are of inferior quality. Shmuli and Yanky leave unsatisfied and are tempted to write to go on Yelp and write a negative review. After discussing it, however, they have some doubt about whether they may do so. Is it permitted to post anything negative online?

Case #3

Rochel has a light fixture that is not working, and she asks Eli the electrician for an estimate of the repair cost. Eli gives an estimate that the repair may only cost $100, but Eli is clear that the fixture may need a new ballast, and the repair would then be $200. After Eli starts repairing the fixture, he sees that it needs a new ballast. When he is finished, he hands Rochel an invoice for $200.

Rochel is not happy as she had mentally been expecting to pay $100. She then threatens to write a negative review about Eli – that his pricing is deceptive and not transparent. Reluctantly, Eli agrees to accept $100 for the job. How does halacha view Rochel’s actions?

*  *  *

The Halachic Discussion

As mentioned above, the Chofetz Chaim dedicates the last perek (chapter) of his sefer on lashon hara to the halachos of toeles, saying lashon hara for a constructive purpose. In order for such speech to be permitted, there are a number of requirements that must be met.

1) The speaker must have firsthand knowledge of the information being exchanged. The fact that he/she heard some negative information second hand is not grounds for speaking the lashon hara.

2) The speaker must be precise and not exaggerate the negative information. The information must be expressed in a factual manner, without embellishment or giving one’s own opinion. For example, if someone called a professional for a service and the professional did a job clearly below the industry standards of performance, one may speak exactly to the facts – saying, for example, “I called this practitioner, and the work had X issue.” He/she may not say “That person is incompetent and should not be in this business,” which is offering an opinion and not a statement of fact.

3) The intent of the speaker must be for the sake of bringing about the intended constructive purpose. So, if it is relevant to a shidduch or business partner, the speaker must intend to help the listener avoid getting involved in an inappropriate relationship. If it is being told to a potential customer of a practitioner or establishment, the speaker must intend to help the potential customer avoid a damaging situation; he/she must not speak out of a personal dislike for the individual who is being discussed.

4) If the constructive purpose can be accomplished through some method other than saying lashon hara, that other method should be used. Let’s illustrate this through the example of one inquiring about using a practitioner or establishment. If the speaker can refer the potential customer to another practitioner who is reputable, he/she should do so without saying anything negative about the first practitioner.

5) The lashon hara should not cause more damage than the damage that would be caused if this information had been presented in front of a bais din. Let’s again illustrate this through a specific example. A business which generally sells quality merchandise delivers subpar goods to a customer. If this were brought to bais din, the bais din might order the business to refund the money that the customer paid. However, if one were to publicly discuss the subpar merchandise, it could cause the business to lose the sales of even its quality merchandise. The negative public review is thus a violation of lashon hara.[1]

*  *  *

How do these halachos apply to the cases presented at the beginning of this article?

Case #1

In this scenario, Leah had something negative to say about a plumber she had previously used. The best way to deal with this situation is for Leah to make a positive recommendation of the plumber she was happy with. She can post this information to the entire Whats App group. If that is not possible – for example, Malky responds that Pinchas is not available and wants to know if she should use Paltiel – then Leah can contact Malky privately and share the information she knows about Paltiel, following requirements one, two, and three: She must know the information firsthand, must not exaggerate, and must intend her speech for a constructive purpose.

Case #2

This case discussed the question of posting an online review. Almost always, posting an online review for the general public about one’s unsatisfactory experience will result in damage to the reputation of the establishment it is said about. Although Yanky and Shmuli had a negative experience, other customers may have been satisfied by the electronics that they purchased from this store. Someone who sees only the negative review will not have proper perspective, and the reputational damage will most probably cause damage to the business beyond the penalty or consequence that would be assessed by a bais din. It is for this reason that negative public reviews are most often halachically prohibited.

Case #3

In this case, the threat of Rochel’s negative review caused Eli to forego his fee. This, too, is halachically problematic for this reason: It is forbidden for one to use unethical means to reduce the amount of money that one legitimately owes (Choshen Mishpat 12:6). Since Rochel’s negative public review is a violation of lashon hara, using such a threat is unethical, and using such tactics to avoid paying is tantamount to stealing. In a case in which there is a legitimate reason to challenge the practitioner’s fee, the claim should be handled by a rabbinic authority or a bais din.

*  *  *

The nisayon of being careful in these halachos of lashon hara is clearly a challenge for us who live in a digital era. May we all merit the help from Hashem to be careful in keeping these halachos.

Rabbi Rosenfeld administers cases for the Baltimore Bais Din. He may be reached at RYR@baltimorebaisdin.org.