Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman
What is so terrible about lashon hara? Yes, slander is vicious – but lashon hara is not limited to slander. Yes, gossip is nasty – but nasty is a far cry from the severe condemnation lashon hara receives.
A passage from the Talmud (Arakhin 15b) frames our discussion: lashon hara "kills" three people: the speaker, the listener, and the subject (see Mishneh Torah (Deiot 7:2) and Rashi and Tosafot to Arakhin). This conveys that malicious speech's harm is multifaceted, affecting various players and society itself.
Damage to the Subject
The most obvious victim is the subject of the information. This harm involves two distinct areas:
First is the value of an individual's reputation. Reputation as a right has strong foundation in Jewish and secular legal philosophy. The Mishnah Avot 4:13states that while there are many "crowns" conferring stature, the "crown of a good name" is most valuable. Jewish law operates through chazakah, a presumption of decency one "possesses" due to good behavior or absence of bad behavior.
Similarly, legal scholar Robert Post notes that reputation is a form of property, "the fruit of personal exertion" (The Social Foundations of Defamation Law). As Daniel Solove writes, "people work hard at building a reputation in society; and it can often be among a person's most valuable assets" (The Future of Reputation, p. 34).
Post further suggests reputation is essential to human dignity: "The dignity that defamation law protects is thus respect (and self-respect) that arises from full membership in society." Human dignity is a hallowed principle in Jewish legal philosophy, emanating from Man's creation in God's image (Avot 3:14). The medieval codifier Rabbenu Asher wrote that embarrassment from slander is far greater than from physical humiliation (Rosh, Bava Kama 8:15).
The second type of damage flows from the first: the spread of negative information can result in actual material loss. Once an individual has been painted in a certain light, there is a direct line toward dismantling current realities and depriving future opportunities.
Of course, sometimes such impact is fair and necessary. Gossip has always played a role in society's functioning, protecting the innocent while facilitating shared goals. Reputation is valuable precisely because it influences others' actions. As game theory explains, "Reputation breeds cooperation because it permits players in the game of life to predict the actions of others" (Thomas Siegfried, A Beautiful Math, p. 87).
Similarly, concern for preserving reputation motivates socially acceptable behavior. Michael McCullough writes in his book Beyond Revenge (pp. 107-109): “These reputations have cash value: if you have a good reputation, people will be inclined to cooperate with you and treat you with respect. If you have a bad reputation, people will steer clear of you or actively work against you…reputations are used to establish cooperation not through direct reciprocity… but through indirect reciprocity.” In other words, bad behavior is punished not through retaliating with similar behavior, but through spreading the word so that the bad actor is punished through disassociation with others.
In Plato's Republic, the author is asked by his brother, Glaucon, to consider the effect of the mystical ring of Gyges, which would confer invisibility upon its wearer. Could it still be expected that the bearer would continue to act honorably, knowing that his reputation was secure, as no one would perceive his bad behavior? While one would hope that there are other motivating factors, and indeed, that was Plato's response, there is much empirical evidence to endorse Glaucon's skepticism. Jonathan Haidt notes in The Righteous Mind that "the most important principle for designing an ethical society is to make sure that everyone's reputation is on the line all the time."
It would be unreasonable to insist reputation be protected regardless of worthiness. What's necessary is accuracy, proportionality, and necessity when diminishing reputation.
One may object citing freedom of speech. However, this right is governmental, while lashon hara is a religious and moral precept. The government's obligation not to interfere with speech doesn't absolve speakers of moral responsibility. R. Yonah of Gerondi identifies the association of lashon hara with heresy as assuming speech is outside God's influence, reflected in Psalms: "Who have said, with our tongue we will prevail; our lips are our own; who is lord over us (Psalms 12:4-5)?”
Even in governmental legislation, freedom of speech isn't absolute. As Saul Levmore and Martha Nussbaum note, all three major theories of free speech (Mill's truth-seeking, autonomy preservation, and Meiklejohn's democratic debate) allow some regulation (The Offensive Internet, p. 8). Certainly from a religious perspective, speech that detracts from truth, negates others' dignity, or is irrelevant to governance falls outside what freedom of speech is intended to protect.
The damage from lashon hara is uniquely difficult to undo (see R. Yonah, Sha'arei Teshuvah 3:207-208). It's difficult to assess who heard derogatory statements or their effect, and nearly impossible to change formed impressions. Even the speaker's repentance is complicated by the casual, repeated nature of the offense, making it unlikely they'll perceive its damage or take necessary steps to change.
Damage to the Speaker
Malicious speech harms the speaker as well. While all sin incurs guilt, this arena uniquely impacts the actor.
Philosophically, many Jewish thinkers focus on speech as humanity's defining element. Speech distinguishes Man from animals. Onkeles translates "and Man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7) as ruach mimalela, "a talking spirit." The Chafetz Chaim in his introduction, cites this phrasing in explaining why he subtitled the main section of his work Mekor Chaim, or “Source of Life”.
Speech is a nonphysical act with immense physical impact, wielding awesome power; "death and life are in the hands of the tongue" (Proverbs 18:21). This precious resource demands extreme care; its abuse imposes exceptional degradation on the speaker.
Psychologically and morally, speech offenses reflect and deepen unsavory personality elements. The Talmud implies lashon hara expresses pure malice, comparing the speaker to a snake who bites without eating his victim (Taanit 8a). The Chafetz Chaimemphasizes this, asserting lashon hara constitutes a desecration of God's Name, reflecting rebellion rather than personal motive.
This claim may seem surprising. Lashon hara isn't exclusive of other motivations; speakers pursue many advantages. Indeed, the Chazon Ish reportedly said the Chafetz Chaim's claim proved he "never tasted the taste of lashon hara" (see A'aleh BaTamar, p. 36).
The Chafetz Chaim likely acknowledged human weaknesses but considered them negligible compared to the harm inflicted, or uniquely degrading to indulge in.
Such motivations include enhancing one's status by diminishing others (mitkabbed bekelon chaveiro), harshly condemned in the Talmud (Megillah 28a). Social psychologists call this "downward social comparison." R. Eliyahu Meir Bloch noted one who doesn't want to praise himself might instead bemoan others' failings, boosting himself by comparison.
This desire may target the subject specifically due to antipathy or jealousy. The act of judging and disparaging another expresses arrogance, severely condemned in the Talmud. Further, inflicting reputational harm indicates lack of empathy, signaling potential for greater damage.
Significantly, the speaker may display bias toward negativity, a dangerous attitude feeding upon itself. Maimonides notes a direct path from hearsay to heresy - those cynical in orientation eventually disparage God Himself (Mishneh Torah, Hil. Tuma'at Tzara'at 16:10). This tendency toward negative assessment undermines fair treatment and appreciation for life's values.
Damage to Society
The third victim is the "receiver," who by "accepting" the report participates in the transgression. More broadly, society itself is hurt by gossip's spread, including the seepage of negative bias into communal attitude.
The major harm imposed upon society is divisiveness. Both lashon hara (disparaging individuals) and rekhilut(causing conflict between parties) converge into communal division, alienating members through unwarranted distrust, antipathy, and subsequent retaliation.
The Talmud identifies division as lashon hara's primary consequence. One afflicted with tzara'at (a spiritual-physical malady) is temporarily removed from the community. The Talmud explains that since the speaker of lashon hara separated friends with his talk, it's appropriate he be separated from the community (Arakhin 16b).
Similarly, Nachmanides suggests an additional prohibition of lashon hara during wartime due to concern that resulting infighting will do more damage than the enemy (Commentary to Deuteronomy 23:10).
The Torah mandate "with justice shall you judge your fellow" (Leviticus 19:15) constitutes an obligation to give others benefit of the doubt (Mishnah Avot 1:6). Early authorities explain this principle expresses "love your fellow as yourself," supporting social harmony by minimizing grounds for animosity.
Conversely, harsh judgment creates a quick path to discord and hatred. The Torah follows the verse prohibiting lashon hara immediately with "you shall not hate your brother in your heart"; one authority asserted lashon hara's prohibition is a proactive safeguard protecting against hatred (R. Zvi Hirsch Frimer, Responsa Eretz Tzvi, I, 4).
The relationship between actions toward another and feelings toward them is complex and cyclical. Benjamin Franklin, in his autobiography, relates winning over an opponent by inducing that individual to do him a favor, as supported by later psychological studies (see David McRaney, You Are Now Less Dumb, chapter 3).
Ironically, some attribute a positive role to gossip in establishing social bonds (See Robin Dunbar, Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language). Even if true, such bonding does more harm than good, establishing connections through excluding others. Such bonding is a component of bullying.
Social bonding is valuable, and commandments like hosting guests and sending Purim gifts accomplish this goal. However, achieving such bonding through the demeaning of others fails on at least three counts: First, the ends in no way justify the egregious means. Second, the ends themselves are suspect. The acknowledged value of social bonding is not absolute, but is contingent on the assumption that upstanding individuals are uniting with like-minded people; in contrast, the Scripture praises one who does not join a a "seating of scoffers" (moshav letzim) (Psalms 1:1); and what's the viability of bonds built on disparagement, when each party could become the next target?
Another alleged benefit is gossip's ability to reveal "elusive, quirky, and shadowy truths about human nature." Philosopher Ronald de Sousa writes, "Gossip is inherently democratic... Yet it can serve to expand our consciousness of what life is about in ways that are effectively inaccessible to other modes of inquiry" (Andrew Potter, The Authenticity Hoax, pp. 163-164).
It's questionable whether such exposure is beneficial. There's truth to preventing rank hypocrisy from infecting leadership, but that's far from suggesting no gap can exist between ideals and achievement. Great Jewish philosophers suggest existence's purpose is perfecting character traits; by virtue of being alive, we all have work to do living up to our values. The suggestion that being human means abandoning hope of elevated behavior damages the crucial notion of aspirational existence.
There is merit in providing realistic perspective so spiritual strivers aren't disillusioned by the gap between themselves and role models. R. Yitzchak Hutner noted hagiographies can be counterproductive to spiritual aspirations, making readers feel like failures if they face temptation and struggle (Pachad Yitzchak, Iggerot UKhetavim, #128). There's also value in emphasizing human frailty to provide caution about temptations threatening everyone.
However, these goals are hardly the substance of most gossip, which serves opposite ends. By painting universal venality and hypocrisy, the message becomes that aspiration is pointless, and complacency is encouraged not because of success but because no one has actually accomplished.
R. Yehoshua Leib Diskin suggested another motivation for judging others favorably: embarrassment associated with iniquity is fundamental to avoiding sin. Believing society adheres to a higher standard is essential to maintaining this attitude (Responsa Maharil Diskin, end of Psakim). Similarly, R. Menachem HaMeiri notes one who suspects others of low behavior will lose respect for society and immunize himself against their good influence (Chibbur HaTeshuvah, Meishiv Nefesh, Ma'amar 1:4).
Gossip creates false impressions through overemphasizing petty details, contributing to a degraded culture. As Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren wrote, "Even gossip apparently harmless, when widely and persistently circulated, is potent for evil. It belittles by inverting the relative importance of things, thus dwarfing the thoughts and aspirations of a people." (Harvard Law Review, 1890).
IS IT REALLY TRUE?
The potential harm inherent in slander is firmly established. However, it's also established that lashon hara (evil speech) isn't limited to false reports but includes truth as well. How can transmitting true information be prohibited?
One step toward an answer involves asking: is it actually the case that if the speaker is saying facts, the listener is hearing the truth? There are numerous reasons to question this assumption. The Torah prohibition against "accepting" lashon hara comes from the verse "Do not bear a report that is 'shav'"; while this word can be translated as "unnecessary," many biblical commentators render it as "false." What seems most likely is that something significant occurs during transmission. Even when a speaker says words that are technically true, what reaches the listener's ears is functionally false.
In short, it's a mistake to believe every statement spoken by an honest person conveys complete truth to the listener, or that every utterance is either complete truth or intentional lie. Honest people can transmit falsehood with innocent intentions due to human failings related to the speaker, context, listener, or some combination.
The Possibility of Subjectivity and Error
Statements made by honest people may be incorrect for at least two reasons: subjectivity or simple mistake.
Subjectivity accounts for much potential lashon hara. A statement may be factual and represent the speaker's honest opinion yet not represent objective contextual truth. This may be what Maimonides meant when defining lashon hara as "disparaging with truth."
The subjectivity of opinion allows any fact to be expressed disparagingly, without regard for evidence or consistency. Gordon Allport demonstrates this in "The Nature of Prejudice" with an imagined conversation with an anti-Semite who keeps shifting negative claims when confronted with contradictory evidence.
Context is crucial for accurate perception, both at micro and macro levels. Without supporting context, a fact may be misunderstood or create false impressions. On a macro level, human beings are far more complex than any single fact or story reflects.
Daniel Solove expresses this articulately in "The Future of Reputation": "We grow and change throughout our lives... The individual is not 'something complete, perfect, finished... but is something moving, changing, discrete, and above all initiating instead of final.' A person is a life process from cradle to corpse. At any given moment, we're seeing just a snapshot in time... Protection against disclosure permits room to change, to define oneself and one's future without becoming a 'prisoner of [one's] recorded past.'"
The Fallibility of Memory
Memory is remarkably unreliable. Cognitive psychologists Elizabeth Loftus and Katherine Ketcham write that memory can be affected "by succeeding events, other people's recollections or suggestions, increased understanding, or a new context... truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our memory, are not objective facts, but subjective, interpretive realities." Even "flashbulb memories" of significant events are often completely incorrect (as displayed by Ulric Neisser).
Psychologist Hugo Munsterberg found that: first, people have good memory for general gist but poor memory for details; second, when pressed for unremembered details, well-intentioned people making sincere efforts will inadvertently fill gaps by making things up; third, people believe the memories they fabricate (see Leonard Mlodinow, Subliminal, p. 62).
Frederic Bartlett's research showed that as original memories fade, new memory data is fabricated according to certain principles. Subjects maintain a story's general form but drop details and change others. The story becomes shorter and simpler, with elements added or reinterpreted so that "whenever anything appeared incomprehensible, it was either omitted or explained." Inaccuracy becomes the rule, not the exception.
As Ralph Rosnow and Gary Allan Fine note, "because of the natural porosity of human memory and the tendency to simplify and bring order, the most common rumor distortions result from leveling (elimination of details), sharpening (selective attention to particular information), and assimilation (twisting new material to build a better overall structure)."
The Illusion of Confidence
We incorrectly assume that confident speakers are more likely to be accurate. However, there's less correlation between confidence and accuracy than we think. The "confidence heuristic" isn't unreasonable—someone unsure of their position may be incorrect—but confidence can be diluted by overconfidence, false confidence, and simple error.
In "Quiet," Susan Cain describes how we give exaggerated credibility to assertive speakers: "We perceive talkers as smarter than quiet types—even though grade-point averages and intelligence test scores reveal this perception to be inaccurate... We also see talkers as leaders... It also helps to speak fast; we rate quick talkers as more capable and appealing... All of this would be fine if more talking were correlated with greater insight, but research suggests there's no such link."
Cognitive Biases and Disproportionate Influence
Individuals don't approach decisions with complete objective neutrality. They rely on shortcuts necessary for functioning but which don't reflect fair assessment. Daniel Kahneman describes two systems of decision-making: "System 1" (fast, intuitive, emotional) and "System 2" (slower, deliberate, logical).
The "fundamental attribution error" may play a central role in understanding lashon hara. This bias refers to processing negative information about others differently than identical information about oneself. When the subject is someone else, information is considered entirely reflective of their character. The same action, when relevant to oneself, is interpreted as out of character and atypical.
"Ambiguity intolerance" leads people to rush to premature assessments. Similar is the "availability heuristic"—the mistaken belief that whatever information is currently available is necessarily the most reflective or complete, when in reality it may be just one among many equally significant facts.
The "halo effect" or "devil effect" assumes that one known quality about an individual is completely definitive, allowing all other traits to be assumed consistent with that impression. This effect magnifies reputation's impact, extending beyond the area where it was earned.
The "devil effect" is likely stronger than the "halo effect." Humans have a "negativity bias," assigning more credibility and weight to negative information. Research shows "Bad emotions, bad parents, and bad feedback have more impact than good ones, and bad information is processed more thoroughly than good" (Roy F. Baumeister, Ellen Bratslavsky, Catrin Finkenauer, and Kathleen D. Vohs, "Bad Is Stronger Than Good," Review of General Psychology 5 (2001): 323).
"Confirmation bias" refers to people's tendency to more readily believe information consistent with previously formed opinions and discount contradictory information. As Jonathan Haidt notes, "Smart people make really good lawyers and press secretaries, but they are no better than others at finding reasons on the other side."
Pattern Seeking and Anchoring
The human mind has a tendency to seek out patterns, which is often useful, except when those patterns don't actually exist. Information that is actually isolated will be used to string together a false picture. As Viktor Mayer-Schönberger writes in his book Big Data: "The fast-thinking side of our brain is hard-wired to jump quickly to whatever causal conclusions it can come up with. It thus often leads us to wrong decisions."
Likewise, "anchoring" or "priming" is when the mind, having been prepared to expect a particular impression, interprets all forthcoming information in that context. This effect is blamed for irrational impacts on thinking. Studies have shown how priming can affect assessment of people to their detriment.
In an experiment by Solomon Asch, anchoring caused the order of words to influence how people are judged. He gave participants six-word descriptions of target people including both negative and positive words. For one group, he presented positive words first; for the other, he reversed the order. Asch found striking differences in how participants characterized the target person, depending on whether they encountered positive or negative words first.
Negative attitudes play a unique role. Positive emotions tend to be associated with a more global view and flexibility in problem solving. Negative emotions diminish the importance of the bigger picture in favor of smaller details. Subjects with negative emotions are more prone to anchoring bias - latching onto a single detail at the expense of others.
The impact of one's social environment is tremendous. Group polarization shows how humans are influenced by others' opinions. In Solomon Asch's experiments, students comparing line lengths answered correctly 95% of the time individually, but only 25% when surrounded by actors giving incorrect answers confidently.
Humans are susceptible to being misled through repetition. Familiarity can be interpreted as accuracy, and hearing an opinion expressed by one person ten times can impact the brain equivalent to hearing ten people express it once.
Blindness to Bias
Attempting to correct these biases is only helpful to a point. We lack awareness of when these biases are present—a phenomenon called "bias bias." As Robert Burton states, "Our mental limitations prevent us from accepting our mental limitations."
Even jurors explicitly told to disregard inadmissible evidence are unable to prevent it from influencing their decisions. Tiredness exacerbates these tendencies, as "it takes less brain power to believe than to doubt" (Margaret Heffernan, Willful Blindness (Walker, 2011) pp. 78-79).
Conclusion
Given these concerns, what can society do to function effectively? Our decision-making need not be paralyzed, as these cognitive tendencies provide advantages like optimism, resilience, and operational efficiency. However, awareness of these tendencies can mitigate their risks.
When another person's reputation is at stake, accuracy and necessity become paramount. Jewish law demands that such conversation be both necessary and true. When necessity is confirmed, we must consider carefully how cognitive biases affect a report's truth and impact.
It emerges that, due to human nature, many statements about others turn out false, wholly or partly. Yet the speakers of these statements aren't lying—they're merely saying what they believe to be true. Appreciating this dichotomy significantly improves human relations.
One of the most inflammatory accusations in modern discourse is branding someone a "liar." However, an individual can be honest yet their words incorrect. Acknowledging this would go far toward understanding the prohibition of "true" lashon hara and improving the fairness, graciousness, and decency extended to speaker, listener, and their subjects.
