In Hebrew, “Lashon Hara” means evil speech, and carries a different weight than the idea of slander or defamation in English, or in our modern-day idea of such.
Here are some of the places and examples in the Hebrew scriptures where Lashon Hara is defined and prohibited:
Speech is considered to be lashon hara (detraction) if it says something negative about a person or party, is not seriously intended to correct or improve a negative situation, and is true. Statements that fit this description are considered to be lashon hara, regardless of the method of communication that is used, whether it is through face-to-face conversation, a letter, telephone, or email, or even body language.
By contrast, hotzaat shem ra (“spreading a bad name”) – also called hotzaat diba or motzi shem ra (lit. “putting out a bad name”) – consists of lies, and is best translated as “slander” or “defamation” (calumny). Hotzaat shem ra is an even graver sin than lashon hara per-se.
The act of gossiping is called rechilut, and is also forbidden by halakha.
Leviticus 19 contains the laws of “love your neighbor as yourself”, of which Jesus is certainly aware as he states it is one of the greatest commandments. In doing so, Leviticus 19 brings part of the laws against evil speech, some of which are listed above. Specifically v.19 mentions slander, however the idea of not lying or dealing falsely, or not oppressing someone or robbing him may also fall under certain types of defamation, and “…you shall not stand up against the life[a] of your neighbor;…” etc.
Further;
In Jewish law, all things are considered to be secret unless a person specifically says otherwise. For this reason, you will note that in the Torah, G-d constantly says to Moses, “Speak to the Children of Israel, saying:” or “Speak to the Children of Israel and tell them:” If G-d did not specifically say this to Moses, Moses would be forbidden to repeat his words! Nor is there any time-limit on secrets. The Talmud tells the story of a student who revealed a secret that he had heard 22 years earlier, and he was immediately banished from the house of study! (Talmud Sanhedrin 31a)
Further to the above, here are some commonly-used examples of behavior that is forbidden by this mitzvah:
23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.Matthew 23:1-7 (NIV)
Given the above, we find that Jesus may have broken the laws of Lashon Hara. However, the standard issue response is to point out that there are in fact cases where Lashon Hara is not considered a sin. For example, you are allowed to reveal information if someone is entering into a relationship that he would not enter if he knew certain information. Such as if a prospective business partner is untrustworthy, or that a prospective spouse has a disease. So on the surface this standard Christian answer would seem to apply; if Jesus said they were misbehaving then they were misbehaving. Yet this exception is subject to significant and complex limitations. Here these limitations clearly apply because Jesus is not warning them not to enter a relationship with the Rabbis, in fact he says the opposite and in v.3 admonishes the people not just to follow them but to be careful that they follow and do everything they tell you to do. Therefore, the following statements in v. 4 to 7 is lashon hara.
By repeatedly communicating so, lashon hara became an integral part of this person, and his/her sins are far more severe, because this person regularly creates a chillul Hashem, a “desecration of the name of HaShem” (Leviticus 22:32).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashon_hara
It is a violation of this mitzvah to say anything about another person, even it is true, even if it is not negative, even if it is not secret, even if it hurts no one, even if the person himself would tell the same thing if asked.
The story of Do'eig the Edomite (I Samuel Chs. 21-22) is often used to illustrate the harm that can be done by tale-bearing. Do'eig saw Achimelekh the Kohein give David bread and a sword, a completely innocent act intended to aid a leading member of Saul's court. Do'eig reported this to Saul. Do'eig's story was completely true, not negative, not secret, and Achimelekh would have told Saul exactly the same thing if asked (in fact, he did so later). Yet Saul misinterpreted this tale as proof that Achimelekh was supporting David in a rebellion, and proceeded to slaughter all but one of the kohanim at Nob.
The person who listens to gossip is even worse than the person who tells it, because no harm could be done by gossip if no one listened to it. It has been said that lashon ha-ra (disparaging speech) kills three: the person who speaks it, the person who hears it, and the person about whom it is told. (Talmud Arachin 15b).
Even if we assume Jesus had the best intentions and that in this specific case, despite having told people that they should follow the Rabbis, he somehow needed to warn them specifically to not do “as they do”, there are still further specific restrictions on Lashon Hara that would need to be observed; for example, over and above the normal laws on Lashon hara, there are specific prohibitions in the law against cursing judges or rulers:
This is referred to in two specific laws, No. 69 and No. 70 in Canonical (Maimonides) order, namely:
The baraita elaborates: The defining characteristic of a judge is not like the defining characteristic of a king, as with regard to a judge, you are commanded with regard to obeying his halakhic ruling.Sanhedrin 66a Sefaria.org
Therefore by going against the Chazal and cursing the judges in this manner we conclude Jesus broke the laws of lashon hara.
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.John 8:44
It has to be pointed out the severity of this charge. In Acts 13:10 Paul states of a rabbi, who is turning people away from the Christian faith:
Rick Strelan writes,
…the identification as magos could mean little more than that Bar Jesus was associated with the court of the proconsulas a religious adviser, a position some Jews are known to have held (6). Josephus makes the specific Jew-magos link when referring to a certain Simon, co-incidentally also a Cypriot, and one who, like Bar-Jesus, had friends in the Roman consular system (Antiquities 20.7.2). In addition, the role and function of a magos and those of a rabbi, at least in later times, were not at all dissimilar. Both were ‘holy men’, both were men of power and special knowledge, both were involved indecision-making within their respective communities (7). However, for Luke, the point of the term seems to be that Bar-Jesus, despite his name, certainly does not belong to Jesus, but is an outsider, having a foreign, and therefore invalid, source of authority. The term is used in 13,6 is to characterize Bar Jesus as a serious opponent of Paul.
(6) Joseph, Daniel, and Ahikar are well-known examples of Jews holding such positions. Compare also Josephus, Antiquities. 8.2.5; 20.7.2.
(7) See J. NEUSNER, “Rabbi and Magus in Third-Century Sasanian Babylonia”, History of Religions 6 (1966/7) 169-178
Who was Bar-jesus? (Acts 13)
by Rick Strelan of the University of Queensland
https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/data/UQ_69002/UQ69002_OA.pdf
Therefore we see here that the idea of New Testament writers in calling someone a child of the devil is to place the source of their authority away from God the father. This is not news; but in the previous section we have already seen that Jesus has advised the Jewish people that their source of authority is Moses. Thus here Jesus is not trying to state that they do not have authority over the Jewish people.
In a similar sense we see in John 6:70, where Jesus says “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” But during this time it is clear Judas was not a devil, because we read later in John 13:27 that Judas did not become a traitor until that moment; “13:27 Then after he had taken the morsel, Satan entered into him. Jesus said to him, “What you are going to do, do quickly.”” This is confirmed by Luke who writes “Judas, who became a traitor”, or even from 6:70 where Jesus says “Did I not choose you, …” Therefore what is the purpose of Jesus saying that the Rabbis are the sons of satan in John 8:44?
In John 8:37 Jesus states:
This makes it all the more striking when he says, and they respond:
The idea here is that since Jesus has already admitted that Abraham was their father, and thus they are in the Abrahamic covenant as well as the covenant at Mt. Sinai, then due to the Soverignity of God (ex. Isaiah 46:10; Isaiah 44:26; Isaiah 44:28; Psalm 33:11; Proverbs 19:21; Hebrews 6:17), it appears as if Jesus is claiming they have two fathers. But, in v.42,
Here Jesus is making the case that the proof they are children of the devil and not of God in the sense that they are of the nation of Israel, is because they do not understand what Jesus is telling them. This is a confirmation of what he said earlier in v.37 “…you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you.”
Well, what are the words that they did not hear? What words did not find a place in them? We can see this directly from the passage beforehand:
By this point, also considering John 8:1-11, or even passages in John 7 such as 7:25 where the rumors of Jesus being the Christ were spreading throughout the people, it becomes obvious then that the charge the Pharisees were bringing is that it was merely Jesus' claim that he was a messiah or even “The Messiah”, and that he had no proof for that claim. His response is that he Father, God, also bears witness about him. This is why they asked “where is your Father?” – although some interpret “We are not born of sexual immorality” and “where is your father” to point out the well known fact that Jesus was considered a mamzer in his community, the plain and simple reading is to ask for clarification on exactly how the Father had vouched for Jesus. His response is that they didn't know the father. This sort of non-answer would only confirm the idea that the father did not vouch for Jesus being the messiah. But the truly dangerous thing about speaking in this way is found to be the same as in the previous part;
By repeatedly (speaking in this way), lashon hara became an integral part of (Jesus), and his sin becomes more severe because this person regularly creates a chillul Hashem, a “desecration of the name of HaShem” (Leviticus 22:32).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashon_hara
In this case Jesus has created a hatred of the Jews and their culture as many christians really believe that they are “Children of the Devil” despite Jesus' clear statements on the matter and the typical use of this phrase in a sort of idiomatic way by New Testament Writers. It has done far more harm than good. Thus we see again that Jesus has broken the laws of Lashon Hara, both by the letter of the law and by the proof in the pudding.
fixme
In Matthew 23, Jesus says that no one among his followers should be called 'Rabbi', violating the commandment to follow the judges;
fixme
fixme
fixme
fixme