Take the 2-minute tour ×

Somewhat similar to the question of saying lashon hara (negative speech) about oneself: can a person forgo his right to privacy (if that has anything to with lashon hara) and allow other to speak negatively about him, either in particular circumstances or in general?

The end of Sefer Chafetz Chaim Klal 2, allows repeating something potentially harmful about someone if he himself has publicly revealed this information. This, to me, implies that if a person specifically allowed repeating harmful information than it should certainly be permitted to repeat. On the other hand, I got the feeling from other halachos in Sefer Chafetz Chaim (I can't bring any exact quotes, sorry) that it might be prohibited. Could this be a case where laws concerning harmful information be more strict than those regarding negative speech?

Is there anyone who provides a thorough discussion of this issue? It seems like it would come up very often.

share|improve this question
I found an article on the topic from this year's המעיין, shaalvim.co.il/torah/… but I was hoping to find more sources –  Matt Mar 21 '14 at 7:18
It would be helpful if you indicated where you had found Klal 2, so others could help determine it's applicability. –  msh210 Mar 21 '14 at 21:46

1 Answer 1

Artscroll "Chofetz Chaim, A Lesson A Day" book, (page 68) states that derogatory speech may not be said even of someone who allows this to be said about himself, because "to speak negative of one's fellow is shameful in itself". The source for this (endnote 18) is given as Beer Mayim Chaim 2:28. The note further states (my translation from Hebrew):

'Rabbi Hillel Zaks [grandson of the Chofetz Chaim, who wrote an approbation to this book] wrote on this, "I heard from my father, who heard from his father-in-law the Chofetz Chaim ztz"l, who told him that he was unsure about this [law], and his opinion leaned towards leniency (without being decisive), but prevented himself from writing so in his book because he was afraid that it would come to mishap." However, this requires study [as in, the author of the footnote believes that there's a reason to say otherwise] because if the speaker doesn't cause harm to the subject there should be no reason to ask forgiveness from the subject anyways because it doesn't violate anything between man and his fellow, and if so, we aren't discussing [a right that is] given to be forgone.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


