 |
| image from http://blog.unstash.com |
I'm having a harder time with this one.
If someone is on the receiving end of harm, and you observed it, you are not allowed to tell. Nope, you are not.
Unless, that is, there is a reasonable chance that telling will serve a constructive purpose. However, "constructive purpose" is very narrowly defined as the likelihood of restitution or the imminent possibility of further harm from the same quarter. When restitution is unlikely and you can ascertain that the victim is not vulnerable to further harm, you must hold your tongue. Since nothing positive will come of tattling, revealing what you know is still considered unwarranted gossip.
I get it that if you're pretty sure that no good will come of telling, then telling is simply gossip.
On the other hand, we westerners have a deep-seated desire to know who done us wrong. If we were the victim and someone else saw the bad guy, we'd want to be told. We don't like letting people get away with things. Oh, and we like to plot retribution, hold grudges, make sure the perp gets his due.
And even if not restitution, if we tell, won't the perpetrator learn something valuable about his behavior when people look askew at him, ostracizes him even? And when the community sides with the victim, won't it thereby restore a bit of the value and dignity that was stolen from the victim when the perp disregarded the victim's feelings, rights or needs?
On the other hand - we Jews have so many hands, just ask Tevya - such gossip is sure to stir the pot, creating rancor in the community. Turning community member against community member. Promoting judgment before understanding. Seeing, after all, is not the same as understanding motive or circumstance.
Perhaps the Chofetz Chaim felt we should not rush to judgment, or that peace in the community holds the higher value.
No comments:
Post a Comment