According to Dr. Barrow, is uttering false speeches against our neighbour, to the prejudice of his fame, safety, welfare; and that out of malignity, vanity, rashness, ill nature, or bad design. The principal kinds of slander are these:
1. Charging others with facts they are not guilty of.
2. Affixing scandalous names and odious characters which they deserve not.
3. Aspersing a man’s actions with foul names, importing that they proceed from evil principles, or tend to bad ends, when it doth not or cannot appear.
4. Perverting a man’s words or acts disadvantageously by affected misconstruction.
5. Partial or lame representation of men’s discourse or practice, suppressing some part of the truth, or concealing some circumstances which ought to be explained.
6. Instilling sly suggestions which create prejudice in the hearers.
7. Magnifying and aggravating the faults of others.
8. Imputing to our neighbour’s practice, judgment, or profession, evil consequences which have no foundation in truth. Of all the characters in society, a slanderer is the most odious, and the most likely to produce mischief. "His tongue, " says the great Massilon, "is a devouring fire, which tarnishes whatever it touches; which exercises its fury on the good grain equally as on the chaff; on the profane as on the sacred; which, wherever it passes, leaves only desolation and ruin; digs even into the bowels of the earth; turns into vile ashes what only a moment before had appeared to us so precious and brilliant, acts with more violence and danger than ever, in the time when it was apparently smothered up and almost extinct; which blackens what it cannot consume, and sometimes sparkles and delights before it destroys.
It is an assemblage of an iniquity, a secret pride, which discovers to us the mote in our brother’s eye, but hides the beam which is in our own; a mean envy, which, hurt at the talents or prosperity of others, makes them the subjects of its censures, and studies to dim the splendour of whatever outshines itself; a disguised hatred, which sheds in its speeches the hidden venom of the heart; an unworthy duplicity which praises to the face, and tears in pieces behind the back; a shameful levity, which has no command over itself or words, and often sacrifices both fortune and comfort to the imprudence of an amusing conversation; a deliberate barbarity, which goes to pierce an absent brother; a scandal, where we become a subject of shame and sin to those who listen to us; an injustice, where we ravish from our brother what is dearest to him. It is a restless evil, which disturbs society; spreads dissention through cities and countries; disunites the strictest friendship; is the source of hatred and revenge; fills wherever it enters with disturbances and confusion; and every where is an enemy to peace, comfort, and Christian good breeding.
Lastly, it is an evil full of deadly poison: whatever flows from it is infected, and poisons whatever it approaches; even its praises are empoisoned; its applauses malicious; its silence criminal; its gestures, motions, and looks, have alltheir venom, and spread it each in their way. Still more dreadful is this evil when it is found among those who are the professed disciples of Jesus Christ. Ah! the church formerly held in horror the exhibitions of gladiators, and denied that believers, brought up in the tenderness and benignity of Jesus Christ, could innocently feast their eyes with the blood and death of these unfortunate slaves, or form an harmless recreation of so inhuman a pleasure; but these renew more detestable shows; for they bring upon the stage not infamous wretches devoted to death, but members of Jesus Christ, their brethren; and there they entertain the spectators with wounds which they inflict on persons" who have devoted themselves to God. Barrow’s Works, vol. 1: ser. 17, 18; Massilon’s Sermons, vol. 1: ser. 5: English trans. and article EVIL SPEAKING.
By: Wilhelm Bacher, Judah David Eisenstein
Poem Written on the Occasion of a Siyyum, Italian, Seventeenth Century.(In the United States National Museum, Washington, D. C.)
False and malicious defamation of another's reputation and character, tending to disgrace him in the eyes of the community. The spreading of evil reports in order to injure a reputable name is punishable by a fine and an assessment for damages. The "moẓi' shem ra'" (one who invents an evil reputation) is to be distinguished from the "mesapper leshon ha-ra'" (one who speaks with an evil tongue; see Calumny). The latter makes malicious but true statements, with the intention of exposing the subject of them to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, which offense is prohibited but is not punishable by fine and an award for damages (Maimonides, "Yad," De'ot, vii. 2).
Against a Wife.
The Hebrew terms "'alilot debarim" (occasions of speech) and "moẓi' shem ra'" occur in connection with the Mosaic law which provides that if a husband questions the virginity of his newly married wife and it is found that he has done so without reasonable cause, he shall be punished with stripes and shall be compelled to pay a fine of one hundred silver shekels to her father. The husband also loses the right of divorce (Deut. xxii. 13-21). If the wife has no father living, the fine is payable to her ("Yad," Na'arah Betulah, iii. 1). Both the accusation and the refutation are allowed only when supported by competent evidence. The phrase "They shall spread the cloth before the elders" is interpreted in the Talmud to mean that the matter shall be thoroughly investigated before the bet din (Ket. 46a). The punishment by a fine was considered unique ("ḥiddush") in this case, the offense being by word, and not by deed (Yer. Ket. iii. 1). This law became obsolete after the destruction of the Temple, when the Mosaic laws concerning capital punishment and fines ceased to be operative.
Rabbinical enactments against slander were very stringent. One shall forgive an insult by a fellow man when the latter asks forgiveness in public, except if he is a moẓi' shem ra' (Yer. B. Ḳ. viii. 7). The question of civil liability for slander is discussed by the authorities, some of them citing R. Jose b. Ḥanina, who said, "Abuse in words is exempt from any liability" (B. Ḳ. 91a); but this may not include slander. The geonic "taḳḳanah" excommunicated the slanderer until he had rendered an acceptable apology (Shulḥan 'Aruk, Ḥoshen Mishpaṭ, 1, 1). Israel Isserlein, however, dismissed a civil suit brought by a ḥazzan who alleged he had been discharged through the false report of a slanderer, because it was not shown that he had been discharged immediately as a consequence of the slander. Isserlein nevertheless decided that the bet din might fine the defendant, and even excommunicate him until he had apologized and satisfied the ḥazzan ("Terumat ha-Deshen," No. 307). Asheri quotes the prevailing custom "of checking the tongues of slandérers by a fine, in accordance with the offense and circumstances," and he advises the bet din to act in every case (Asheri, Responsa, rule 101, § 9). R. Benjamin Zeeb rules that persons who slander by word of mouth or in writing are not to be forgiven until after they have made apologies satisfactory to the person or persons slandered (Responsa, No. 240).
The punishment imposed upon one who defames a woman's character is that he shall fast three days—two successive Mondays and the intervening Thursday—sitting barefooted in front of the synagogue, and shall from the almemar and before the congregation implore the forgiveness of the one slandered ("Be'er ha-Golah," on Ḥoshen Mishpaṭ, 420).
To slander the dead is a grievous sin, forbidden in the strongest terms by the Geonim (Shulḥan 'Aruk, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 606, 3). This sin can be expiated only by a fast of many days' duration, by long repentance, and by payment of a suitable fine imposed by the bet din. In addition, the slanderer must beg the forgiveness of the dead at the grave; should this be at a distance he may send a substitute (Ḥoshen Mishpaṭ, 420, 38; Benjamin Zeeb, Responsa, No. 247).
Attributing to another, in his absence, a fault of which one knows him to be innocent. It contains a twofold malice, arising first from the damage unjustly done our neighbor’s good name and secondly from the lie. Slander differs from detraction inasmuch as it is the imputing gf a misdeed never committed, while detraction reveals an actual but hidden fault.
Slander is the attributing to another of a fault of which one knows him to be innocent. It contains a twofold malice, that which grows out of damage unjustly done to our neighbor’s good name and that of lying as well. Theologians say that this latter guilt considered in itself, in so far as it is an offence against veracity, may not be grievous, but that nevertheless it will frequently be advisable to mention it in confession, in order that the extent and method of reparation may be settled. The important thing to note of slander is that it is a lesion of our neighbor’s right to his reputation. Hence moralists hold that it is not specifically distinct from mere detraction. For the purpose of determining the species of this sin, the manner in which the injury is done is negligible. There is, however, this difference between slander and detraction: that, whereas there are circumstances in which we may lawfully expose the misdeeds which another has actually committed, we are never allowed to blacken his name by charging him with what he has not done. A lie is intrinsically evil and can never be justified by any cause or in any circumstances. Slander involves a violation of commutative justice and therefore imposes on its perpetrator the obligation of restitution. First of all, he must undo the injury of the defamation itself. There seems in general to be only one adequate way to do this: he must simply retract his false statement. Moralists say that if he can make full atonement by declaring that he has made a mistake, this will be sufficient; otherwise he must unequivocally take back his untruth, even at the expense of exhibiting himself a liar. In addition he is bound to make compensation to his victim for whatever losses may have been sustained as a result of his malicious imputation. It is supposed that the damage which ensues has been in some measure foreseen by the slanderer.-----------------------------------JOSEPH F. DELANY Transcribed by Bob Elder The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
See Evil-speaking.
Slander is a serious sin in Judaism, even if the disparaging comment is true. See Speech and Lashon Ha-Ra.