Letters to the Editor
-
Cheating and snooping
I think it's strange in Philly's value system that snooping is the absolute worst that anyone could do to another person, and he also completely trusts his birth family and his partner never to do this to him.
On the other hand, he asks incredulously, "why is the father the bad guy?", just because he has betrayed his significant other for five years and is badmouthing her with his new partner behind her back. If Philly thinks that that is normal, acceptable behavior, his trust in his partners' not snooping on him seems a little, well, incongruous.
And the idea that there could be a man out there who is so infatuated with the LW's sixty-year-old mother that he is prepared to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars for her living and medical expenses in the next twenty or thirty years (and is just waiting for her to get out of the marriage!), seems not only far-fetched but downright outlandish.
But, for the highly unlikely case that indeed the mother is carrying on an affair as well and both parents are fine with this arrangement - no harm would be done then if the LW talked to her mother, would it?
At least no harm even remotely comparable to the harm done in not talking to her if she indeed did not know about her husband's indiscretions and relied on his faithfulness...
-
@Claudia
You are absolutely right. Mom deserves to know whether she can count on this alleged husband of hers in her old age or not.
(But I still hope she's getting her jollies with some 30-year-old.)
-
@ timbuktom
Great answer.
I thought Cary's answer was good but a little long winded.
Your comment got right to the point.
I'll just add that you both have too much information and not enough. I'm not sure that enough is even possible, much less desirable.
It's not possible to 'unknow' something or 'unread' something, but imagine if there were. Perhaps your goal should be to get as close to this unattainable state as possible.
Think Pandora. Hope isn't at the bottom of the box.
-
History of MYOB
--Tale-Bearing
There are two mitzvot in the Torah that specifically address improper speech: Thou shalt not go up and down as a tale-bearer among thy people (Lev. 19:16), and ye shall not wrong one another (Lev. 25:17, which according to tradition refers to wronging a person with speech).
Tale-bearing is, essentially, any gossip. The Hebrew word for tale-bearer is "rakhil" (Reish-Kaf-Yod-Lamed), which is related to a word meaning trader or merchant. The idea is that a tale-bearer is like a merchant, but he deals in information instead of goods. In our modern "Information Age," the idea of information as a product has become more clear than ever before, yet it is present even here in the Torah.
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! It is said that the telling of gossip leads to bloodshed, which is why the next words in the Torah are "you shall not stand aside while your fellow's blood is shed." 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).
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 after 22 years, and was immediately banished from the house of study! (Talmud Sanhedrin 35a ??? Rabbi Ami***)
The gravest of these sins of tale-bearing is lashon ha-ra (literally, "the evil tongue"), which involves discrediting a person or saying negative things about a person, even if those negative things are true. Indeed, true statements are even more damaging than false ones, because you can't defend yourself by disproving the negative statement! Some sources indicate that lashon ha-ra is equal in seriousness to murder, idol worship, and incest and adultery (the only three sins that you may not violate even to save a life).
It is forbidden to even imply or suggest negative things about a person. It is forbidden to say negative things about a person, even in jest. It is likewise considered a "shade of lashon ha-ra" to say positive things about a person in the presence of his enemies, because this will encourage his enemies to say negative things to contradict you!
One who tells disparaging things that are false is referred to as a motzi sheim ra, that is, one who spreads a bad report. This is considered the lowest of the low.
It is generally not a sin to repeat things that have been told "in the presence of three persons." The idea is that if it is told in the presence of three persons, it is already public knowledge, and no harm can come of retelling it. However, even in this case, you should not repeat it if you know you will be spreading the gossip further.--
http://www.jewfaq.org/speech.htm