"The Contents of this Email"
04/03/2025 12:05:02 AM
Apr3
A lot of emails we get include this kind of boilerplate: “This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed… If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.” Misdirected communications, and how they should or shouldn’t be shared, have been a sore subject over the past few weeks. However, this concern is far more ancient. It is found in our Torah portion, Vayikra, then again later in the book of Leviticus, and indeed in many places in our tradition. How far does it extend? The limits and applications may surprise you.
The book of Leviticus begins as follows “God called to Moses and spoke to him from the tent of meeting, le-emor.” Normally le-emor means “to say.” However, the Talmud, Yoma 4b (as interpreted by Rashi) cites Rabbi Musya as reading the verse differently. Rather, we must read the word as lo-emor- “do not say”- in other words, God spoke to Moses saying, “do not share what I have told you until I give you permission.” Other commentators read the words slightly differently, but come to the same conclusion- one may not share information unless one has been given permission to do so.
There are other, clearer statements of the same concept in the Torah. For example, Leviticus 19:16 commands, “Do not go about as a talebearer amongst your people, do not stand upon the blood of your people.” The implications of these texts would seem to be clear- you should not share another person’s information that they might wish to keep confidential, even if they shared it with you.
Over the centuries, halachic sources sharpened the prohibition. For example, the Talmud, Sanhedrin 31a warns judges that they may not reveal confidential aspects of their deliberations in court, and mentions that a particular student did so 22 years after the fact and was still expelled despite the amount of time that had passed. Centuries later, Rabbeinu Gershom, one of the most important early sages of Northern Europe, issued two bans of excommunication that have reverberated for the next thousand years. The first was a ban on polygamy. The second ban was against reading mail addressed to another person. To this day, some people will write the acronym “BeHaDRaG” on a letter to warn that anyone who is not the intended recipient should not read it, lest they run afoul of Rabbeinu Gershom’s ban.
Indeed, there is a whole literature on the topic of “lashon hara”- gossip and evil speech, which sharply limits what can be shared, in particular if it might lead to embarrassment or harm to another. Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, who lived just over 100 years ago, wrote a book on the topic of avoiding gossip that has become so influential and widely studied that its name, “Chofetz Chayim” is often used as his nickname.
And yet, there are important exceptions. Our portion goes on to discuss various sin offerings. There is no sin-offering to be brought for sharing confidential information, but there one is for not speaking up. Leviticus 5:1 makes it clear that if one has evidence of wrongdoing, one has an obligation to come forward, even though this information will undoubtedly be embarrassing or harmful to the wrongdoer. There is a greater good to the community that this information be revealed.
Indeed, the verse which says not to be a talebearer and not to stand by the blood of one’s neighbor, can be understood in two ways. One is that being a talebearer is the equivalent of spilling blood. The other is that while may one not be a talebearer, there is a limit to that prohibition because one may not be silent if the result would be the spilling of innocent blood.
The Chofetz Chaim provides a roadmap of principles that determine when information about a person’s transgressions may, or indeed must, be shared in order to prevent harm.
1. The information must be true
2. The information cannot be exaggerated
3. The information must relate to a violation of law.
4. The intention of the speaker must be pure and not self-serving
5. The speaker must first approach the transgressor
6. There can be no alternative way to prevent harm
7. The information shared should not cause more damage than a court would have imposed.
Certainly much of our entertainment, and even our news, would be prohibited based on these criteria, and one might debate how these criteria might apply to situations currently in the public eye. The stakes in our own lives are often lower. Nevertheless, we can take these two competing ideas to heart. We must be incredibly cautious before sharing any information about another person, let alone information that may have been shared confidentially. And yet, there are also times when we are not only permitted, but obligated to blow the whistle on immoral or illegal behavior.
Thu, May 1 2025 3 Iyyar 5785