Parshas Pinchas 5784 – Intriguing Questions & Answers

May one invite one’s therapist to a family simcha where she’ll meet certain people about whom her client has revealed unflattering details (albeit for a constructive purpose)?

Q: I’ve gotten very close to my therapist over the past several months, and I thought it would be nice to invite her to a bar mitzvah we’re making soon. Then I suddenly realized that I’ll be putting her face-to-face with my mother, about whom I’ve shared certain candid and uncomplimentary details during our sessions together. Of course, these things were spoken of in confidentiality and for purely constructive, therapeutic purposes, but now I’m worried that inviting her would actually be a bad idea. Would there be some form of “retroactive lashon hara” once my therapist actually meets my mother?

A: Questions like these are very common, more so than most people would think. Here, we have a potential issue regarding a therapist, but the question arises in other contexts as well. Can a Rav be mesader kiddushin, for example, when the chassan has disclosed to him certain negative information about his father? Or sometimes a person will complain from time to time about a neighbor to his co-worker, never mentioning the neighbor’s name and confident that the two will never meet. But what if, suddenly, they might meet, at a kiddush, an engagement party, or some such gathering in the “complainer’s” house? Must the co-worker avoid entering the man’s building forevermore?

The Gedolim of our generation have discussed and debated these issues at length, and I’ve consulted with them on many occasions. I’ve heard various opinions from the different Gedolim, and therefore one should always seek his own rabbinic guidance for every scenario. Maran Harav Avigdor Nevenzahl, shlit”a, strongly maintains that the therapist in this scenario should not attend the family simcha and avoid meeting her client’s mother, because those things said confidentially in the therapist/client relationship would inevitably take on negative connotations once the therapist and mother meet and the mother is no longer an anonymous element within the therapeutic sessions, even though she didn’t actually receive the lashon hara as truth.

However, Harav Yitzchok Zilberstein, shlit”a, wrote to me in a responsa that it would depend on whether or not the therapist accepted the information as truth or as merely her client’s “truth” – meaning, as a purely subjective reality existing within her client’s mind alone to be utilized as tools in the therapeutic process rather than accepted as affirmation of the mother’s actual character. If the therapist was unable to remain impartial and accepted her client’s information as truth, then Rav Zilberstein would concur with Rav Nevenzahl’s above-mentioned position, yet if she genuinely maintained impartiality, there would be no problem with attending the simcha and meeting her client’s mother.

Yet another position is that of Harav Noach Isaac Oelbaum, shlit”a, who wrote to me in a responsa that since the information shared for constructive, therapeutic purposes did not fall under any issur of lashon hara, it always remains constructive and therapeutic, even once the therapist and the mother meet and regardless of how the therapist received the information within herself. What was revealed in the therapy sessions was for the sake of peace and will always remain for the sake of peace. The therapist and the mother coming face-to-face does not alter that halachic reality. This was also the opinion of other great poskim, since coming face-to-face with the mother in this scenario doesn’t add any negativity.

Additionally, Harav Yochonan Wosner shlit”a wrote me in a responsa a few reasons why we would permit one to invite the therapist in this scenario. 1) Maybe the therapist will not accept her words as truth. 2) Possibly by meeting the mother in person she might realize that some of the descriptions were exaggerations. 3) Now that she meets her, she might be able to help the daughter more than before after seeing her in person, which would bring out a bigger to’eles. 4) In addition to the above she already heard everything and seeing her doesn’t add negativity to what she knows.

Due to the very complex and sensitive nature of these scenarios, however, one must always consult a competent halachic authority with regard to one’s specific circumstances.

Is it permitted to criticize one’s parents’ actions for therapeutic purposes?

Q: Can I express criticism of my parents in therapy? If yes, would there be specific conditions that must be in place before I do so?

A: As implicit from the discussion above, a person may criticize and reveal unflattering information about his parents in the therapeutic process, because that sharing of information is crucial in order to process his personal experience and move forward toward emotional and psychological healing. Yet a vital condition that must be in place is working with a therapist who is a yirei shamayim and attuned to proper Torah hashkafah with regard to lashon hara and kibbud av v’eim. Otherwise, the therapist could encourage the client to speak lashon hara or entertain negative thoughts about his parents in the misguided hope that such an exercise would prove emotionally cleansing.

With caution, a therapist may certainly ask his client about his upbringing when he deems such information crucial for the therapeutic process, but he must never encourage negativity. See more about this in Responsa Even Yisroel (9:164), Chashukei Chemed (Yoma, page 57).

Rav Dovid Feinstein, zt”l, would warn therapists against instigating negative emotionality within a client who is having trouble opening up. The therapist must never “get the ball rolling” by speaking lashon hara against his client’s family, friends or educators. Purposeful negative information comes only directly from the client who feels victimized and must emotionally unburden himself. In general, Gedolei Haposkim do not regard such crucial self-expression on the part of the client as entailing a transgression in kibbud av v’eim.

With regard to the laws of lashon hara, we must be very careful to fulfill the Chofetz Chaim’s clearly laid out guidelines for speaking lashon hara l’to’eles, for constructive purposes. In short, the conditions that must be met for speaking lashon hara l’to’eles are: 1) The negative information must be firsthand knowledge. 2) The negative information must be completely uncorrupted by falsehood or exaggeration. 3) There had been a genuine (though unsuccessful) attempt to rebuke the individual (whose forbidden activities one is now forced to report to rabbinim or authority figures). 4) One must have the proper intention of a constructive and purposeful goal in divulging the information. 5) There is no alternative other than divulging the negative information. 6) One may not divulge information that will cause harm to the person spoken about (outside of the context of criminal activity and the “harm” brought about by prosecution).

Another level of speaking lashon hara l’to’eles is sometimes encountered in the context of the ”דאגה בלב איש … ישיחנה

’s maxim Anxiety in the heart … one should“ – לאחרים “ tell to others” (Yoma 75a, Mishlei 12:25). The Chofetz Chaim writes (chapter 10, gloss 14) that speaking lashon hara to alleviate emotional pain is possibly considered speaking for a constructive purpose. Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt”l, maintained the validity of this leniency in the context between a husband and wife, when one has to alleviate emotional pain that they are carrying, provided the other conditions are met.

Does affirmation (and therefore encouragement) of someone’s lashon hara l’to’eles necessitate asking mechilah from the subject of that lashon hara?

Q: Must a therapist or Rav who affirms a client’s or congregant’s lashon hara l’to’eles ask mechilah from the subject spoken of?

A: I’d like to first address something that’s very common but not so well known regarding the prohibition of speaking and receiving lashon hara. The Chofetz Chaim writes (3:4) that keeping the subject of one’s lashon hara anonymous does not circumvent the prohibition if the subject’s identity will be apparent to the listener. Moreover, if the speaker knows the identity of the individual he’s discussing (which is, of course, usually the case), it is forbidden for the listener to respond negatively about that individual, even if he himself is unaware of the individual’s identity. See Chofetz Chaim, Dirshu edition (page 231, note 17).

Additionally, how does someone go about doing teshuvah after speaking or listening to lashon hara that was or was not for a constructive purpose?

In accord with Chazal’s teaching that one is forgiven for a transgression in the realm of bein adam l’chaveiro only after seeking forgiveness from the person he’s wronged, must someone seek forgiveness from the individual about whom he’s spoken lashon hara? Or perhaps he shouldn’t do so, given that revealing what he has said will likely upset the individual.

Harav Yisroel Salanter, zt”l, was of the opinion that in light of the inevitable distress a person would experience after being informed he’s been the subject of lashon hara, the transgressor needn’t specify that he spoke lashon hara when seeking forgiveness, but can simply admit that he has wronged the victim in some general way.

The Chofetz Chaim, however, famously wrote in his sefer (4:12) that one who spoke lashon hara about his fellow Jew must approach him and ask forgiveness for having spoken negatively about him, even if it will cause the man distress.

Many Poskim rule in accord with Rav Salanter’s position. Returning to our scenario of the therapist or Rav who affirms and thereby encourages an individual’s lashon hara, some Poskim hold that because the exchange occurred in constructive and therapeutic circumstances that enabled the client/congregant to release inner pain and find peace, the listener needn’t seek the subject’s forgiveness. This is in accord with the opinion of the Sefer Chasidim (simin 64).

Other Poskim maintain, however, that in listening to lashon hara l’to’eles, one must stay completely impartial, even while offering heartfelt sympathy and commiseration, and inwardly refuse to believe the negative information. Openly affirming the lashon hara would indicate belief of what’s been said and therefore constitute transgression. One would then have to seek forgiveness from the individual about whom the lashon hara has been spoken, either in accord with the opinion of Rav Salanter or with that of the Chofetz Chaim, mentioned above.

I’ve heard many times from my rebbe, Harav Avigdor Nevenzahl, shlit”a, that a Rav or therapist listening to lashon hara l’to’eles in a purely therapeutic scenario mustn’t receive the negative information as truth. Their job is to listen compassionately and help alleviate the individual’s pain. Nothing more. Should the listener step beyond that limitation, he ventures right into the realm of the aveirah of lashon hara.

And as discussed, a therapist cannot instigate negativity about a client’s family members or friends in order to help the client open up. Following the ruling of Rav Dovid Feinstein, zt”l, the therapist who does so would have to seek forgiveness from the subjects of the lashon hara he provoked, in accord with the opinion of either Rav Salanter or the Chofetz Chaim.

Take a part in spreading the light! Email info@kollellihoraah.org for sponsorship opportunities. To receive this weekly publication via email, click here or email info@kollellihoraah.org.

Visit www.kollellihoraah.org for more information on Virtual Bais Horaah, Weekly Q&A, Seforim publications, Yisachar Zevulun opportunities, and more.

Download the PDF –> Parshas Pinchas