Why is there so much lashon hora on here about restaurants (and other things)

[Just A Jew]

This thread is a trip all on its own... If someone isn't too dizzy, maybe they can write a TR.

[etech0]

This thread is a trip all on its own... If someone isn't too dizzy, maybe they can write a TR.

*carefully

[imayid2]

Do you have any source for this or just svara?

You made the assertion, you need a source. I’m asking why would it be, to me it doesn’t seem at all clearcut.

[aygart]

You made the assertion, you need a source. I’m asking why would it be, to me it doesn’t seem at all clearcut.

issur shmia is even when it was said ltoeles
issur shmia is even when it was said in front of others already
saying food at a restaurant is bad is lashon hara unless it is litoeles
Lashon hara includes speaking about a craftsman in another city where he does not work.
The owner would be more pained the more people heard it
the reputation becomes worse the more people heard it

I am lost as to how you are trying to thread the needle here with no source for the distinction you are making. This should be the same as any other of the above cases that are clearly assur.

[imayid2]

issur shmia is even when it was said ltoeles

I have no idea what you are saying. If it’s said for toeles obviously I can listen for that toeles. Please provide exact citation.

[aygart]

I have no idea what you are saying. If it’s said for toeles obviously I can listen for that toeles. Please provide exact citation.

BMC LH 6 3

[imayid2]

Lashon hara includes speaking about a craftsman in another city where he does not work.

Citation please. I assume it’s because the info can spread. I don’t see how that affects our case.

[imayid2]

Lashon hara includes speaking about a craftsman in another city where he does not work.
The owner would be more pained the more people heard it
the reputation becomes worse the more people heard it

“The reputation becoming worse” is a consequence. That consequence was permitted to be caused by the speaker because he met the conditions. By someone completely irrelevant reading it, that doesn’t change anything.

[shulem92]

But in what context? I assume in the context of forbidding the conveying of the information to begin with. In our scenario that’s already permitted. The consumption of someone without ties to the situation, when it isn’t necessary *negative, and will not harm him, isn’t being discussed there.

To say he will be pained more by the guy who didn’t have to read it and read it would seem to be a stretch. He’s already pained by the info being released to those to whom it matters.

I think what @aygart is arguing about is: can you say something negative to 2 people, if it is only toeles for 1 of them?

[imayid2]

I think what @aygart is arguing about is: can you say something negative to 2 people, if it is only toeles for 1 of them?

I think the counter argument is, that the LH in our situation is only because it’s damaging his business. And to someone completely removed from the location, it may not be considered LH to listen to that info, because it causes no damage.

And on the chance that it is indeed consequential info, then הדר דינא that it would be לתועלת.

[aygart]

Citation please. I assume it’s because the info can spread. I don’t see how that affects our case.

BMC LH 2 14

[aygart]

“The reputation becoming worse” is a consequence. That consequence was permitted to be caused by the speaker because he met the conditions. By someone completely irrelevant reading it, that doesn’t change anything.

I dispute this sourceless premise

[aygart]

I think the counter argument is, that the LH in our situation is only because it’s damaging his business. And to someone completely removed from the location, it may not be considered LH to listen to that info, because it causes no damage.

And on the chance that it is indeed consequential info, then הדר דינא that it would be לתועלת.

Do you have a source for this line of reasoning

[imayid2]

BMC LH 6 3

So when the sipur meets לתועלת requirements there is no issur שמיעה. So I don’t know what you’re trying to show from there to our case.

[shulem92]

I think the counter argument is, that the LH in our situation is only because it’s damaging his business. And to someone completely removed from the location, it may not be considered LH to listen to that info, because it causes no damage.

And on the chance that it is indeed consequential info, then הדר דינא that it would be לתועלת.

LH is only when it is damaging to someone’s business??

[Yehudaa]

A thought:

Let's say you had a bad experience at a restaurant, and you're not 100% sure whether a negative review is allowed under the circumstances. Maybe you're not 100% sure whether the restaurant burns everyone's food or if they just messed up your order, or maybe you're not sure if your motivation is really 100% to save everyone else from patronizing the restaurant, or if there's at least a bit of a desire to just rant about the situation, get back at the restaurant for ripping you off, or earn some likes on DDF (gotta feed the family, after all).

If you're not sure, I'd say we should consider the risk of going wrong with either choice:

• If you don't post a negative review, and it turns out that it was really muttar: It's possible that you gave up the opportunity to save innocent people from spending their hard-earned money at this horrible restaurant. Are you saving them any money? Probably not. Guy still needs to eat, he'll likely read your bad review, and then go to the other restaurant down the block and spend the same money there for a better experience. So by posting your review, you save people from a subpar experience and instead get them a great experience. By being machmir, you run the risk of letting them experience the subpar dining option.*
• If you do post a negative review, and and it turns out that it was really assur: If you have a large enough reach, you've potentially ruined the proprietor's livelihood shelo al pi din, or at least impacted it detrimentally in some way. That impact can last for years- bad rumors spread quickly, and once it's out there, there's no taking it back. (This is aside form the actual issurim of lashon harah that you transgressed.)
  

Which would you choose? To me, the risk just doesn't seem worthwhile.

Thoughts?


*This thought specifically about restaurants. Obviously this doesn't apply where people will actually lose money, like if someone is raising money for a bad investment, or charging for a service that's objectively not performed properly.

[aygart]

So when the sipur meets לתועלת requirements there is no issur שמיעה. So I don’t know what you’re trying to show from there to our case.

Only in a case where the listener feels it will be of benefit to him as stated in MC that the BMC is on. This is the case where it needs to be toeles for the listener. If it wasn't spoken litoeles then one may not listen even if there is toeles for the listener.

[Yehudaa]

If anyone would like to learn some of the sugya, there are some good maareh mekomos here: https://baishavaad.org/lashon-harah-in-business-part-2/

No TLDR summary, but if you'd like a quick overview, it's worth reading the English intro, and then the English footnotes at the bottom of each page.

[imayid2]

BMC LH 2 14

So as noted, it’s because the info will be spread. Therefore there is an issur sipur. Doesn’t apply to us, because there is no issur sippur.

[imayid2]

I dispute this sourceless premise

I dispute your sourceless assertion