Following a special permission by the Rabbinical Court to shame get refuser Dr. Oded Gez, a PhD in Physics from Bar Ilan University who for four years has been ignoring a halakhic writ of divorce to release his abused wife from the bonds of marriage, the Tzohar Rabbinical Organization has issued instructions on how Jewish law treats cases where public influence — through social media and “online shaming” — can force an individual to comply with the court’s decisions.
An essay drafted by Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, a leading Israeli rabbinical ethicist and Director of the Tzohar Ethics Committee, stresses that there is a very fine legal line in Jewish tradition between the concepts of lashon hara-defamation — which is prohibited — and public criticism intended specifically for a positive purpose.
“Modern norms of communication, most prominently social media, have demanded a new analysis of the ancient laws of lashon hara because messages can be broadcast to millions within a matter of minutes — sometime with completely unanticipated consequences,” Rabbi Cherlow said in a statement. “The implications are thus that online shaming can be both extremely detrimental, sometimes even deadly, but can also force positive change as in the case of get deniers.”
With this fragile dynamic in place, the directive lists four main principles to follow when asking whether an issue can and should be addressed in public online forums:
1. Truth. The message must strictly adhere to the truth without any form of editorializing or taking judgmental positions (positive or negative) by the author.
2. Necessity. The author of public posts must determine if there is a real public need for the information to be shared or if the intent can be achieved in a less public manner. However if there is indeed a specific halakhically mandated issue which can be resolved with the publication, action is not only permissible but commanded by the Torah.
3. Proportionality. Every issue, must be weighed carefully, so only the necessary amount of pressure is publicly exhorted. Irrelevant facts to the case at hand—even when true—should not be included in messages because they can cause undue and unjust harm.
4. Post responsibly. The Internet is an unforgiving platform where damage imposed can be difficult and often impossible to erase so think many times before posting.
“It is critical to remember that in Jewish law even evildoers — like get refusers — are afforded a certain level of benefit and compassion so that while we must work to ensure justice, we need to do everything possible to ensure the damage is not beyond what is necessary,” Rabbi Cherlow said.
The essay also stresses that responsibility lies not only with the original distributor of posts but also with the reader. Readers must recognize that social media (even more so than traditional media) is filled with disinformation. As such, readers should question the source and make an effort to examine the “other side” of the argument. The acknowledgment of a message’s importance — typically by liking or sharing — is, in essence, an endorsement of that message and therefore one who does so must act responsibly.
“There is no disputing that we are in an age of communication that gives us both remarkable power to impact change via our keyboards and that can be a positive development,” Rabbi Cherlow adds. “But halakha requires that we always act responsibly and think of the impact of our actions.”