Ariel Sharon is on his death bed. Many of us were very displeased with his giving away of lands to criminals and displacing 10,000 Jews. 1. If we speak ill of him while living, is it lashon hara?
2. If we speak ill of him after he is dead, is that permitted?
3. Can we speak ill of him if he died but was not burried yet? i.e. while his relatives are onen...

How is it speaking ill of someone, if you just state your conflict of opinions, no matter how extreme? What do you mean to say, that you're cursing Sharon? Do you think God smiles upon cursing? King David could have SLAIN Saul several times, but refrained. What you should do sir, is pray for his soul, his health, and his relationship with God. We should pray to God to guide Sharon in the right direction, and not pray for his death or illness. Is that the kind of prayer David would pray for? Is that the kind of prayer Daniel would pray for? Speaking one's difference of opinion is legitimate, but cursing and calling names IS NOT godly in the least. Prayer moves mountains. That's what we should all do, PRAY!!

So to answer your question, although I'm no rabbi: 1) Yes it's lashon hara, whether dead or alive, to curse, call names or talk evil of any person. Let God be the judge, and you do the praying. 2) NO, NO, NO, and I'm amazed you even asked such a question. 3) just state your difference of opinions, but don't talk evil of anyone. God is the judge, and as you judge, so shall God judge you in the end of days. Careful.

Cursing Sharon and speaking ill of him are two different things. If you understand the laws lashon hara, as opposed to richlus, the facts are true. Speaking ill of Sharon means criticising him for the great crime of giving holy land to the criminals. It is stating facts and saying that it is against Torah and Sharon did it. That's not cursing him.
The Tanak is replete with stories of leaders of Israel who messed up. Is the Tanak committing lashon hara?

What's wrong with criticising? Especially if your basing your side on the Word of God?

Jezreel,
Laws of lashon hara are intricate. What may be lashon hara to you and me, may not be so for a head of state. I cannot accuse you of something true while talking to someone else without it technically becoming lashon hara. However, for a head of state, that may be different. That's what I'm trying to find out on this blog.

quote:

Originally posted by MosheYisraeli:
Ariel Sharon is on his death bed. Many of us were very displeased with his giving away of lands to criminals and displacing 10,000 Jews. 1. If we speak ill of him while living, is it lashon hara?
2. If we speak ill of him after he is dead, is that permitted?
3. Can we speak ill of him if he died but was not burried yet? i.e. while his relatives are onen...

Moshe,
I fain not argue the question of whether the Israeli Prime-Minister was a Jew or not (as you seem to know more about this than I do), but strictly from the stand-point of the Torah, those that have died are esteemed by us as having the means or ability to hear what is being spoken about them upon earth. An example is Menashe, the son of King Hezekiah, where the Gemara says that after he had long since been dead, certain scholars sat around together, speaking derogatively about him who was notorious, in his days, for being a wicked king. He came to them in a dream and said to them that had they lived in his time period, they would have lifted up the borders of their skirts in order to run after idolatry. So great was the temptation in his days! He also asked them if they knew where exactly, on a loaf of bread, was the proper place for its breaking, which answer they did not know. He derided them for their lack of knowledge in such a simple matter as this, which bread (by the way) is always broken at the place where it is well-baked.
In the Talmud (Shabbath 152a), we find yet another teaching that says: "The maggot is hard upon a corpse, just as the needle is [hard] upon the flesh of the living."
אמר רבי יצחק: קשה רימה למת כמחט בבשר החי (בבלי, שבת קנב ע"א) Here, then, we understand that they continue to suffer long after they have been dead.

As for Ariel Sharon, he has fought valiantly as a soldier for this country, during a time of grave peril, and many people still recognize the good that he has done for this country. On the other hand, he has also "displaced" tens of hundreds of Jewish persons from their homes. Some are willing to forgive him for that, while others are not. His personal lifestyle is not for me to judge. If he is not Jewish, he had no obligations to live as a Jew.

I still think, though, that it would be best for us not to speak evil about the man. If G-d brought him to such dignity, he must have had some "zachuth" as a human-being.

Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

David,
My issue here was not whether Ariel Sharon should be vilified or not. We all know he has been a valiant soldier for Am Yisrael. The question is really a broader one. Can we criticize public figures in Am Yisrael without it becoming lashon hara? Can we criticize leaders who are doing things that violate Torah...dead or alive? I gave Sharon as an example because his situation is salient at this time. I'm not advocating that we should curse him, but I'm asking something very basic about political discourse in Eretz Yisrael. Is there a place, halachically, for criticizing political leaders without creating lashon hara? Must we just standby and say "if the Kadosh Baruch Hu elevated the man to such a position we must accept everything he does"?

quote:

Can we criticize public figures in Am Yisrael without it becoming lashon hara?

Moshe,
Can you give me an example where criticism of a public figure, after he is dead, will contribute anything in a constructive way?

David

David,
you say;

_______________________________________________
Can you give me an example where criticism of a public figure, after he is dead, will contribute anything in a constructive way?
_______________________________________________

The new Kadima Party vows to follow in Ariel Sharon's legacy....which is to uproot Jews out of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. It would be difficult to criticize the leaders of Kadima without invoking Sharon's legacy, should he be nifta.

B"H
My dear friend, Moshe,

If this is your motive for criticizing a public figure after he be dead, those of his party could easily turn the tables on you and say:
"It is not considered a brave act to refute the opinions of a lion once he is dead."

Whatever might be the cause for dissension, you ought to seek redress to those grievances by telling each man his own faults - and not by circumventing the issue by recalling to them the faults of other men who have passed from this world. In my opinion, there is not much to be gained thereby. Yet, if it came up in a passing discussion, I do not think you have wronged the name of the deceased - if indeed he had done wrong.

Sincerely,
David

The uprooting of Jews from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem is a big deal as far as I'm concerned. Sharon has become the modern day champion for it. His followers will continue it. It is not my intent to argue with dead people who cannot defend themselves. However, if the consequences of the dead person's actions continue to be with us after he is nifta, surely we can criticize it for what it is. It's unfortunate that he has had the mishap, but facts on the ground don't suddenly become any better because of it. I understand the Kadosh Baruch Hu will continue to judge him every Yom Kippur after he's nifta. While it's not my job to judge, I feel I have a responsibility to Am Yisrael, at least as an educator of sorts, that we should not give land away, it's not ours to give away. It was given to us "in trust". We are only trustees. This is what Sharon does not understand and his followers and the rest of Am Yisrael need to understand this. I thought such would not be halachically wrong....although it is criticizing him.
Sure I may be refuting the opinions of a lion after he's dead, but I refuted them while he was living too.

I am with Moshe on this one.

If we interpret the prohibition against "speaking ill" so broadly, then forget the past altogether, so as not to offend it and its personages.

Again I'm no rabbi, and am not fluent at all in Halachic laws and what not, but if I'm not mistaken, over and over again, kings of Israel & Judah were found to be "evil in the sight of the Lord", because they didn't follow the will of God. Just for one example read the following passage ---->> 2 Chronicles 33. Is this the kind of criticizm you're refering to?

How about 2 Samuel 12:9 ?

Sounds like criticizm to me.

I would love to give my input on the whole Sharon-Gaza situation, but that wouldn't be answering your question. I hope this helps some.