Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

A news story I saw mentioned that a Jewish owner of a non-kosher restaurant put up signs advocating for Israel. The article was generally positive toward the restaurateur for his Israel advocacy at a time that Israel is under missile attack.

Ignoring whether one may write the article in the first place, may one publicize it further (e.g. share the link)? Implicit in saying "Ploni put up an Israeli flag on his restaurant" is that said restaurant has no pretense of being kosher. Publicizing "Ploni owns a non-kosher restaurant" seemingly is prohibited because it is a violation of halakha (that one may not publicize a violation of halakha: Chofetz Chaim Lesson A Day, Day 1; that selling non-kosher food is prohibited: Yoreh Deah 117) I do not think that anyone will believe this restaurant to be kosher. While the name doesn't make it obvious (it isn't Ploni's Crab Shack or the like), I am certain that anyone going there would not eat there if they wanted kosher food.

share|improve this question
    
I am aware the title is not ideal. If someone wants to suggest a better title, go for it. –  Ze'ev Felsen Aug 22 at 17:12
1  
1  
This question needs some editing so that it's clearly about the principle involved rather than the specific case. I recommend that all details about the specific case that are relevant to motivating the issue be moved up into the first paragraph, and that the second paragraph be devoted to putting forth the general question described in the title (which is fine IMO). Right now, the question runs the risk of eliciting unproductive side-chatter about the specifics of this case. (Unless a discussion of the general principle is not what you want, but pesak is. If so, ask your rabbi.) –  Isaac Moses Aug 22 at 17:23

2 Answers 2

To answer the question of the title, normally one would not be allowed to speak ill of someone even if it is or combined with speaking of that person's merits.

However, in this case the newspaper is allowed to speak of this restaurant owner's lack of kashrus, because it is already a well know fact (see Sefer Chafetz Chaim, Klal 4, Beer Mayim Chaim 41) as long as the speaker doesn't intent to further denigrate the subject by repeating this fact (see ibid Klal 3, Be'er Mayim Chaim 20)

share|improve this answer
    
Is it a well known fact? I didn't know the owner was Jewish before this. –  Ze'ev Felsen Aug 25 at 23:13
    
Even if you didn't know he was Jewish, you (or anyone who would have been aware of the restaurant) does know that it isn't kosher. –  Matt Aug 29 at 13:17

It is possible for a statement to be a relevant statement of fact, without having to be a statement of fault. This sometimes depends on the audience.

In the original poster's example, it is likely that many gentile readers would appreciate the chance to support a restaurant (whether kosher or not) that supports Israel, but would find it embarrassing to bring an observant Jew to the restaurant. These readers would want to know both that the restaurant put up an Israeli flag, and that the restaurant is non-kosher.

share|improve this answer
    
The answers in judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/230 make similar points, but consider Jews who could benefit from the information instead of gentiles who could benefit from the information. –  Jasper Aug 24 at 12:57

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.