1

This question is an exact duplicate of:

Our tradition mentions the serious transgression of "nivul peh" and the punishments that Hashem brings down on the world due to this sin (Shabbos 33a, Vayikra Rabba 24-7).

What I want to know is if this applies to the regular American curse words such as the F-word, the S-word and similar words. It would seem from some of the sources that it only applies to discussing private sexual matters in a non-respectful way. Would this mean that the F-word is more problematic than the S-word because the former has a sexual connotation, while the latter doesn't? Or maybe these words are not included at all if not used in a sexual connotation in the wrong way? What about words like the B-word? I understand that we shouldn't be using these words at all. I'm just wondering if it's included in the severe sin of "nivul peh" that Chazal discuss.

marked as duplicate by Double AA halacha Dec 28 '16 at 17:27

This question was marked as an exact duplicate of an existing question.

  • related judaism.stackexchange.com/q/43433/759 – Double AA Dec 28 '16 at 17:12
  • 1
    Our tradition mentions What do you mean by tradition? That the Gemara had it by tradition? That it is our tradition to accept the Gemara? That we have received the Gemara through tradition? This seems like a confusing term (IMHO) that adds nothing. | the serious transgression of "nivul peh" That seems like quite an exaggeration. It does not appear to be a Biblical or even Rabbinic prohibition. | Given that it does not appear to be a technical prohibition, but a general issue of conduct, it wont have technical parameters. – mevaqesh Dec 28 '16 at 17:12
  • Malbim's commentary to Isaiah (9:16) indicates that term means overtly discussing sin. This seems very different from the idea of "foul language", and probably wouldn't include these terms (although they could of course be used for nivvul peh). However, from Shabbat (33a) and the discussion of "everyone knows why the bride is brought into the wedding canopy" it appears that it does not refer to speaking of sin, but to overt discussions of sexuality. | If that is the case, it seems unlikely that these would qualify. | If, however, the Talmud's point is just that its crude, these would qualify. – mevaqesh Dec 28 '16 at 17:19
  • The title and the body ask two different things. The latter asks if the nivvul peh; apparently not a halakhic issue, discussed by Hazal includes "cursing". The former discusses a halakhic issue. – mevaqesh Dec 28 '16 at 17:29
  • 1
    @DoubleAA Is duping to another dupe a good idea? Seems likely to annoy readers. – Isaac Moses Dec 28 '16 at 18:27

Browse other questions tagged .