Page 377 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Ilustrative Examples תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Example 1 גי הכלה - ט ללכ

a fellow Jew (Reuven) but does not know him very well and you do know םייח םימ ראב
him, and you know that he is poor now (that his financial condition is
very tenuous) and you want to go and tell this to (1) his (potential) partner
(Shimon) in order to discourage Shimon. This is a profound sin, as the .דיחיב ןכשלכו םינשב וליפא .ול רמול ןירוסא )ול(
th
th
Rambam brings down in the 7 perek of Hilchot De’Aut (the 5 halacha)
quoted as follows: “People who convey information that if repeated from ןימאהל ןיד יפ לע רוסא הזכ רבד עמושהד ןויכד
one person to the next will cause physical or financial harm to a fellow הברהמ עמש וליפא ,אוה תמא הז רבדש הטלחהב
Jew or emotional hurt or suffering- this is Lashon Hara.” This is in no
way comparable to other circumstances where an observer is obligated ,ותוא הנוהש ד"בב וילע ודיעה אלש ןמז לכ ,םישנא
to disclose (a potentially bad partnership) since in those circumstances ר"השל תלבק רוסיאד 'א קלחב 'ז ללכב ראובמש ומכו
he is saving this potential partner from a fundamental loss or some other
bad outcome. But that is not the case here where we have no proof (2) .רתומ שוחל קרו ,םישנא הברהמ עמש םא וליפא אוה
to conclude an opinion that this partnership will result in some kind of a ייולגיאל אדיבעד אתלימ םעטמ ןימאהל ריתהל ןיאו(
loss or some other bad outcome, as I explained this all in the Be’er Mayim
Chayim (in the following second notation of the Be’er Mayim Chayim). םא יכ הז ללכ ךייש אלד הארנד ,ישניא ירקשמ אל
תומביב ןכו .הלעב תמש השא לע דיעהש דחא דעב
םייק ד"בו לאומש אהד םתה ינאש ארמגב )א"ע ז"ע(

Be’er Mayim Chayim אמי ןמכ )א"ע ד"מ( ןישודיקב ןכו ,םש י"שרב 'יעו
(E2/1/1)-(1).. you want to go and tell this to…this is a profound הושדק )ב"ע ב"כ( ה"רב ןכו ,םש 'סותב 'יעו ינגיטל
sin: Only if he specifically wants to volunteer his remarks, but if ייולגיאל דואמ דיבע ,אוה רקש םא םשד .'וכו אחריל
Shimon approaches Plony and asks him to disclose what he knows about ןכ ןיאש המ .לאמשו ןימי תוטנל ול ךרד ןיאד ,רקשה
Reuven and specifically to disclose Reuven’s financial status, and Plony VOL-4
understands from the question that Shimon is considering going into ומושי םיאיקבד ,רמא רקש תמאב םא וליפא ,אכה
partnership with Reuven, then it is possible that since Shimon indicated a הנניא ותעד יפלש רמאי ןיידע ,רתוי הוש איהש התוא
condition for forming that partnership is Reuven’s financial strength and
that if his financial position is weak he would not form that partnership, ארבסה כ"ג ןאכ תכייש ןיא הז םעטמ םגו .רתוי הוש
under that particular set of conditions it is permissible to disclose Reuven’s אקודד ,ש"יע )ב"ע ו"ס( ןישודיקב יוחאו חלשד
weak financial position to Shimon. But all this is true only if Plony clearly
knows that Reuven’s financial position is very weak (and he is not making ךייש ןיא הזב לכל רכינ ונורסחש םומ לעבו הוקמב
this disclosure, G-d forbid, out of any sense of hatred for Reuven) and that לכו )וננינעב כ"אשמ ררבתהל דואמ יושעד רקשיש
Plony assesses that word of his disclosure will not get back to Reuven.
But if both of these two conditions are not satisfied or if Plony surmises אבי ז"יעש רעשמש םוקמב םירחאל רפסל רוסאד ןכש
that eventually word of his disclosure will get back to Reuven and that
report will provoke controversy and hatred, then most certainly it is
forbidden to respond to Shimon with any kind of statement that will hurt (of Ruth’s standing in Jewish society) could have been decided by that
this impoverished man (Reuven). It is much better under these kinds of existent Beit Din (i.e., Shemuel’s Beit Din) the novella stands because no
circumstances for Plony to limit his response to “I do not know how to one will lie about a matter that can be determined simply by asking the Beit
advise you since I am not very familiar with Reuven’s (financial) status.” Din.

367 350
12
volume 4 volume 4