Page 113 - V3
P. 113
Sefer Chafetz Chayim VOL-3 4 םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Zayin - Halachah 3 ג הכלה - ז ללכ
correct in adhering to the strict law in not wanting to accept Yochanan שוחל ול היהש ךותמ הילדגד אנינעב םש )א"ע א"ס ףד(
Ben Koreach’s report. Yet still he made a mistake (in his understanding of
the halacha) because he gave no credibility to the report of his upcoming אשיב אנשיל יאה אבר רמא םשו 'וכו חרק ןב ןנחוי תצעל
assassination and he did not take any precautions to protect himself or המבד עמשמ יעבימ שחימל יעבימ אל ילובקלד בג לע ףא
others who were with him. In that incident, many people told Gedaliah
that Yishmael was planning to murder him, as the text narrates, and yet ןידכ השע הפי חרק ןב ןנחוי ירבד לבקל הילדג הצר אלש
none of them were categorized as Resha’im in reporting to Gedaliah. In תאו ומצע תא רומשל וירבדל ששח אלש המב לקלק ךא
fact, just the opposite was true, those people reporting to Gedaliah that
Yishmael was plotting to murder him were considered as Tzadikim \ ול ורמא םיבר הילדגד השעמב םש ירהו ,ונממ וישנא
entirely righteous, as is explained by the Safra (commentary on Vayikrah אל םשו ארקב שרופמש ומכ וגרהל לאעמשי תבשחמש
19:16) and Choshen Mishpat in section #426, that they were fulfilling the
mitzvah of “Do not stand by idly while the life of your fellow Jew is at הוצמ הברדאד לאעמשי לע וליכרהש המב םיעשר ויה
risk.” Yet even so, even though they were called “righteous,” Gedaliah ו"כת ןמיסב מ"חבו ארפסב שרופמש ומכ הזב ומייק הבר
was following the letter of the law in not accepting their report.
המב יכה וליפא ,ךער םד לע דומעת אל ביתכ הז לעד
And even though that incident involved Rechilut, most probably the
same law applies to Lashon Hara since the theory underlying the law for .השע ןידכ ,ןלביק אלש
Rechilut is the same as it is for Lashon Hara. This reasoning probably is
as I explained above, that these men do not have the authority of witnesses םג ערה ןושלב אמתסמ ,תוליכרב היה השעמה םשד ףאו
except when giving testimony in a Beit Din; but outside of the Beit Din אוה רבדה םעט אמתסמד ,אמעט רתב ליזד יכה אניד ןכ
their testimony carries no more weight than a story told on the street.
Given that, the law is the same for Lashon Hara. And this is how the Ibn םא יכ תודע םש םהילע לח ןיאד םינפב ונבתכש ומכ
Ezra explained the meaning of the pasuk (Shemot 23:2) “Do not follow ןכ םאו אמלעב רופיס אוה ןיד תיבל ץוח לבא ןיד תיבב
the majority to do bad.” (Please see that reference and the following
Hagahah). אקוספד אטשפ ע"בארה שריפ ןכו ערה ןושלב ןידה אוה
.*ש"יע תוערל םיבר ירחא היהת אלד
Hagahah
This is evident from the Choshen Mishpat, section #75 paragraph #23 in
the Hagahah, where he writes that if the person who witnessed the event :ה"הגה
is not present to give testimony, the plaintiff’s statement claiming that he םא לבא בתכש ה"הגהב ג"כס ה"ע ןמיס מ"חב חכומ ןכו *
heard it from a witness is inadmissible in Beit Din because it does not have
the standing of first-hand knowledge and it cannot compel the “defendant” רמאש המ ירב תנעט ירקימ אל דיעהל ונינפל דעה ןיא
to swear a Rabbinic oath as to his innocence. The implication of this וליפא וריבחל עיבשהל לוכי וניאו 'יפ[ םירחא יפמ עמשש
Choshen Mishpat is that even if the plaintiff heard it from two witnesses he
cannot compel the defendant to take an oath since it is not considered that ןכ םג םינשמ עמש םא וליפאד הז ןושלמ עמשמו ]תסיה
he has a definite claim. This is the explicit opinion of the Tur in paragraph א"יה םגו ג"ל ףיעס רוטב אידהל אוה ןכו ירב תנעט וניא
#33, and even the alternate (minority) opinion cited there in the Hagahah
does not disagree with this concept, as the Shach concludes the law there ק"ס ך"שב םש קיסמדכ הזב קלוח וניא ה"הגהב םש רכזנה
in sub-paragraph #82. Later, I found in Sefer Brit Avraham in the volume ז"עהא קלחב םהרבא תירב רפסב יתאצמ ךכ רחאו ב"פ
103 102
volume 3 volume 3
