Page 117 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס 4 VOL-3
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Zayin - Halachah 3 ג הכלה - ז ללכ

the sense of events. Furthermore, very often the two people who relate אשת אלו ךימעב ליכר ךלת אלד ואל לע רבעש
the event never actually witnessed that event themselves and they are just
relying on what was told to them by someone else, and even so they portray ,ש"ע החיתפב ליעל ןיראובמה ןישעו ןיואל ראשו
their testimony as though they were first-hand observers. Therefore most ותורשכ תקזחמ ךדיאל איצונ הז עשר ינפמ ןכ םאו
certainly it is forbidden to believe them, even if there were two people
or more who made those (Lashon Hara) remarks, but it is permissible to .'ג ףיעסב םינפב יתאבהש ומכו
(only) suspect the truth of what they said.
ךליל הצורהל אוה טושפ רבדש ףא הברה יתכראה

איצוהל ידכ ךא אירוטלד אנוש אוהש י"שה ךרדב
Be’er Mayim Chayim
ןושל לבקל ףכית רציה םתוא התפמש םישנאהמ
(K7/3/4)-(7)..to believe the remarks and form an opinion: .ונרמשי םשה תוליכרו ערה
Don’t challenge this concept based on Gemara Pesachim (113b) “If we
are referring to a case where there are witnesses, society can (form an
opinion and) hate him (the person who committed a sin),” because there
their testimony was established in Beit Din, but if their “testimony” was .זומת ט"י ,'ב רדא 'ט ,ןושח 'ל - תרבועמ הנש .זומת ז"כ ,רדא ז"כ ,ןושח ח"כ - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
not established in Beit Din, even though their testimony might later be
corroborated in Beit Din, nevertheless at this moment they are worse than
a solitary individual who personally witnessed the victim commit a sin and םייחה רוקמ
so it would be permitted for him to hate this “victim” because he at least
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ָ
knows the truth about what he saw, whereas in our case, at this moment ןכּ ,דחאֵמ עמָשׁ םִא ,ערָה ןוֹשׁל לבּקַל רוּסאֶשׁ םֵשׁכּ .ג
the witnesses are no more authoritative than a general rumor, as mentioned
ִ
ַ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֲ
ַ
earlier. יֵעבִּמ אלו ,רֵתוֹי וֹא םינְשִּׁמ עמָשׁ םִא וּלִּפא )ד( ,ןידּה
ַ
ַ
ְ
And don’t challenge this idea from the cited Gemara Pesachim (113b) ,םרָוּפִּס ידֵי לע םיִעָשׁרְ וּשֲׂענֶּשׁ )ה( רָבָדְבּ )רַמוֹל ךְירִָצ ןיֵאְו(
which asks: “Is it permissible to relate certain facts to one’s rebbe in order יִפל וּלִּפאדּ ןויכּ ,וֹל וּרְפִּס םִא ,םניִמאהל ןיא יאדּובּ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֲ
ֲ
ְ
that he (the rebbe) can hate the sinner?” The gemara concludes that if
his rebbe believes him with the same authority as two witnesses then the אלֹ"דּ ואל לע וּרבע ,ןגֹהכּ אלֶֹּשׁ הָשׂע ינוֹלְפֶּשׁ ,ןהירֵבדּ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ַ
student may tell his rebbe, and if not, he may not tell him. The implication
ֶ
ֱ
ֵ
ֵ
ֲ
ַ
ֵ
is that this rebbe is permitted to hate the “victim” because he believes ,םה םיִעָשׁרְ ןכּ םִא ,תמא לע וּלִּפא אוּהֶשׁ ,"ליִכרָ ךְלֵת
his student as he would believe two witnesses. But why should this be
ֶ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ֲ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ֶ
true? The Torah forbids hating a fellow Jew needlessly, and if the halacha רוּמגּ רֵשׁכּ תקַזחבּ אוּהֶשׁ ,הז לארְָשׂי לע םניִמאנ ךְיא
dictates not to believe the Lashon Hara but merely to suspect those remarks רֵקַּשׁל דוּשׁח ,ערָה ןוֹשׁלדּ ואל לע דוּשׁחהדּ ?הָתּע תֵעל
ְ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ָ
may be true in order to protect oneself, then it is a Torah prohibition to hate
ַ
ְ
ְ
ְ
th
th
the victim as I wrote above in the 6 Kelal in the 11 halacha, quoting the ,ףיִסוֹהלוּ ףיִלחהלוּ
st
opinion of the Maharik (please see further on my comments in the 31
notation of the Be’er Mayim Chayim). Therefore, even if the student is םיִעָשׁרְ רֶשׁקֶ ,רֵתוֹי הבּרְה וּלִּפא ,ירְֵתּ םהֶשׁ ךְכבּ הַמוּ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ֵ
ֲ
believed by his rav with the same authority as two witnesses, what of it?
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
Even if two witnesses testified to us (outside of Beit Din) what they saw, it ןיִשֲׂענ ןיאֶשׁ ,רבדּ אוּה םִא וּלִּפא אלּא .ןינִמּה ןִמ ןיא
ָ
ָ
ֲ
ֵ
ֵ
ַ
ֶ
would still be forbidden for us to believe them (and conclude an opinion)
and hate the victim, since accepting Lashon Hara as truth is forbidden even )ו( יִכָה וּלִּפֲא ,םָתִּא תֶמֱאָה םִא ,םרָוּפִּס ידְֵי לַע םיִעָשׁרְ
107 98
volume 3 volume 3