Page 165 - V3
P. 165
Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Zayin - Halachah 9 בי הכלה - ז ללכ
(K7/9/5)-(20).. humiliate the victim: It appears quite obvious to me, מ"חב קספנש ומכ ,ונמיה הלעמל ןיאש הבר אנדמוא
that the concept of “incidental” is not intended to uproot a Torah precept
that is forbidden, namely the use of oppressive \ punishing language. This בתכש ט"כק ןמיסב ק"ירהמ תבושתבו ש"ע ח"ת ןמיסב
can be proven from the statement in the Gemara Babba Metziah (58b), )ב"ע ז"ל( ןירדהנסב ןנירמא תושפנ יניד ןינעלד ומכד
that the sin of using hurtful language is more serious than the sin of
overcharging a fellow Jew, as one sin affects his body and the other (only) יתאצמו וירחא יתצרו הברוחל וריבח רחא ץרש דחאב
affects his money. And since we do not rely on “incidental testimony” היל ןניבייחמ אלד ףטפטמ ומדו רפרפמ גורהו ודיב ברח
in resolving a monetary dispute to compel the loser to pay the winner
(reference Gemara Babba Kamma 114b), how much even more so, we do םא וליפא תונוממ ינידב הז ןפואב ה"ה ןכ ,הז לע התימ
not accept “incidental testimony” and use oppressive \ punishing language אל כ"ג ,יאה יכ השעמה םצע לע הלודג אנדמוא היהי
against the “victim.”
יתקתעהו ,אנמחר רמא םידע םינש יפ לעד ,היל ןניבייחמ
Similarly, regarding the concept of “believing someone with the same
authority as one would believe two witnesses,” my humble opinion inclines אנדמואמ אפידע יאדוב הז אלהו ,ותבושת תא רפסה ףוסב
me more to think that this too is not a basis for allowing verbal oppression. ומכ העש ךרוצ יפל היה ארטוז רמ םעט אלא ,ארטוז רמד
Even in a circumstance where if the allegation is true verbal oppression
would be permitted, nevertheless here, since the circumstance was made ונבתכש
clear only by a solitary person who is believed by the listener with the ךרוצ ינפמ רבדה רתוה םהלש ,ןיד תיבב קר ךייש אל הזו
same authority as two witnesses, even though the Gemara Pesachim
(113b) allows us to hate the “victim” based on his testimony, meaning that הבר אנדמוא וילע ול שי וליפא ג"הכ דיחיל לבא ,העש
one can conclude an opinion based on the testimony of this solitary person, ולש אוה ץפחהש םידעב ררבל לוכיו ץפחה ונממ בנגש
still the case in the gemara is not comparable to our case. There in the case
of the gemara, he is not taking any physical action against him, the only םא וליפא ולש אוה ץפחהש םידעב ררבל לוכי ןיא יאד(
thing the gemara allows is the prerogative to hate the “victim” privately ןיבל וניב ועבותו רבד ותאמ בנגש ויניעב האור היה
(a passive response) because of the defiant sin he committed. That is very
much unlike our case which involves a proactive response, “hurting” this ןתיש ידכ ותוכהל ול רוסא כ"פעא וב רפוכ אוהו ומצע
“victim” by degrading him, based solely on the testimony of a solitary הישפנל אניד שניא דיבע הזב ןנירמא אלו ולש ץפחה ול
witness whom he (the speaker) believes has the authority of two witnesses.
This issue is similar to the one discussed by the Maharik in Source [#82] תוכהל ול רתומ ןיא ה"פא )'ד ןמיס שירב מ"חב ראובמכ
(#184), that the only instance we rely on solitary witness testimony “who יוהו הישפנל אניד שניא דיבע הזב ךייש אלד ,וריבח תא
is believed with as much authority as two witnesses” is in forbidding a
man to live with his wife (if he believes this witness who said that he saw י"פע תוכהל הזב ול רתומ ןיא ןייד וליפאד ,רבדב ןייד ומכ
her committing adultery), but this concept cannot be used to compel a loss אתיאדכו הרותה םהל הריתה העש ךרוצ ינפמ קר ,ןיד
to someone. Similarly, in our discussion of “incidental Lashon Hara,” the
concept of “incidental” cannot be allowed to uproot the Torah’s esur of ,ומצעל דיחיל אל לבא מ"ח שירבו )א"ע ו"מ( ןירדהנסב
using hurtful language.
(K7/9/6)-(21)..cause a financial loss to the victim: As mentioned 21 Because if witnesses could not validate the stolen object was his even if he
above, from the Gemara Babba Kamma (114b) (“incidental Lashon Hara” saw it being stolen from him and he claimed it and the other party denied
it, even so it would be forbidden for him to hit this person in order to
cannot be used as a basis for causing a financial loss to the “victim”) and retrieve his item, and we do not say that he can take the law into his own
obviously it cannot be used as a basis for punishing him. hands, as is brought down in the beginning of the cited Choshen Mishpat,
th
in the 4 paragraph.
155 178
volume 3 volume 3
6
VOL-3
