Page 168 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Zayin - Halachah 12 י הכלה - ז ללכ

unless the circumstantial evidence relates to an interpersonal “crime” and םייח םימ ראב
the listener strives to determine the truth in order to assist the wronged
rd
party, as Rabbeinu Yonah writes in the 3 sha’ar of Shaare Teshuvah,
section # 221 and #228 and as I will explain in detail further on with G-d’s רוקמ ראבא הלחתמ .םירכינה םירבד )בכ(
th
help in the 10 Kelal, the circumstances that would allow this information ה"זעב ראבא ךכ רחאו םירכינה םירבדד אריתיהה
to be repeated. In such a case even in a situation where if this bystander
was not a first hand witness to the incident, but others told him about the .ןאצומ םוקמו ןמעט םינפב יתבתכש םיטרפה לכ
“crime” committed by this person against another Jew, and he (the listener)
has strong circumstantial evidence to corroborate their story as being true, ג"מסב אוה םירכינה םירבד ידי לע אתוירש הנה
then it seems to me that he is allowed to repeat the incident to others and
explain to them why he believes the story is true in order to encourage תועד תוכלהמ 'ז קרפב ינומיימ תוהגהבו 'י ןיואל
them to help the injured party and strive to ensure that truth prevails. רמא לאומשו ארמגב םש אתיאד ו"נ תבשמ ורוקמו
(K7/12/2)-(29)..under no circumstances: Even in a circumstance היב אזח םירכינה םירבד ערה ןושל דוד לביק אל
where it is permitted to tell others, for example, he is striving to determine
th
the truth, as I wrote immediately above in the 28 notation, it is forbidden רבד בישחמ אלד םושמ אלא בר גילפ אל ןאכ דעו
to cause this person a financial loss. הלוע םוקמ לכמד םושמ וא םירכינה םירבדל הז
(K7/12/3)-(30).. cause a financial loss: In the context of this law אביצ לש וירבד לביקש המב הלחתמ דודמ היה
(and similarly in the context of two of the laws we spoke about earlier, האר אל זאו תשוביפמל רשא לכ ךל הנה רמאדמ
namely “incidental Lashon Hara” and “believing someone with the same
authority as one would believe two witnesses) we are talking about a בר איבה ךכלו םירכינ םירבד תשוביפמ לע ןיידע
story (a rumor) circulating about this person which if proven true would היל אריבס אלו ,'וכו ךל הנה קוספה הז היארל
allow a financial loss to be caused to this person, for example, a rumor
that this person was an informer (or something comparable) [and even אלש דוד היה עדויד לאומשל י"שר ץריתש ומכ VOL-3
though it is forbidden to actively cause a financial loss to an informer as הארי םא בישה יאנת לעו התע תעל וירבד ומייקתי
is brought down in Choshen Mishpat, section #388, paragraph #13, still
the difference is if we must be careful not to actively cause a loss to this .*וירבדב תמא
informer, as the Choshen Mishpat only ruled not to actively cause him a
loss (implying that one need not take care not to damage him financially) םירבדד הלעמה םש היה אל ברלד כ"א ל"או
and the source for this law is Gemara Babba Kamma 119a (please see that
reference). But this is not the case in our discussion.] Here there is (only) דוד לביק רמא בר הלחתב םש רמאק ט"מ םירכינה
circumstantial evidence validating the remarks as truth (i.e., that he is an יכ הוה ארקישד הייזח ידכמ 'וכו ביתכד ערה ןושל
informer) and since the circumstances have not been clearly proven true,
one would have to be careful not to cause a loss to this person. If you ךירצ המל 'וכו הינימ הלביק ט"מ הילע ןישלא רדה
would like to understand the essence of these words, please see further on ארקישד הייזח אל םא וליפא וזה המדקהה חינהל 6
in the second half of this sefer, in the Laws of Esurei Rechilut, the 6 Kelal,
th
in the 20 notation of the Be’er Mayim Chayim. There I explained the law קר טלחהב ונימאהלו ונממ לבקל רוסא ןכ םג הוה
th
as formulated by our Authorities regarding Rechilut; someone suffered a דיספהל אל לבא ומצע תא רומשל אמלעב שוחל
significant loss in his business and a rumor circulated naming the person
who caused the loss. Even though there is strong circumstantial evidence א"יס 'ו ללכב ל"נכו םירחאל ז"יע

175 158
volume 3 volume 3