Page 190 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Zayin - Halachah 9 גי הכלה - ז ללכ

13
interpersonal context and the speaker’s only motivation in repeating the ארטוז רמש םייח תרות רפסב ה"זעב כ"חא יתאצמ ןכו
remarks was to arrive at the truth and assist the injured \ wronged party,
still this speaker must be very careful not to repeat the remarks as though .הז רבדב היה ןייד קר אדיסח
they were a certainty but rather to repeat them in the context of “and this is
what I heard people say” and even at that the subject requires more thought
and analysis. Please see what I wrote further on in the second half of this .זומת ה"כ ,'ב רדא ו"ט ,ולסכ 'ו - תרבועמ הנש .בא 'ג ,ןסינ 'ג ,ולסכ 'ג - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
th
th
sefer, in the 9 Kelal, in the Be’er Mayim Chayim of the 9 notation. A
much better approach would be to first thoroughly investigate the matter םייחה רוקמ
until the truth becomes apparent and he concludes that a private discussion
with the “victim” would not be useful. The additional details associated ,העָשׁ ךְרֶֹצ ינְפִּמ ןידּ תיבל תוּשׁרְ ןָתּנ )בל( םיִמעְפִלו .גי
th
with this law can be found in the second half of this sefer in the 9 Kelal. ָ ֵ ִ ֵ ְ ִ ָ ְ
ִ
ָ
ְ
בנגנֶּשׁ הבנגּ רבדּ לע םהינְפִל קֹעצִל אבּ דחאֶשׁ ,ןוֹגכּ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
Regarding the issue of if the person repeating the remarks is believed (by
this listener) “with the same authority as two witnesses” and his (Lashon ינוֹלְפֶּשׁ ,שׁמּמ םירִכּנּה םירִבדְִבּ יאדּובּ רֵעַשְׁמ אוּהו ,וּנּמִּמ
ָ
ִ
ַ
ָ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ַ
Hara) remarks concern an interpersonal event, and now this listener wants
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ִ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ַ
to repeat those remarks in an effort to arrive at the truth – even though ,םירִכּנּה םירִבדּה תא ןיִאוֹר ןידּ תיבּה םגו ,ץפחה וּנּמִּמ בנגּ
from the perspective of law one could argue that it would be permitted,
ִ
ָ
ֵ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ָ
just as though he had seen the event himself, nevertheless after having םהל ןָתּנ ,םירִכּנּה םירִבדּה לע םהינְפִל וּדיִעה םידִֵעֶשׁ וֹא
th
written above in the section dealing with the Laws of Rechilut (9 Kelal, תיבל וּלִּפא וֹא ,דיִחיל לבא .הדֶוֹיֶּשׁ ידֵכּ ,וֹתוֹכּהל תוּשׁרְ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ֲ
ֲ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
7 halacha) that our inclination leans towards concluding that nowadays
th
ִ
ִ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ָ
the concept of “believed with the same authority as two witnesses” no לע םִא יִכּ ,םירִכּנּה םירִבדּה םהל ררֵבְּתנ אלֶֹּשׁ קרַ ,ןידּ
longer exists, therefore the imperative is to be very careful and thoroughly
ְ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ִ
ֵ
investigate the matter to determine if the remarks are true. Please reference .הזּה תוּשׁרְ ןָתּנ אלֹ ,עבוֹתּה ידֵי
th
the second half of this sefer, in the 9 Kelal, that lists several conditions
that must be met before the remarks can be repeated even if this person
witnessed the wrong that one Jew did to another, and he now wants to be
zealous for the sake of truth. How much more so in our case where he did םייח םימ ראב
not witness the event!
ארטוז רמד השעממ אוה .'וכו תושר ןתינ )בל(
Understand something more, that in the formulation of these two halachot ש"מו .א"ל ק"סב ליעל יתראיבש המ יפכו ל"נה
there is no difference if the event was a matter between man‑and‑G‑d or
interpersonal, (one may not believe an “incidental” remark as truth) except ,שממ םירכינה םירבדב יאדוב רעשמ אוהו םינפב
for the detail of repeating the story (“incidentally”) to others, where I do איזחד ארמגב ןנירמא ארטוז רמד השעמב םשד ףא
have a slight doubt, as I wrote above. 14
הזו הירבחד אמילגב ביגנו הידי ישמד בר יב רבל
13 The editor of the Poral Ta’asiyot edition adds the flowing comment: In my אלד טושפ ל"צ תצק רכינה רבד םא יכ יוה אל
humble opinion it seems to me that when the Chafetz Chayim used this same עודיד ש"ארה בתכ אלה םתהד וננינעל ללכ ימד
expression elsewhere, some words were added that are missing here and
perhaps those words should appear here as well, namely, “in the context of ראש לעד ןויכ כ"או ובנג תיבה ינבמ דחאש היה
man-and-G-d or in an interpersonal context,” etc.
רכינה רבד םוש היה אל ארטוז רמ לש תיבה ינב
153 180
volume 3 volume 3