Page 262 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Yud - Halachah 2 ד הכלה - ט ללכ

7. The speaker’s remarks may not cause any additional harm רוּבֲע בֹזֲעל ביּחְתי רֶשׁא ,םירִבדּה ןִמ דחא הזו .וֹבּ וּחיִשׂי
ִ
ֶ
ְ
ֲ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
(12) (to this sinner) over and beyond the punishment he would
ֵ
ֶ
ְ
ִ
ְ
ְ
ִ
ָ
ֶ
ֶ
ֶ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
have received had he appeared in court, been convicted by its האליו ,םהירֵבדּ תא וֹעְמָשׁבּ שׁנעי יִכּ ,םיִעָשׁרְה תרַבח הז
judges and punished to the level that the law required. Please .םָתוֹנֲעל
ַ
see a definition of these terms further on in the 9 Kelal of the
th
th
Laws of Esurei Rechilut (the 5 & 6 halachot) as that is the
th
appropriate place to explain these details.
םייח םימ ראב
1. The speaker must be a first-hand observer (5) to the incident and ם"במרה ןושל אוה .ר"השל ילעב תנוכשב )י(
what he is reporting cannot be something he heard from someone קחרה ,תובאב ןנתדכו 'ו הכלה תועד תוכלהמ ז"פב
else unless it was later confirmed as being absolutely true;
.ונכשל יואו עשרל יוא ורמאו ,ער ןכשמ
Be’er Mayim Chayim
:ה"הגה
(K10/2/1)-(5) .. must be a first-hand observer: Because if he only
heard about it, the most he could do is only suspect the report might be true עֹבּקְִל אלֶֹּשׁ ,דֹאְמ רהזִּל שׁיֶּשׁ ןכֶּשׁ לכדּ ,דֹמלִל לכוּנ הזִּמוּ *
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
and so how could he go and publicize something which is not confirmed
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ֲ
ֵ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
ַ
ֶ
ֶ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ָ
to be absolutely true? In this circumstance Rabbeinu Yonah’s leniency ,ןוֹשׁלּה ילעבּ לצא שׁרָדְִמּה תיבבוּ תסנכּה תיבבּ םוֹקמ וֹל
ֵ
ָ
ִ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ָ
rd
(Shaare Teshuvah, 3 sha’ar, section #221) is not applicable (that this יאיִבְמִּמ אוּה םגּ תוֹיהִל הערָה םָתדִּמבּ וּהוּליגּרְיֶּשׁ דבלִּמ יִכּ
circumstance is comparable to the Torah’s permissibility of single witness תיּנֲעֵמ םדי לע םיִמעְפּ המּכּ לֵטבּי דוֹע ,םדא ינבּ לע הבּדּה
ֵ
ִ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ִ
ָ
ָ
testimony‑ this case is not comparable!) because the whole concept of a
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
“witness testimony” evolves from this person knowing what he is testifying הרָוֹתּה תאירִקְ עֹמְשִׁלִּמוּ "וּכרְב"וּ "אבּרַ הֵּמְשׁ אהי ןֵמא"
about based on having seen the incident firsthand and not because he heard ליֵעל יִתּרְאבּ רֶשׁאכּ ,םיִמוּצֲע תוֹנוֲֹע המּכּ דוֹעו ,ץ"ַשּׁה תרַזחו
ֲ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ֲ
ַ
about it from others.
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ְ
תֵע וֹל שׁי םִא טרְָפִבוּ .םָשׁ ןיּע ,'ז הֵשֲׂע תוצִמבּ החיִתְפּבּ
And don’t pose an argument to this statement using as your source the אלֶֹּשׁ איִהה תֵעבּ רהזִּל ךְירִצ דֹאְמ דֹאְמ ,הרָוֹתּ דֹמלִל עוּבקָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
Rashbam in Gemara Babba Batra (39b), the citation beginning with “the
ֶ
ִ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ֲ
ִ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
ָ
opinion that holds in the presence of three people” that the implication of ראָשּׁי רֶשׁא טעְמוּ ,םדי לע לֵטבּי הבּרְה יִכּ ,םהמִּע ברֵעְתִהל
the Rashbam’s commentary is that if someone tells his fellow Jew that he ,וֹדוּמִּלבּ החלצה םוּשׁ ןכּ םגּ וֹל היהי אלֹ ,איִהה תֵעֵמ וֹל
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ְ
heard people saying that so‑and‑so (“Reuven”) said so‑and‑so (“Shimon”)
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ִ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ָ
is illegally occupying his property because he stole it, that the remark is דבלִּמ ,)םיִעטקְ ,םיִעטקְ( יקֵסִפּ יקֵסִפּ היהי יִכּ ,הליִלחו סח
4
exempt from the esur of Lashon Hara, because it is possible that because
the remark was made publicly it could have a beneficial outcome since 39 Ramchal writes in Mesilat Yesharim, Chelkei HaChasidut on the pasuk
the current occupant will now take greater care to protect his deed‑of‑ (Bamidbar 25:13) “Because he was zealous for G-d and brought about an
atonement for the Jewish people,” Chazal especially caution us (Gemara
Shabbat 54b) that whoever is in a position to rebuke others for their sins
5 The accusation that “the property was stolen and the present occupant is a but does not will themselves be judged as having committed that same
thief” is exempt from the esur of Lashon Hara even though it was made in sin.
273 252
volume 3 volume 3