Page 279 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Yud - Halachah 1 ה הכלה - ט ללכ

(K10/1/2)-(2) .. was aware of it or not aware of it: This is inferred ידי תאצל זא גהנתי ךיא ןינעלו .'וכו ךותמש וריבח
from the words of Rabbeinu Yonah (cited above in section #221), that “this
law is comparable to that of a single witness appearing in Beit Din,” where .'ה ףיעס 'ו ללכב ליעל ןייע ,םימש
in all circumstances he is obligated to (come forward and) testify (even if
the victim is unaware of the damages inflicted on him). הנוי 'ר ןושל אוה הז לכ .םהב רועגלו תונעל )די(
.ש"יע ז"צק רמאמב ת"שב
(K10/1/3)-(3) ..this” someone” knows about the incident with
certainty: This is a quotation from Rabbeinu Yonah (cited above) in
section #228. This law applies to even an average Jew and all the more .בא 'ז ,'ב רדא ו"כ ,ולסכ ז"י - תרבועמ הנש .בא ג"י ,ןסינ ג"י ,ולסכ ג"י - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
so it applies to a Torah Scholar; that most certainly the speaker must be
absolutely certain of the details of the incident, that the stolen object was
not returned and that there was no attempt made to apologize and appease םייחה רוקמ
the “victim.” As Chazal teach in Gemara Shabbat (19a) “If you see a
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ֲ
ַ
ִ
ַ
ְ
Torah Scholar (commit a sin at night, he undoubtedly did Teshuvah by the םהֶשׁ ,םינּטְקּה וֹתִּבוּ וֹנבִל עמָשׁ םִא וּלִּפאדּ ,עדַו .ה
following morning) etc., …and the gemara continues “but in monetary ,*הזִּמ םָשׁירְִפהלוּ םהבּ רֹעגִל הוצִמ ,ערָה ןוֹשׁל םירִבּדְַמ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
matters etc.,” meaning, that in a situation where this “someone” knows
ַ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ֲ
with certainty that the stolen money was not returned, one may not ,'וֹגו "וֹכּרְדּ יִפּ לע רענּל ךְֹנח" :)'ו ב"כ יֵלְשִׁמ( ביִתְכדְִכּ
ְ
say “perhaps he did Teshuvah to Hashem” because the (only) basis for
ְ
ַ
ְ
ָ
Teshuvah in monetary matters is the return of the stolen money. But in לכּ ןינִעל )'א ףיִעָס ג"מש ןָמיִסְבּ( םיִיַּח חרַֹאְבּ רֵאָבְּתִנֶּשׁ וֹמְכוּ
this matter of damages, if there is uncertainty whether or not the stolen
ַ
money was returned or (in other matters of damages) whether or not this .הרָוֹתּבֶּשׁ םירִוּסִּא
person apologized to the victim or appeased him because of the anguish or
humiliation that he caused, most certainly it is forbidden to publicize his
“crime” and denigrate this person. :ה"הגה
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
(K10/1/4)-(4) ..did not approach the victim: This is a quotation ןינִעבּ םָתוּרֲענִּמ דיִמָתּ וינבּ תא ךְירִדְהל באה ךְירִצ המּכו *
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ְ
from Rabbeinu Yonah (cited above) in section #228 (please see that םירִוּבּדּ ראְשׁ הזבּ אצוֹיּכו( ערָה ןוֹשׁלִּמ ןוֹשׁלּה תרַיִמְשׁ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ָ
reference) that it is referring to mental anguish and humiliation as well as
ָ
ְ
ֲ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
theft or the withholding of wages. In those cases the circumstances can יִכּ ,א"רָגּה בַתכֶּשׁ וֹמכּ ,)רקֶֶשׁו תקֶלֹחמ וֹמכּ ,םירִוּסאה
be remedied if this person apologized and the victim forgave the “crime.” - רבדּ לכּ לע לגּרְההו ,ברַ לגּרְה ךְירִצ תוֹדִּמּהו רוּבּדּה
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ִ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ֶ
And what I wrote in this law “he is permitted to tell other people what
ַ
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ֲ
ֱ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ִ
(evil) happened” is also an expression of Rabbeinu Yonah that is quoted in תצרְִפּ תבִּסֶּשׁ אצְמנ ,בֵטיה ןנוֹבְּתנ רֶשׁאכּ תמאבוּ .ןוֹטלִשׁ
the Shetah Mekubetzet on Babba Batra (39b) and I have quoted him here לגּרְה דחא לכֶּשׁ ינְפִּמ אוּה ערָה ןוֹשׁל לֶשׁ רמּה ןוֹעה
ַ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ֻ
ֶ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
at the end of this sefer.
ֶ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
הלֲעמ ןיאו ,החוֹמ ןיאבּ הצוֹר אוּהֶשּׁ המ רבּדַל וֹתוּרֲענִּמ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
רחא םִא וּלִּפא ךְכלוּ ,רבדּבּ רוּסִּא שַׁשׁח שׁיֶּשׁ ,וֹתְּעדּ לע
ַ
ֲ
ֲ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ָ
וֹעבִטִּמ תוֹטנִל דֹאְמ וֹל הֶשׁקָ רבדּבּ רוּסִּא שׁיֶּשׁ וֹל עדַוֹנ ךְכּ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
וינבּ תא דיִמָתּ ריִהזמ באה היה םִא ןכ אלֹ .זאֵמ וֹל עוּבטּה
ָ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ַ
אלֶֹּשׁ ןכו( ערָה ןוֹשׁל רבּדַל אלֶֹּשׁ ,םָתוּרֲענִּמ הזבּ םליגּרְמוּ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ִ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
269 256
volume 3 volume 3