Page 285 - V3

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

purchase even though the report of that remark could have been a lie and ,ל"נה הנוי 'ר ןושל אוה .וירבדב דשחי אלש )ט(
that Reuven never even said the land occupant (Shimon) was a thief. If
that is so, then here too in our case if the speaker’s intention is that some קר ,ןידה ןמ רפסל רתומש םוקמב ףא רמולכו
good would accrue to the “victim” from the remarks, then why should it be ובלמו םינכ םירבדה ןיאש םיעמושה והודשחיש
forbidden in our case? (Don’t pose this argument) because there is a real
distinction between these two cases. There, in that case, the speaker is not ןזוא תא הליג אל עודמ ורמאי וא ,םאדוב אוה
saying the squatter (Shimon) is occupying the property illegally, that he תנוכ ןיאש הזמ חכומ ,הלחתב רסומל אטוחה
stole it, or that there Reuven who made the public declaration ever called
Shimon a thief. This person is only reporting what he heard, that Reuven רבדל הנהנש קר ,תמאהו קדצה ליבשב רפסמה
said Shimon is illegally occupying his property and that he stole it. But הז לכ ראיבש ומכו דבכתי םנולקבו םעה תמשאב
that is not our case because here, on the basis of (only) hearing about this
sin \ incident involving Reuven, the speaker (himself) concluded Shimon .םש ןייע ,ח"כר רמאמב י"רה
was a thief (or something comparable) and this is absolutely forbidden.

Moreover, there in the case of the “squatter,” the potential for a beneficial
outcome was greater than here in our case. There, when word of Reuven’s םייחה רוקמ
public declaration of property ownership reached Shimon, most certainly
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ְ
Shimon would take great care to protect his deed‑of‑purchase. But that is ןכֶּשׁ לכו ,*ערָה ןוֹשׁל ילֲעבּ תנוּכְשִׁבּ )י( רוּדל רוּסא .ד
not the so in our case. Telling other people what happened in order that
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ֶ
ֲ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ִ
they assist the victim of the theft, or because people are talking about the לבּקַל וֹתְּעדַבּ ןיא וּלִּפאו ,םהירֵבדּ עֹמְשִׁלו םהמִּע בֵשׁיל
perpetrator and that peer pressure will force him to turn away from his evil ליֵעל וּנבַתכֶּשׁ וֹמכוּ ,עֹמְשִׁל וינזא הֶטּמֶּשׁ ןויכּ ,רבדּה תא
ְ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ָ
lifestyle are not realistic outcomes and are not likely to happen. Therefore
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ְ
it is forbidden to make those remarks unless the speaker himself witnessed ,וידיִמלַתִּמ דחאבּ )אי( ַעדֵוֹי אוּה םִאְו .'ב ףיִעָס 'ו לָלְכִבּ
the incident.
ַ
ָ
אוּה םִא ,וֹתִּאֵמ וֹקיִחרְהל ךְירִצ ,ןוֹשׁלּה ילֲעבִּמ אוּהֶשׁ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
Now, regarding the subject of informing someone that something was
ָ
ַ
ָ
taken from them and this “victim” was not aware of it please see further .החכוֹה וֹל ליִעוֹתּ אלֶֹּשׁ ,עדֵוֹי
th
on in the 7 halacha of the 9 Kelal in The Laws of Esurei Rechilut
th
ְ
עֵמוֹשׁו ,ןוֹשׁלּה ילֲעבּ תרַוּבחבּ ספְּתנ סנֹא הזיאבּ םִאו
ַ
ִ
ַ
ֶ
ֲ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ֵ
ָ
ֶ
)בי( ,רָשְׁפאֶשׁ רֵעַשְׁמ אוּה םִא ,ערָה ןוֹשׁל םירִבּדְַמ םהֶשׁ
ָ
ְ
Mekor Hachayim
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ֻ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
אוּה ביּחְמ יאדּובּ ,הזִּמ םקָיִסְפהל םהל ליִעוֹתּ וֹתּחכוֹתֶּשׁ
ַ
2. The speaker must be extremely careful not to immediately
ָ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ֲ
conclude that the incident had to have been a case of theft or cheating וֹתּחכוֹתֶּשׁ ,רֵעַשְׁמ אוּה םִא וּלִּפאו ,הרָוֹתּ ןידִּמ םחיִכוֹהל
or damages or something comparable. Instead he must carefully לקֵלקַי אלֹ )גי( ךְַא ,הֶז ידְֵי לַע וּקיִסְפַיֶּשׁ ,םֶהָל ליִעוֹתּ אלֹ
ְ
ְ
consider (6) the circumstances of the incident and then decide
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ָ
ֶ
ֶ
whether or not the law defines the incident as theft or damages; וּרְמאֹי ןפּ יִכּ ,קֹתְּשִׁל יאַשּׁרַ וֹניא הזבּ םגּ ,הז ידֵי לע ןכּ םגּ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ַ
ָ
יִכּ ףא ,םהירֵבדּ לע הדוֹה יִכו ,םה וֹמכּ אוּה יִכּ ,וילע
ֶ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ָ
רֶשׁא ,קידּצו יקִנ דוֹבכִל םהבּ רֹעגִלו תוֹנֲעל )די( בֵיַּחְתִי
ְ
ָ
ֲ
275 250
volume 3 VOL-3 9 volume 3