Page 290 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Yud - Halachah 4 ב הכלה - י ללכ

claim against the victim (i.e., the person who is the subject of the remarks). .ונבתכש ומכ יאדו אלא ,'וכו ותחכות לבקמ
It is possible that in this particular circumstance it would be forbidden
to publicize this person’s actions, except in a case where we could not הטישבש רמאתו ונירבד תא החדת םא וליפאו
give him the benefit of a doubt at all. But if there is a possibility that this
person really committed no (overt) sin, for example, he did not know that הוצמו הבוט הדמל קר הנוי 'ר טקנ תצבוקמ
what he did was wrong, that he was stealing from the victim or otherwise םש ףיסוהש ארבסה יפל קר טקנ םשד וא ,אמלעב
“injuring” him (or something comparable), in this circumstance it would
be forbidden to publicize his actions. Even if a few people told this person ,וישעמ ןקתיו וינזאל םירבדה ועיגיש ןיוכתיש
that what he was doing was thievery or “injury,” perhaps this person simply ,ותחכות לבקמ וניאש וב עדויש ןוגכ בתכ ךכלו
did not believe them as long as he didn’t hear it from the rabbis of the Beit
rd
Din. Rabbeinu Yonah intimates this when he writes (Shaare Teshuvah, 3 הבוט רתוי ותבוטל קר ןיוכתמ וניאש ןויכ ה"לאד
sha’ar, section #228) “behavior that was intentionally (evil),” implying ךרטצי אלו ול עמשי ילוא ותוא חיכויש ול איה
that only if the actions were purposefully malicious could the disclosure
be made. But if the actions were not intentionally malicious, that this .םישנא ינפל ותוא תוזבל
person was ignorant of the law and thought he was doing something that
was not wrong, then in that particular circumstance it would be forbidden אנקל ידכ קר ,ללכ וז ארבס רכז אלש ת"שב לבא
to publicize this person’s behavior and demean him). היהי אלש רהזיש ךא ול םשא רשאל רוזעלו תמאל

But it is possible to refute what I’m saying by arguing that Rabbeinu תואבומה תורבס ךדיאכו ןרקשל וא ףנוחל דשחנ
Yonah was not qualifying his remarks and when he said it was permitted
to denigrate this person he meant so without any qualifications. That ,הנוי 'ר םשב תצבוקמ הטישב םש
Rabbeinu Yonah’s words in Shaare Teshuvah were aimed at any situation
where the outcome would be beneficial and the “injured” “victim” would םדוק וחיכוהל הרותה ןמ בייוחמ ןיאד רשפא
be assisted in having his loss restored (as he explicitly wrote this in section לכמ ,אמלעב הבוט הדמו הוצמל קר וילע םסרפיש
#221). Then most certainly if this person accidentally damaged the
property belonging to his fellow Jew, since the observer \ speaker knows ם"במרה ירבד תא ליעל ונקתעהש המ יפל םוקמ
that in publicizing the “damages” this person will be compelled to restore אידהב םש ראובמ ]א"י ל"צש א"י[ א"קס ףוסב
the loss he caused, it is absolutely permitted to disclose this “loss” for the
reason given by Rabbeinu Yonah, that this is comparable to (the obligation .הלחתמ ותוא חיכוה אל םא ותונג םסרפל רוסאד
of) single witness testimony in matters of monetary dispute. Thus we פ"עו .א"קס ףוס ח"מבב 'ג ללכב ליעל ןייעו
are forced to conclude that this circumstance is considered to be within
the category of “behavior that was intentionally (evil)” since this person חיכוהל ךירצד םינפבש ירבד יתבתכ הלא ונירבד
did not want to restore the loss that he caused (i.e., he did not want to ,לארשי שיא םתסב וליפא אוה הזו .הלחתמ ותוא
compensate the “victim” for the theft or the “damages”). Therefore we
have no proof from Rabbeinu Yonah to support the possibility that it could ,הרות ןב שיא אוה הלועה השעש ימ םא טרפבו
be forbidden to publicize this person’s actions and this matter requires ותאמ עדיל הלחת ומע רבדל חרכומ אוה יאדוב
more thought and analysis.

(K10/4/4) – (17) .. In this regard, the disclosure is only permitted: 47 That the speaker made these remarks specifically for the benefit of the
Meaning that this observer assessed the situation and concluded there sinner.
would be no benefit to this “victim” in matters of monetary dispute. 48 By publicizing the actions of this sinner but not rebuking him directly.

309 280
volume 3 volume 3