Page 292 - V3

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

9
“This personality trait is characteristic of someone who has no intention םלשוי אל ה"לאד ,הזל ואיבה המו ולש רתיהה םעט
of personally benefiting from the disclosure of another person’s (character)
flaws, but rather his intention is that this (evil) person should hear how ןידהש ול הארי ילוא יכ ,םינפב ל"נה ינשה טרפה
he is being degraded by society,” and there Rabbeinu Yonah permits the דע ךריבח תא ןידת לאו תובאב ל"ז םרמאמכו ,ומע
disclosure even if there aren’t three listeners present to hear them as long
as this “speaker” has an acknowledged reputation as someone who is not a .*ומוקמל עיגתש
flatterer or a liar. (The speaker is permitted to make his disclosure to this
listener because) most certainly he would also say it directly to the evil תוכלהמ 'ו קרפב ם"במרה כ"כ .הכר ןושלבו )ח(
person who is the subject of the remarks. This is how Rabbeinu Yonah .ש"יע תועד
concludes in that reference discussing “remarks made directly to the
person who is the subject of those remarks or remarks disclosed publicly
by this speaker in the presence of three people, and those remarks will
filter back to the subject of those remarks, since the speaker’s specific :ה"הגה
intention is to encourage society to denigrate this person’s evil behavior
and pressure him to change his ways to do good.” This entire approach is ףד( תומביב אליש 'רו ברד השעמב ד"נעל חכומ ןכו *
not based on the leniency of “in the presence of three people.” And all the ,ןידכ אלש אשנהל תחא השאל ריתה אליש 'רש ,)א"כק
more so in our case, where the speaker first approached him privately and
tried to convince him that what he was doing was “wrong” and this (evil) ולאשיש דע לאומש ובכעו ,הז לע היתמשל בר הצרו
person refused to accept the rebuke. Here, in this circumstance there is .העטש אליש 'ר הדוהו ,היה ןכו .אליש 'ר יפ תא הלחתמ
not the least suspicion that the speaker was at all motivated by some self
interest as he has no intention to personally benefit from this Lashon Hara םש ןייעו ,ןוא לכ קידצל הנואי אל ברד הילע לאומש ירקו
(meaning that the speaker’s remarks are totally exempt from the esur of םדוק והידנמ היה םא ןוא ארקנ הז רבדד אמלא .י"שרב
Lashon Hara and the remarks need not be made “in the presence of three
people”). יאדוב ונינינעבד רמול לכונו .ומצעב אליש 'רל לאשש
הלחתמ בר רבס םשד ,לאומשכ גוהנל ךירצד הדומ בר םג
Rabbeinu Yonah’s intention in bringing down this first reason is that if this
speaker did not first go directly to this (evil) person to reprimand \ speak הנקת ןיאש רוסיא לע רבעש אליש בר תא תודנל ךירצש
to him (but instead went public with his disclosure) society would more
likely think the speaker was motivated by some self‑interest, somehow 50 Gemara Yevamot (121a): There was a man who drowned in Lake Samkeh
benefiting himself from the Lashon Hara and that the disclosure would not (Samkeh is “fish” in Arabic) and Rav Shelah permitted his wife (his widow)
reach this person for whom it was intended, because when the speaker’s to re-marry. Rav said to Shemuel “Let us excommunicate him.” Shemuel
remarks are not publicized it is unlikely that his remarks will reach the responded, “Let us first send someone to ask him.” They sent a question
person for whom they were intended. But if the speaker first went over to Rav Shelah to decide: “A man who (apparently) drowned in waters that
to this person and directly rebuked him, then necessarily the speaker’s were endless, is his wife permitted to re-marry or not?” (If the waters
intentions were to achieve a useful, beneficial outcome and his Lashon are “endless,” then we have to be concerned about the real possibility
that he climbed up out of the waters in some distant place and that he is
Hara remarks were not made to satisfy some personal self‑interest and all still alive, a circumstance that would preclude his wife from re-marrying).
of what I have said here is obvious. He responded, “She is forbidden to re-marry.” They asked again “and
Lake Samkeh, are its waters “endless” or is there an end to them?” He
(K10/4/3)-(16) .. the speaker had no desire to benefit personally: responded back to them “Its waters are endless.” They again asked him
This subject requires more extensive thought and analysis when the issue “Then why did the Master decide the case (of that woman) as he did?” He
involves no personal benefit to the speaker but does not involve a monetary answered, “I made a mistake.”

307 282
volume 3 VOL-3 10 volume 3