Page 294 - V3

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

determines it really was unfounded, society will rebuke this evil person שיש ןדיד ןודינב כ"אשמ ,אשנהל הריתהש המב ורוסיאל
for needlessly shaming the victim. Perhaps because of public pressure
this person will come to realize his actions were inappropriate and he will ותוא חיכוהל ךירצד רבוס בר םג סויפב וא הבשהב הנקת
appease and apologize to this victim. .םישנאל ונולק םסרפיש םדוק הלחתמ
(K10/4/2)-(15) ..the speaker’s motivation was to keep his
listeners far away from: This concept is supported by the writings
of the Shetah Mekubetzet (Gemara Babba 39b) quoting the Aliyot of םייחה רוקמ
Rabbeinu Yonah Z”L (please see that reference) that this too is called
“purposeful” (and works towards a useful and beneficial outcome). .איִהֶשּׁ המִּמ רֵתוֹי הלועה לידּגי אלֶֹּשׁ )ט( )ד
ְ
ִ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ַ
The reader who is paying close attention to what I’m saying and is carefully
analyzing my words should not question why I did not express this law
additionally in the context of “in the presence of three people” as cited in
the Shetah Mekubetzet which is the source of my comments. Don’t raise םייח םימ ראב
this question because here we were talking about a circumstance where
this person was first warned (not to steal, cheat etc.) as I wrote in the 2 אוהד אוה טושפ .'וכו הלועה לידגי אלש )ט(
nd
rd
halacha, the 3 notation. This is also evident from the Shaare Teshuvah
section #228, that if this person was first warned and refused to listen to היארו .הז רובע ארקנ ער םש איצומו ,רקש ללכב
the warning, then it would be permissible to publicly disclose his (evil) הנשמב )א"ע ו"ט( ןיכרעב ןנירמאד המ יפל רבדל
actions even when not in the presence of three people.
שוריפ( השעמ השועה ןמ רומח ויפב רמואה אצמנ
And don’t challenge me by arguing that Rabbeinu Yonah in Shaare םש איצומו ףסכ 'נ קר בייח התפמ וא סנואהש
Teshuvah was limiting his comments to a case where the disclosure could
be publicized only if it would result in assisting the victim. But that is not הסנקש המ רקיעהד םש ארמגב ןניקסמו )האמ ער
the case in our subject discussion. That here the benefit does not come איצוהש ער םשה לע אוה ער םש איצומ הרותה
from the public pressing this person to appease the victim (and restore the
victim’s loss) but instead the benefit comes from publicizing this person’s .ש"יע התימ הל םורגל הצרד םושמ ואלו הילע
actions so that society will stay away from this evil person and not learn
to tolerate or emulate his evil behavior, and when this evil person hears
society criticizing him perhaps he will change his ways for the good. And
ostensibly this can only happen if this evil person’s actions are disclosed 52 Gemara Arachin, mishnah (15a): “One who slanders either the most
“in the presence of three people” who will then publicize word of his evil prestigious woman among the priestly Kohanim or the least significant
behavior and repeat those remarks, something which could not have been girl among the non-priestly Jews still must pay a fine of 100 pieces of
done in the presence of only one or two people. All this, superficially, silver (irrespective of her standing in society). Therefore we learn that the
was the implication of the first reason brought by the Shetah Mekubetzet punishment for sinful speech is more severe than the punishment for sinful
regarding this leniency of “in the presence of three people.” actions. That the only reason G-d decreed our forefathers who left Egypt
would remain in the desert for 40 years and not enter the Land of Israel
However this entire argument is also baseless and is not so! Because in was because they spoke Lashon Hara.”
that citation the Shetah Mekubetzet concludes at the end of that reference 53 By accusing her of having relations with another man after she became
dealing with the leniency of “in the presence of three people” as follows: engaged (sanctified \ Kiddushin) to her husband.

305 284
volume 3 volume 3