Page 321 - V3

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

(K10/4/5) –(18) ..“ word will get back to him”: This is not תוריבע ןתואב קזחתנו דומל אוהש ןויכד הז ךייש
comparable to what I wrote above in the 1 halacha of this Kelal, “(where
st
we permitted the disclosure) whether the victim was aware of it or not אלש המכ לכ הבושת השע אמש וילע בושחל ןיא
aware of it.” There the reason is as was stated in the quoted reference הליגמב ןנירמאד הממ ערג אלד שוריפב וניאר
to Rabbeinu Yonah, that the speaker’s disclosure is comparable to single
witness testimony in matters of monetary dispute where the obligation הינעמוש יאנסד ןאמ יאה ,אקריפ ףוסב )ב"ע ה"כ(
to testify is unqualified (i.e., that he must testify). But there the case is .'וכו ירש
different, that the public disclosure is permitted only if the speaker first
concluded that there would be a beneficial outcome to the victim in a
matter involving value (i.e., restoring the victim’s money or some other בתכ םש מ"שבש ףאד ג"עצ החכוהד טרפה םג
asset of value). Thus in that case (of single witness testimony) we have no אה עמשמ החכות לבקמ וניאש וב עדויש ןוגכ
doubt that word will get back to “this person” (who created the problem
and from whom we fully expect compensation to the victim). But that is הדמל קר אוהד רשפא ,וחיכוהל בייוחמ יכה ואל
not so in our case, where the speaker assessed the situation and concluded קר אוה רפסמה תנווכד ןויכ אמלעב הוצמו הבוט
there would be no monetary benefit in publicizing this person’s behavior.
Nevertheless, the speaker in publicizing what he saw (in making comments תונהל ו"ח אלו וירחא וננריש י"ע בושיש ותלעותל
about this person that are ostensibly Lashon Hara ), his comments are הלחתמ והוחיכויש אוה בוט רתוי ר"השל רופיסמ
still exempt from the esur of Lashon Hara since his motivation is to alert
society and keep people away from this evil person so they will not learn אלו לכה ידי הזב אצויו הזב וליעוהל לכוי ילוא
to copy his evil lifestyle. ,הלעמל ש"מכו ותונג רפסל ךרטצי
Given this, still, what about the speaker’s violations of the laws of Rechilut
(did they suddenly disappear)? (How could we allow this speaker to make םימעפ המכ רקפש וניארש ןויכ ןידה ןמ לבא
comments about this person that are Rechilut?). Based on what we see כ"א הרוסא איהש לארשי לכל תמסרופמה הריבעב
in our society today, because of the many sins of society, great strife can VOL-3
result if the comments are allowed, that word of these remarks will get ךתימע ללכמ אציד ומכו הזב ךתימע ללכמ אצי
back to this person resulting in severe controversy without any resulting ךלת אל ןינעלו ותימע תא שיא ונות אל ןינעל
benefit. (It is well understood that the essential reason forbidding Rechilut
is to prevent the onset in Jewish society of strife, argumentation and ט"יר רמאמב ת"שב י"ר בתכש ומכו ךימעב ליכר
controversy). It is much more likely that these kinds of comments by the עידוהלו ויללעמב ומילכהל רתומ הז םעטמד
speaker will only provoke controversy and will not appreciably change
society’s attitudes towards this person and cause society to stay away from תוצמ ןינעל ימנ ןידה אוהד רשפא ןכ ויתובעות
him and not be influenced by his evil lifestyle. לבקי אלש רוריבב עדוי וניא םא וליפא החכוה
Even though there is slight reason to permit these comments because it is ביתכ ךתימע תא חיכות חכוה נ"ה אהד ,ותחכות
possible that this person can be influenced by society’s opinion and change תרדא רפסב יתיאר ןכו ,תווצמבו הרותב ךתאש םע
his lifestyle from bad to good, to compensate the “victim” and reimburse
the theft or the “damages” he caused, as I wrote above, nevertheless it םע ,החכוהד ךתימע לע בתכד םישודק 'פב והילא
seems obvious to me to decide the law stringently (and not allow the ץלמ הזה שיאה ערג אלו ,תוצמו הרותב ךתאש
comments). Who knows if public opinion will actually cause this person
to change for the good since he was already approached privately (and .'וכו ץל חכות לא ביתכד

11
311 342
volume 3 volume 3