Page 328 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Yud - Halachah 8 ו הכלה - י ללכ

3
Yonah. And what I wrote here, “it is possible...(…might be lenient)” ה"פא ,ויבא דובכמ רומח ודובכו לארשי לכ לש
perhaps was written there only out of concern for the “first reason,” i.e.,
that society would not suspect the observer of being someone who flatters השמל הז רבד תולגל רוסאד ארמגהל הל אריבס
the sinner (publicly but derides him privately). Therefore Rabbeinu אלו ,אניד יבד אחולש תמחמ אל םא ,ה"ע ונבר
Yonah wrote that in this particular circumstance it would be “permitted” to
“flatter” this person (this Rasha) since Chazal have already said (Gemara .תמאל אנקל היה חילשה ןוצרבש המ ליעומ
Sotah 41b) that “It is permissible to ‘flatter’ (i.e., deceive) evil people.”
But that does not apply to concern for the “second reason,” namely ז"יע אובתש האור אוה םא ,םירחאל תולגל ןינעלו
that society will think the observer \ speaker is a liar (people would think
he was a liar because his disclosure was not made “in the presence of ,רתומ ,םכח דימלתה דובכ רובע ואנקיש ,תלעות
three people” and word of that disclosure would not likely get back to this ףיעסב ליעל ובתכנש םיטרפה ומלשויש ןפואב ךא
person). It is possible that even in the context of this second concern it
still would be permitted to disclose what this person did, that society would םימעפלד א"כ ק"ס ףוסב בותכנש המב ןייעו .'ב
not presume the speaker was a liar since there were indications to support .ןידה הז הנתשמ
his remarks and (that is why) he did not first confront the victim with those
remarks as this is the opinion of Rabbeinu Yonah in his commentary in
Shaare Teshuvah. But where there is an issue of fear (i.e., that the speaker
is afraid of this person because he has the resources to harm him, then it
is possible that there is no presumption the speaker might be a liar and םייחה רוקמ
it would be permitted to disclose what this Rasha did even not “in the
presence of three people”). (And since there are two conditional concerns אלֹ ןידֲַע םִא ףא ,םירִחאל רבדּה רפּסל רָתּמדּ םיִמעְפוּ .ו
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֻ
ְ
ֲ
ֵ
ַ
ִ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ַ
regarding this issue) I expressed this law as “it is possible.”
ִ
ןוֹדּנּהל עיגּיֶּשׁ )אכ( האוֹר אוּה םִא וּניהדּ ,ןוֹדּנּהל עדַוֹנ
ִ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ִ
ַ
Now regarding the rebuke of the sinner, it is conditional. If the observer
ַ
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ַ
determines from the circumstances that it is possible this person will םיִטרְָפּה ןכּ םגּ הזבּ וּרסחי אלֹו )בכ( ,שָׁמַּמ תֶלֶעוֹתּ הֶזִּמ VOL-3
accept his rebuke, then the observer is obligated to go over to this person
ֶ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ֲ
ֵ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ָ
and rebuke him privately and not publicize his actions, as I wrote above in ןינִעבּ ירַבדּ תא ראבאו .םייּח םימ ראבִבּ ןיּעו ,ל"נּה
the third rule (K10/2). However, if he determines that this person will not ,ןוֹגכּ ,הזבּ תוֹעְטִל ארֵוֹקּה אוֹבי אלֶֹּשׁ ידֵכּ ,תלעוֹתּה
ֶ
ֶ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ַ
accept his rebuke, then there is no obligation to rebuke him and in fact it
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ַ
is better if he is not rebuked. Because when the sinner realizes that he is ,רוּפִּסּה ןינִע יִפלוּ לכוֹרה שׁיִאה עבֶטבּ ריִכּמ אוּהֶשׁ
about to be denigrated, it is possible that a consequence of that realization
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ֵ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ַ
would be even more enmity and damages and in the end no good will וּנּמִּמ ךְכּ רחא ךְלי ןכּ ,וינפבּ וֹתוֹא הנּגְמ אוּהֶשׁ וֹמכֶּשׁ
nd
result from this disclosure, as I explained above in the 22 notation, in the המ יִפל ,טרְָפִבוּ ,םירִחא םיִשׁנא ינְפִבּ דוֹע וֹתוֹא הנּגיו
ֲ
ִ
ֵ
ֲ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
th
5 rule. Please see that reference. Therefore this kind of person should
ָ
ְ
ְ
ָ
not be reprimanded. לבּקִ אלֹו ,וֹחיִכוֹהו ,םדֶֹקִּמ וֹחיִכוֹהל ךְירִצדּ ,וּנבַתכֶּשּׁ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ֻ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
וּנלּכּ טעְמִכּ יִכּ ,םיִבּרַה וּניֵתוֹנוֲֹעבּ ,עוּדי הז רבדו .וירָבדּ
ָ
ָ
63 Paraphrasing the text of the Aliyot of Rabbeinu Yonah as it appears in the
ִ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
Shetah Mekubetzet (Babba Batra 39a) which the Chafetz Chayim amends to בוֹרקָו ,ערָה ןוֹשׁל תלבּקַבּ ,טרְָפִבוּ ,ערָה ןוֹשׁלבּ ןיִלָשׁכנ
this sefer following the Shu’t Chavot Yair and Shu’t Maharik: “The gemara
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
Babba Batra (39a) [Arachin 16a] states in the name of Rabba Bar Rav Hunah: ךְכּ רחא הֶשׁקָ היהיו ,וֹלֶּשׁ ערָה ןוֹשׁלה לבּקְַתִתֶּשׁ ,רבדּה
11
335 318
volume 3 volume 3