Page 349 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Yud - Halachah 10 ה הכלה - י ללכ

(K10/9/3) – (28) .. one Jew committed against his fellow Jew: םגּ רבדּה הלּגְּתי אליֵמִּמוּ ,הּל תיִא ארָבח ךְרָבחדּ ,םירִחאל
ִ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
This same law applies to this person if he commits sins in his relationship
ְ
ְ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ִ
with G‑d, as long as he has an acknowledged reputation for having ןמּקַל ,'ה הצרְי םִא ,בֹתּכנֶּשׁ וֹמכוּ ,אוּה תוּליִכרְ ללכִבוּ ,וֹל
th
committed these sins in the past, as I will discuss in the following 10
ָ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ְ
halacha. וֹתוֹאל רבדּה תוֹלּגל רוּסאֶשׁ ,ןכֶּשׁ לכו .תוּליִכרְ תוֹכלִהבּ
ֵ
ִ
ִ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ֱ
ְ
ֶ
ֶ
And what I wrote “since this speaker knows the sinner would not accept הזדּ ,תמאל אנּקַל וֹתנוּכֶּשׁ ףא ,וילע רבּדֶּשׁ ,אפוּגּ ינוֹלְפּ
any rebuke” is evident from Rabbeinu Yonah as quoted by the Shetah גלגלְמ םיִתוּחְפּה ןִמ דחא םִא וּלִּפא ,הרָוּמגּ תוּליִכרְ אוּה
ֶ
ָ
ֲ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
Mekubetzet who equates this law with the law of “in the presence of
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ֵ
ִ
ְ
ָ
three people” in all of its ramifications. (Meaning, the reasons that would .וֹבּרַ וֹא ויִבא אוּהו ,לארְָשׂיבֶּשׁ בוּשׁחה ןִמ
permit this speaker to make his disclosure are identical in both cases).
Namely, that this type of person (who has an upstanding reputation)
most certainly is motivated by a desire for society to pressure this person
(Rasha) by shaming him into changing his bad ways to do good. Prior to
this, within the discussion of “in the presence of three people,” Rabbeinu
Yonah wrote that (one of the requirements that would permit making this םייח םימ ראב
disclosure is) the underlying premise that society knew this person would
not accept rebuke. And it is obvious that since this speaker has only this רמאמב הנוי 'רמ חכומ ןכ .'וכ רפסמ דחאש )כ(
person’s best interest at heart, it would be better if he first approached
him privately to reprimand him, perhaps he would accept the rebuke and .'וכו ר"הל רפסמ ריפחמו שיאבמו בתכש ח"כר
the speaker would not have to publicize his shame. (Quoted up until this יריימ היהי הז ןפואבו ,'וכו ה"אלב םא קר ש"מו
point). So too is the law the same here (that the speaker must first attempt
to rebuke this person before making a public disclosure of his wrongful רפסמה לש הלועה לדוג רפסל ריתהש המ י"ר
deeds) even though ostensibly that is not the implication of the quoted ןמקל בותכנש ומכו ירקימ תוליכר ה"לאד ר"השל
Shaare Teshuvah to someone who casually reviews it. But to someone
who carefully analyzes it, that statement is only expressed in the context המ דחאל רפסלד םיקסופ ראשו ם"במרה םשב
of the esur of Avak Lashon Hara. However, from the perspective of the ןויכ אוה תוליכר ללכב ינולפ לע רביד ינולפש
mitzvah to rebuke a fellow Jew, most certainly the speaker is obligated to
rebuke this person before the disclosure is made public, perhaps the sinner שממ תלעות הזמ אובי אלש ןנירייא ףיעסה הזבד
will listen to the rebuke (and change his lifestyle to do good). All this is as ומכו םדא ינב ינפל לוע ישוע תונגל קר ןודינהל
th
I wrote it above in the 7 halacha of this Kelal. There I explained this law
in detail, and with G‑d’s help it is correct. Please see that reference. ףיעסד ןידה ןכו הז ןידו ח"י ק"סב ליעל ונבתכש
וכותבש ה"הגההו 'ד ףיעסהל םהיקלח לכב םיוש 'ו
רבדה הלגתנ אל וליפא שממ תלעות שיד אכיהד
Mekor Hachayim
םא וליפא רוסא ה"אלבו וילע רפסל רתומ ןיידע
K10/10. Understand something else very clearly! That it is equally .םיטרפה לכב ומלשוי
Lashon Hara (29) to speak about an interpersonal sin someone
committed just as it is a sin to speak about a sin someone committed
in his relationship with G‑d. However, when the sin involves this
339 314
volume 3 VOL-3 11 volume 3