Page 359 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Yud - Halachah 11 גי הכלה - י ללכ

Be’er Mayim Chayim ,םָתִּאֵמ שֵׁקּבלוּ םהל רפּסל וֹל רָתּמ )דל( ,הזבּ אצוֹיּכו
ֻ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ֻ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
(K10/11/1) – (31) .. not to give themselves the license: The ,רוּפִּסּהֵמ אבּהל לע תלעוֹתּ ריּצי םיִמעְפִלו .הזבּ וּהוּעיּסיֶּשׁ
reason for this warning is most certainly because the speaker is lacking
ַ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ֲ
th

compliance with one of the rules stated above, namely the 5 rule, and תאנוֹאו תֶשֹבוּ רעצ ןינִע וּניהדּ( ןוֹממ ןינִעבּ אלֶֹּשׁ וּלִּפא
that is why I wrote “this speaker has absolutely no intention” And because ,)הזבּ אצוֹיּכו םירִבדּ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
so many people are prone to make this mistake, I am going to elaborate
slightly more on this subject in order that you, the reader, should not say
ָ
ֶ
ִ
ֵ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
that I am being too strict in stating this law. וֹפרְחל הצוֹר ינוֹלְפֶּשׁ ךְיא ,רוּרבבּ וֹל עדַוֹנ םִא ,ןוֹגְכּ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ִ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ֲ
rd
This is a quotation from Rabbeinu Yonah in Shaare Teshuvah (3 sha’ar) םיִשׁנאל הז רפּסי םִאו ,ינוֹלְפוּ ינוֹלְפּ רבדּ לע וֹפדּגלוּ
section #221. Understand clearly that in interpersonal matters such as תא םהינְפִל ךְירֲִעיו ,ינוֹלְפּ לֶשׁ ויבוֹרקְִל וֹא םיִבוּשׁח
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ֲ
ִ
ֶ
theft or cheating, etc., a single witness who saw the event can disclose
ְ
ְ
ֲ
ַ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ִ
ִ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
what he saw in order to assist the “injured” party and strive to reach the וּהוּענְמיֶּשׁ רָשְׁפא ,וֹמִּע ןידּהֶשׁ םמצעבּ וּארְיו ,ןינִעה תַתִּמא
truth of the matter. The Torah instructs us that a solitary witness should
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ֲ
ַ
bring testimony in Beit Din (in monetary matters) in order to compel the ,וֹתוֹא ףרֵח רבכֶּשׁ ,רבע רבכֶּשׁ ,רבדּ אוּה וּלִּפא וֹא ,הזִּמ
defendant to swear an oath to his innocence. (Quoted up until this point). וֹא ,ויבוֹרקְִל רבדּה רפּסי אלֹ םִאֶשׁ ,רֵעַשְׁמ אוּהֶשׁ ךְא
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
If that is so, then in the context of the discussion of this halacha, where
no useful outcome or future benefit can come as a result of talking about וֹפרְחל דוֹע אוֹבי ,הזִּמ וּהוּענְמיֶּשׁ ידֵכּ ,םיִבוּשׁח םיִשׁנאל
ֲ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֲ
what this person did, even if there was a solitary witness to the event,
ְ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ֻ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ֵ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ֳ
ְ
ָ
(since no judicial outcome is possible as a result of this single witness’ רפּסל רָתּמ ,הזבּ אצוֹיּכו םינפאה וּלּא לכבּ )הל( וֹפדּגלוּ
testimony and that) his testimony is in fact Lashon Hara. (It is Lashon
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ִ
ְ
Hara) whether the incident involved a sin this person committed in his ינְפִל וֹרבח הזּבְּתי רוּפִּסּה ידֵי לעֶשׁ ףא ,םדא ינבִל רבדּה
relationship with G‑d, as the Gemara Pesachim (113b) discusses in the הצוֹר אוּה קרַ ,הזל רפּסְמה תנוּכּ ןיאדּ ןויכּ ,םיִעְמוֹשּׁה
ֵ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ַ
incident involving Zeegood for which Rav Pappa gave him lashes, or if
ֶ
ֶ
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ֶ
ְ
his sin was interpersonal in the context of this circumstance that no useful וֹא ןוֹממ ןינִעבּ קזנ וּנּמִּמ וֹל היהי אלֶֹּשׁ ,וֹמצע תא רֹמְשִׁל
outcome can result from the testimony of this solitary witness. Therefore,
ַ
ַ
the Torah would forbid this witness from giving testimony, as the Vilna .שׁוּיִּבוּ רעצ
Gaon writes in his commentary on Choshen Mishpat, paragraph #28,
sub-paragraph # 9, quoting the Sifri. (There in that citation, the Gaon
means that even before bringing testimony, this witness knows that from
the perspective of law nothing useful can result from it, therefore he םייח םימ ראב
should not bring testimony at all because otherwise it would only result
in humiliating this person (i.e., Lashon Hara ), as was illustrated by the הצור אוה םא ןכש לכו .'וכו הלוע ול השע )גל(
gemara’s example of Zeegood. But in a more general circumstance, where הזמ והוענמיש רשפא ורופיס י"עו הלוע ול תושעל
there is a (possible) benefit to his testimony, the witness is obliged to
testify before the Beit Din). And of course if this solitary witness brought .הזמ והוענמיש םשקבלו םהל רפסל רתומד
חרכומ ךכ ךותבד ףא .םהל רפסל ול רתומ )דל(
th
66 The 5 rule is that the speaker’s remarks can only be made if his intention is
to achieve a useful outcome. וריבחל יאנג אליממ אוהו השעמה לכ רפסל
349 368
volume 3 volume 3