Page 103 - VOL-2

Sefer Chafetz Chayim
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara

Kelal Gimal - Halachah 1

the context of an undisciplined, unscrupulous person (known for his evil
reputation) about whom it is permissible to denigrate his actions in public
in order that society should stay away from him and not learn to emulate
his evil lifestyle, as quoted in Gemara Pesachim (112b) involving Rebbe
who ordered his children not to live in Shachnatziv because scoffers lived
there, people who ridiculed the Torah. But if that is so, then one might ask
even if he (Rebbe Yossi) would restrain himself from directly confronting
this person because it would result in hatred and controversy, still it would
be permissible (to denigrate him not in his presence, and so the implication
of Rebbe Yossi’s statement is that he was specifically referring to making
a type of disclosure that he would not have refrained from making in the
presence of this person).

Therefore we are compelled to explain the comment of Rebbe Yossi either
as explained by the Tosafot in Gemara Arachin, as I quoted their words
above in the 2nd Kelal, in the 2nd notation, or as explained by Rabbeinu
Yonah in his Sefer Sha’are Teshuvah (3rd sha’ar, section #228) and the
She’tah Mekubetzet in his commentary on Gemara Babba Batra (39b) as I
will quote further on with G‑d’s help (at the end of this sefer) or (even) as
absolute denigration in situations when it is permitted to hate this person
for his evil doings) and (subject to the condition that) the speaker would
make those same remarks directly to him, as I wrote above. However,
Rav Pappa disputes that and forbids it. Since we see that Rav Pappa was
a later Authority who disagreed with Rava and judged that action (the
remarks offered by Zeegood which were in fact Lashon Hara ) as being
forbidden and punished Zeegood (with lashes) because of it (because of
the remarks Zeegood made about Tuvia) and from the implication of the
Baraiytah there it seems to support Rav Pappa and also (the implication
of the text there that suggests that) Rav Ashi, who was a later Authority
also held the same opinion as Rav Pappa, since he says there “and if
not (if he is not believed by his rebbe with the same authority as two
witnesses) he should not tell him” implying in all situations, as I wrote
above. Moreover, if you don’t hold like this (if you disagree with me, Rav
Ashi should have further stated) if he (the speaker \ the observer) decided
he would make those comments directly to the “victim,” the comments
would have been permissible even if his rebbe did not believe him with the
same authority as two witnesses (and since the text did not say this) then
obviously the remarks would be forbidden in all circumstances. But if so,
how could our hearts become so confident as to allow it? The Rambam’s
opinion, therefore, is well founded, that Lashon Hara is forbidden in all
circumstances, both in the presence of this person and in the absence of this

93

volume 2