Page 153 - VOL-2

Sefer Chafetz Chayim
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara

Kelal Dalet - Halachah 1

(62a) comments, what is the value of Teshuvah if the stolen article is still
in his possession? (Please see that reference).

The answer to this question lies in that the whole concept of Teshuvah is
entirely based on the crime that was committed and how that crime was
remedied. For example, if this person stole, but now he is leading an
exemplary lifestyle, and he has the means to restore the theft but he won’t,
he is still in the category of one who sins in his interpersonal relations (and
his Teshuvah is worthless). There are many laws that will be explained
with G‑d’s help in the 10th Kelal regarding the kinds of remarks that can
be said about this type of person and when those remarks are considered
Lashon Hara.

But here we can establish a framework where this man does not have the
means to make restitution, or in a case where the return of the theft is
irrelevant, as for example, he was not literally a thief but his business
conduct was not entirely consistent with the halacha. His business was
run by argument and dispute and schemes that would snatch away the
livelihood that was intended for another Jew, as we see happening around
us because the sins of the times are so great. This type of man rationalizes
his business conduct and his Yetzer Hara convinces himself that it is all
right because he also has to make a living. But now that this man has
changed his lifestyle and is now upright and straight in all of his dealings,
then one must presume he did heartfelt Teshuvah. One has absolutely
no basis now for denigrating this person, even if his earlier doings were
common knowledge and even if he is unable to placate everyone with
whom he had prior business dealings (because otherwise he would have
had to approach every other individual in the city and try to placate them).
An explicit proof to this is that Rabbeinu Yonah writes in Shaare Teshuvah
section #221 that remarks can only be made for the sake of being zealous
for the truth and to assist the person who was the victim of this man. (Please
see that reference). But here in these two illustrated circumstances [(1)
where the sinner had no money to return and (2) a businessman who had
mishandled his business relationships] all this is obviously not relevant.

(4/1/4) – (4).. something which is halachically inappropriate:

This subject is discussed by Rabbeinu Yonah in Share Teshuvah, the
3rd sha’ar, in section #215 and #219. It is also evident in the Rambam,
in Hilchot De’Aut (in 6th perek, in the 7th and 8th halachot) as follows:
“Someone who saw another Jew sin, etc...it is a mitzvah to return him to

143

volume 2