Page 175 - VOL-2

Sefer Chafetz Chayim
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara

Kelal Dalet - Halachah 4

believe the disclosure. I will explain further on in the 7th Kelal (3rd
halacha) that even if he heard the disclosure from two or more witnesses
he is only allowed to suspect this person. But one is not permitted to
make a judgmental decision since this testimony was presented outside of
Beit Din and it is forbidden to hate this person based on testimony that is
external to the Beit Din (even if two men “testified”). But one can put a
personal judgement on hold and merely suspect this person (and be wary
of him and protect oneself accordingly). And most certainly it would be
forbidden to rely on what these two witnesses disclosed and repeat what
he heard from them to others. And even the two witnesses who saw the
transgression cannot disclose what they saw unless they conform to the
conditions that were cited above (as explained in the Mekor Chayim).

(4/4/4)-(16)..One may not even disclose this person’s actions
to the rabbinical authorities of the city: This is the language of

Rabbeinu Yonah (Shaare Teshuvah, 3rd sha’ar) in section #219 “because
even though it is true that if this person stole or withheld payment from his
fellow Jew (and was witnessed by two people), one is obligated to testify
to this effect in order that the theft be returned (or the payment be made)
based on the court testimony of two witnesses. But if there was only one
witness to the theft, then the Torah enactment of swearing an oath must be
implemented (in order that the defendant be absolved of the return of the
money or, if this person won’t swear he must restore the money that was
claimed to be stolen). But if a witness saw this person committing a sin,
for example, adultery, or some other related sin, it is inappropriate for him
to report his testimony pointlessly, without first rebuking him, even if there
is a second witness with him to corroborate his testimony (quoted up until
this point). The explicit implication of what he (Rabbeinu Yonah) said
is that he may not disclose this testimony even to the judicial authorities.
The Menorat HaMaor also holds this position (2nd section (Ner) at the
beginning of the 4th rule). Please see that reference.

But in any event, it appears to me that if this disclosure is made in a Beit
Din it is not altogether forbidden, but rather it would have been better if
initially it was not disclosed. There is good reason for this (there are many
differences in law between disclosure to a Beit Din and disclosure to the
general public). There is no general benefit to be had from making this
disclosure public. Perhaps this person did Teshuvah, and if he disclosure
was made public he would become needlessly humiliated. But there is a
benefit (i.e., a positive outcome) to making this disclosure in Beit Din, and
that is that this person would now be disqualified from becoming a witness

165

volume 2