Page 181 - VOL-2

Sefer Chafetz Chayim
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara

Kelal Dalet - Halachah 4

should reprimand the Chacham). (Don’t say this.) (These contradictions
to the Yad HaKetanah can be answered as follows:) Firstly, because it is
possible to say that these two gemarot are addressing an issue of monetary
dispute and the Gemara Berachot (19a) teaches Teshuvah is not complete
“until the money is returned to its owner.” Moreover, another explanation
is that “tomorrow,” or after some time has gone by, one must conclude
that he (the Chacham) most certainly did Teshuvah, as the language there
states…that if you see a Chacham...at night…by the next morning...he most
certainly made Teshuvah. But at the moment the transgression was being
committed most certainly one is obligated to reprimand him. However,
it requires much thought and analysis if the law is really as stated by the
Yad HaKetana, as it appears to me in my humble opinion that the gemara’s
teaching only applies insofar as judging this person favorably, but does not
exempt the observer from the Torah’s obligation to rebuke this person.

I found a similar thought regarding a different topic in a Responsa by the
Chavot Yair, section #62, in the middle of that Responsa, as follows: “One
may not generalize the Gemara Berachot (19a) and extend the gemara’s
conclusion to the laws that would disqualify a person from becoming a
witness. The only conclusion that can be made based on that reference is
that he remains disqualified until it becomes known that he did Teshuvah.
And it appears to me that even if this person is a Talmid Chacham, our
sages of blessed memory have taught one may not suspect him if a night
has elapsed because most certainly he has done Teshuvah, etc. And some
commentators say that the gemara’s means one should not say “perhaps”
this Talmid Chacham did Teshuvah (that there is some doubt), rather, one
should say he most certainly did do Teshuvah. However, that applies
only to our personal feelings about this Talmid Chacham in judging
him favorably (but from the perspective of law) he is still not absolved
completely, he is still disqualified from becoming a witness, etc., until
the matter is settled. Furthermore, just as today we don’t have Talmedei
Chachamim of the caliber described by the Yerushalmi, that if one shames
a Talmid Chacham one has to pay him a certain amount of gold, so too is
the law in our case.” (Up until this point is the language of the citation).

And if this is so, it is possible that this is also the relevant law in our case.
We don’t hold of the framework that this person most certainly has done
Teshuvah, and therefore we are absolved of the mitzvah of reprimanding
him. (From our perspective he did do Teshuvah, but from the perspective
of the law, we are obligated to reprimand him). The gemara is not
discussing a case where a person wants to reprimand the offender (the

171

volume 2