Page 99 - VOL-2

Sefer Chafetz Chayim
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara

Kelal Gimal - Halachah 1

witness’ remarks, what he reported, are characterized as Lashon Hara
(and we cannot assume Rebbe Yossi was addressing his remarks in this
context).

And furthermore, don’t think to say that the reason Zeegood received
lashes was because his remarks were made without Tuvia being present
(and if Zeegood’s disclosure was made in Tuvia’s presence it would have
been accepted by Rav Pappa). First, why would Rav Pappa give lashes to
Zeegood if he did not summon Tuvia to be present when Zeegood presented
his testimony? Moreover, a judge may not accept testimony without the
opposing party being present. But from the language of the gemara one
can infer that if two witnesses gave testimony, that testimony would be
admissible based on the principle that the acceptance of testimony in Beit
Din is valid only when presented in the presence of the opposing party to
the dispute; thus it must follow that Tuvia was there to hear Zeegood’s
testimony. In addition, the text of the gemara says “He gave testimony
against him” (implying that Tuvia was present when the disclosure
was made) and it does not say “He testified about him” (i.e., not in his
presence). And also, from the very outset the text of the gemara says there
are three types of people that HaKadosh Baruch Hu hates, one of whom
is a solitary witness to an immoral act who brings testimony against the
offending party (and not merely brings testimony about him, meaning, that
testimony is given in the presence of the offending party). Yet HaKadosh
Baruch Hu certainly knows the testimony is true and nevertheless He hates
this solitary witness because of his testimony (which is judicially pointless
and therefore defamatory).

And don’t say that the Gemara there is only speaking about an instance
of a single witness giving testimony in court and it was evident that the
intention of the witness was to be decisively believed with the same
authority as two witnesses in court, because (in so doing) he would
violate the Lav of (Devarim 19:15) “One (solitary) witness may not give
testimony against his fellow Jew.” But that would not be the case if he
was simply reporting to other people, because it is possible his intent is
to inform society (to make society aware of this person) so that people
will protect themselves from this person and that they would believe the
reporter only to the extent that they would suspect his testimony might be
true. Inasmuch as the Torah does not distinguish between Lashon Hara
presented in front of a Beit Din or spoken to a group of people, the Torah
is extending its “protection” to a “victim” who is still categorized as “your
bother \ your fellow Jew.” But when the “victim” is this person (who

89

volume 2