Category: Sefer Chofetz Chaim

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Hilchis Rechilus chapter 1 halachos 4, 5

Halacha 4: It forbidden to be a tale bearer of news you heard or saw even if it is true. Not only if the party you are telling it to and the party you are talking about are on good terms with each other for sure that is terrible and the medrish in Vayikra Rabba 16:1 says there are 6 categories of people hated by Hashem and a seventh which is worse then all of them which is a person who speaks rechilus causing fights amongst loved ones. But even if they hate each other already it’s still rechilus to stoke the coals. There are many indications in chaza”l and poskim that rechilus even about the truth is still forbidden.

1. Moed Kattan 16a: Only a messenger of the court can tell the court if the person he was sent to summon to court cursed out the court but if he isn’t a messenger of the court he can’t tell the person spoken about even if true. This is learned from Moshe sending a messenger to summon Nadav and Avihu to his court and they cursed out Moshe. The messenger told what happened. The gemara says only because he was messenger of the court he was allowed to say if not it would be rechilus. We also see from here that there is rechilus even between 2 people who hate each other for Nadav and Avihu definitely hated Moshe as apparent from the verses dating all the way back to when they were in Egypt and Moshe Rabbeinu hated them because there is a mitzva to hate anyone who tries to convince and certainly if he is successful at convincing other to stay from Hashem’s Torah. No matter if it’s going idolatry or any other sin, all is going against Hashem which is a sin so one who convinces other to do that is hated by Hashem and there is a mitzvah for every Jew to hate that person whether he badly influences an individual or a group. Nadav and Avihu convinced hundreds to join them in rebellion against Moshe and the Torah given through Moshe therefore there was a mitzvah to hate them, still in all if the person telling the news wasn’t the messeof the court then he would not be able to tell Moshe what Nadav and Avihu told him.

2. Another proof that rechilus is even about the truth is from the gemara in Sanhedrin 29a which says that you can’t write down (announce) by name which judge said guilty or innocent because that would be rechilus.

3. In Bava Kamma 99b there was a case of a cow that was invalidly shechted the owner took the shochet to court to get his money back. Rav mistakenly said the cow was a treifa anyway so it would never have been kosher. Rav Kahana and Rav Asi poskined as a majority that the shochet has to pay for the mistake he made. They told the owner later that Rav had made a mistake. The gemara asked how Rav Kahana and Rav Asi could have told the owner of what happened isn’t that rechilus, even if it was true. The Rambam, Sma”g and Rabbeinu Yona all clearly poskin that rechilus is even on the truth as well.

Halacha 5: Itmakes no difference if on your own fruition you tell someone rechilus or if someone convinces you to divulge what the other guy did to him or said about him. Even if a rabbi or parent asks who did it or said it, as long as telling isn’t constructive, then it is rechilus, no matter how bad the news is, even if it is avak rechilus, it is nevertheless forbidden. Proof to this is because Doeg was held accountable for saying rechilus against Dovid and the city of Kohanim that protected him. King Shaul coaxed Doeg into telling him what happened besides the fact that he was and Doeg was afraid of the king still in all he was guilty of speaking rechilus. This is no different than someone trying to convince you to eat pig, you still would never do that and if did you get a sin so why woukd someone convincing you to divulge information which is rechilus be any different, it’s still forbidden and you should be held liable even if coerced for the sin you did.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos Rechilus, chapter 1, halacha 3

Even if there was no bad intent one can still transgress rechilus When he tells someone what so and so did to him or said about him. Rabbeinu Yona in Shaarei Tedhuva (74) says that a person is punished for negligence which results in lashon hara even though he had no intention of insulting the other. This would also apply to rechilus. For example, if Shimon rebukes Reuvain about what he said or did. Reuvain tries to defend himself and brings a proof because Yehuda did or said the same thing. Even if you weren’t trying to get Yehuda in trouble but if Reuvain thinks Shimon will start hating Yehuda, then that’s considered rechilus and cannot be said as a defense.

There are many proofs to this halacha. For one, the Sifri in Biha’aloscha says that Miriam did not have any malicious intent when she told Aharon that Moshe separated from his wife, still in all she was punished. The Ramban in Devarim 24:9 says straight out that even if you have no intent to do any damage it’s still rechilus. Bottom line you have to think before you talk lest you come to be negligent in speaking rechilus.

Another clear-cut proof the Chofetz Chaim brings is from a gemara in Sanhedrin 30a. When the Jewish court presents the final decision in a case, Rebbe Yochanan holds that the official written document for the decision should not spell out which judges said guilty, and which said innocent because that would be rechilus. Clearly there is no malicious intent there, of trying to malign any judges. The court statement would just say which judge said what. Still in all it is rechilus.

Another proof is from a gemara in Shabbos 33b where Rebbe Yehuda, Rebbe Yossi and Rebbe Shimon bar Yochai were sitting around shmuzing and Rebbe Yehuda ben gierim (he was a son of converts) was nearby listening. Rebbe Yehuda said that the Romans did so many wonderful things like build roads, bridges, and marketplaces. Rebbe Yossi stayed quiet. Rebbe Shimon bar Yochai said they did all that for their own benefit. Rebbe Yehuda ben Geirim told over this conversation to his students and parents. Somehow the Roman government found out about it. They rewarded Rebbe Yehuda, Rebbe Yossi went into exile and Rebbe Shimon bar Yochai was eventually executed. Before he was executed, he found Rebbe Yehuda ben Geirim one day in the market and he said what are you still doing around and he looked at him with an evil eye and Rebbe Yehuda ben geirim turned into a pile of bones. Now Rebbe Yehuda ben Geirim wasn’t trying to eat on Rebbe Shimon bar Yochai, and he was known to be a great rabbi with students but still what he said caused the execution of rebbe Shimon bar Yochai and therefore he was held liable for rechilus and deservingly punished as the Kesef Mishna points out.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Rechilus chapter 1 halachos 1, 2

Even though many halachos that apply to lashon hara will be repeated in Hilchos Rechilus but it’s worth it to repeat and not have you figure it out by yourself to ensure no mistakes. Essentially rechilus is tattletaling. It is a severe sin which is the main sin of “Don’t be a tale bearer amongst your people” (Vayikra 19:16). It causes much murder amongst the Jews as we see by the case of Does HaAdomi and that is why the pasuk right after this one is “You should not stand over the blood of your friend.” Because of Doeg HaAdomi a whole city of Kobanim, Nov, was wiped out. Doeg HaAdomi told King Shaul that Achimelech gave David bread and Goliath’s sword. This normally would not have been a big deal and if Shaul would have asked Achimelech if he gave David the sword when David was found with it he would have admitted to it since Achimelech thought he was doing King Shaul a favor by giving his son-in-law, who was respected in his household bread to eat and the sword of the enemy he defeated. However, Doeg knew that Shaul had insane jealousy for David and when he told King Shaul the news he knew Shaul would get upset and he murdered a whole city who was helping David. That is the power of rechilus.

 Besides this sin you are able to transgress other sins as discussed in the beginning of the sefer just like by lashon hara. What exactly constitutes rechilus? It’s peddling words from one person to another. For example, as the Sma”g (lav 9) states, If one tells you something in private about someone and then you go over to that guy and say, so and so was just talking about you and this is what he said about you (and said negatively) that is the classic example of rechilus, as the Shaarei Teshuva says (222). Also, if Reuvain says to Shimon, this is what Levi did to you, or I heard this is what Levi did to you or wants to do to you. All this constitutes rechilus assuming there is no positive purpose of telling what happened, which will be discussed in chapter 9.

What makes rechilus so bad is that if Shimon would have confronted Levi by himself then Levi might not have denied any allegations, or if Levi did nothing wrong and the truth is with him, or the intent is not what was originally thought then nothing bad could have come out. But now that Reuvain tells over the story to Shimon of what Levi said or did then he might put a negative spin on the issue and an argument will ensue or wrong implications will be concluded that will lead to fights and potential murder That is why rechilus is so bad.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim hilchos lashon hara chapter 10 halachos 16, 17

  Halacha 16: One has to be very careful not to fall into the mistake and think because I found out he spoke lashon hara about me behind my back I can now tell other people that he spoke lashon hara about me behind his back A. You can’t accept the lashon hara that he spoke lashon hara about you as truth. B. Even if it is true that doesn’t give you the right to tell anyone else what they did. Two wrongs don’t make a right!

Halacha 17: The last halacha ends with what might be the most common scenario of lashon hara. Reuvain asked Shimon, “who did it?” Suspecting he did it. Still, it’s not so easy to say he can reveal who did it, rather Shimon should say “I didn’t do it.” However, if Reuvain can figure out who did it if you say I didn’t do it because the choice is only two perpetrators then it gets more complicating. First off, we have to clarify that in situations where a real sin was done between man and his fellow man and retribution is needed or the perpetrator has to be stopped from doing the sin and all the prerequisites are met then of course you can tell who did it. Even in cases of a sin between man and Hashem and all the prerequisites are met then of course you can tell who did it. The scenario where the Chofetz Chaim says you have to say, “I didn’t do it” and not say who did it is when the issue is a gray area which not everyone would say is a problem, for example Reuvain says who call Jamal a black man they should have referred to him as an African American. If Shimon feels he is being blamed, he can say I didn’t do it. Just because someone asks you a question that does not mean you have to give an answer even if you saw and know what happened, even you feel they are trying to put the blame on you. Again, if it is a real black and white problem which has to be fixed then you can say I didn’t do it even if there is only two possibilities of who did and you said I didn’t but if the problem isn’t black and white then it’s not so simple to say I don’t know, because automatically the other will be at fault for what the speaker claims is a problem in his eyes what should you do? The Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat 384:2 in the Rema it says if you see damage going to happen to you it is permissible to save yourself from it even though by doing so you might cause damage to others. The Sem”a says that if the damage has already happened to you, you can’t get out of it at the expense of someone else. The Gr”a agrees with the Sem”a. This applies to physical damages as well as psychological damage therefore in terms of our situation of verbal abuse where a person decides someone did something wrong and he confronts him to see if actually did it it’s possible that one is forbidden to say who really did it because the damage is already done since in his eyes you are the culprit if not it might be permissible to deflect blame, but the Chofetz Chaim concludes that he is unsure of this matter. All this is in a situation where a third party is trying to figure out what happened if the victim is trying to figure out who did or said something, that will be discussed in the next volume, 9:14,15 of hilchos rechilus. Also, all thus is according to the strict letter of the law, but a person of higher standards should go beyond the letter when possible and take the blame on himself rather than someone becoming embarrassed even if the other person is the guilty party. Two examples of this are found in Sanhedrin 11a where Rabban Gamliel asked for 7 people to get together early with him and 8 showed up. He said whoever was invited walk out and Shnuel Hakatan walked out even though he was invited in order not to embarrass the uninvited. Another time Rebbe was giving shiur and he smelled a strong stench of garlic and he said who ever Ate garlic walk out. Rebbe Chiya got up and walked out and then everyone else followed suit. Rebbe Shimon the son of Rebbe asked Rebbe Chiya if he really was the one who caused his father anguish and Rebbe Chiya responded, no, chas vishalom.

The Chofetz Chaim concludes this volume on the laws of lashon hara with a statement from the Sefer Chasidim (chapter 22): “If one is in a group and one person did something inappropriate, but no one knows who the perpetrator is, one should say I am the guilty party, even though he didn’t do it etc.

We have concluded the first volume of Sefer Chofetz Chaim!

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halachos 14, 15

 B’ezras Hashem next week I hope to finish the first part of Sefer Chofetz Chaim, the laws of lashon hara, and the week after starting the laws of rechilus.

Now that there is a permissibility to speak out in order to help the victims or for the sake of the truth to keep people away from doing this sin we have to. be super careful to meet the 7 rules stated in the beginning of the chapter which we’ll review now, but as an introduction you must first make sure the perpetrator didn’t do Teshuva and fix the problem then to speak out you have to meet the 7 prerequisites.

1. You had to have seen the incident yourself and not know of it from secondhand information because we know someone was damaged, but do you really know who did the damage.

 2. You have to do investigation to make sure the perpetrator had no justification for what he did, whether it’s stealing, hurting, or embarrassing someone etc. And the investigation must be through the lenses of halacha to see if he is really guilty or not. This is the hardest rule to get around because people very easily make justification that they know what they saw and understand what happened and know they are right, so it’s very easy to fall into the trap of lashon hara and tell others what happened for the sake of help, but they might have overlooked something.

3. If you think you can confront the perpetrator and resolve the issues you must do that before telling anyone. The Rambam and other Rishonim say this is the classical and simple application of the verse in the Torah of “You shall rebuke someone of your nation” (Vayikra 19:17).

4. Be very sure that the entire story you are telling is the truth without any trace of lie. One exaggeration whether adding something or leaving a fact onto matter how small might change the outlook of the listeners. Even if he is for sure guilty but he might not be as bad as your exaggeration implies so it’s a big sin of lashon hara to add or even subtract a detail that might change the impression people will have about the perpetrator.

5. Your purpose in sharing the information must be a positive one which is really the basis for this entire permissibility of speaking out. An added valid excuse to talk to someone is if one as to vent and get something off his chest if he has worries or anxiety in his or her heart, as Chaza”l say in Yoma 75a that if one has worries in his hear he should speak it out with others.

 6. If you can resolve the problem in some other way without telling anyone what happened then it’s forbidden to speak out. Even if you can resolve the issue with minimal guilt by not making the perpetrator look as bad as he really is then it’s a mitzvah to minimize the issue as long as the issue is fully resolved and won’t happen again. It’s a mitzvah, a nice thing to minimize guilt an example of this is in Choshen Mishpat 421:13 but it’s not an obligation because there is nowhere in Shas which clearly says minimizing guilt is the same as hiding it totally in regard to lashon hara.

7. You have to make sure that by speaking out to resolve the issue the perpetrator would not be punished more than what he would deserve if taken to court. However, if the perpetrator is very stubborn and he wouldn’t listen to Jewish courts then only with the consent and with the advice of Jewish courts one is allowed to take him to a non-Jewish court to fix the issue, see Choshen Mishpat 26:2.

The Chofetz Chaim warns that we see from all this that one is in great peril when he is faced with the position that he has to speak out because it’s very easy to mess up and speak lashon hara especially in terms of making sure you are correct about what you saw, and you don’t exaggerate one iota. This is what the pasuk in Mishlei 18:21 means that “Death and life is in the hands of the tongue.” One must think through and review in his head what he is going to say and how he is going to say it to be sure he meets all the rules because on the spur of the moment it is very easy to speak out angrily in this highly tenuous situation and slip up without thinking and be sure that you are only speaking out for the betterment of good and that’s all.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 10, Halacha 13 footnote 3

The Torah allows someone to share a complete story in detail, even outside of court, if the listener can help you get back what you lost or protect you from future harm, even if it makes the alleged perpetrator look quite bad. This applies to helping yourself or helping others. For example, if you heard someone say, “If I meat Reuvain at the game I am going to start cursing and ranking him out.” If you know this guy is the type of guy who doesn’t just say baseless threats but takes action, you definitely can warn Reuvain if it can protect him from any embarrassment or harm. This is not considered rechilus, telling on others because your intent is just to remove any damage and to hush the fight, so to by lashon hara if the purpose is to protect yourself and other, not to denigrate the perpetrator then it is not lashon hara.

The Gemara in Kiddushin 59a is a perfect proof to this concept. There is a case of miscommunication. Rebbe Gidel was trying to buy a land and Rebbe Abba bought it right under his nose. Rebbe Gidel went to Rebbe Zeira to complain and told him what happened. Rebbe Zeira says he’ll go to Rav Yitzchak Nafcha and tell him. Rav Yitzchak Nafcha waited until the holidays and went over to Rebbe Abba and asked him, “What is the status of a person who grabbed a date cake off the floor while a poor person was running after to get it?” Rebbe Abba said, “That guy is a bad guy.” Rav Yitzchak Nafcha said, “Then why did you essentially do the same thing to Rebbe Gidel?” Rebbe Abba said he didn’t know Rebbe Gidel was trying to buy it.

This case is obviously not a case where Rebbe Gidel went to court ad complained to Rebbe Zeira, acting as a judge, because the halacha is both litigants have to be at the court case to present the case in trial and Rebbr Abba wasn’t there. So why isn’t it lashon hara what Rebbe Gidel told Rebbe Zeira, especially as we see that he got the story all wrong, and how then can Rebbe Zeira go over to Rav Yitzchak Nafcha, who parenthetically was Rebbe Abba’s rebbe, and tell him secondhand knowledge of what happened? It must be that it is not lashon hara to seek out help from someone. Why didn’t Rebbe Zeira just go over to Rebbe Abba himself, Rebbe eira was a great rabbi and surely Rebbe Abba would have listened to him? It must be that Rebbe Zeira knew he was to far away from Rebbe Abba and would see him, so he told Rebbe Abba’s teacher and he dealt with the matter. So even secondhand information can be told for the sake of helping others.

Posted on

CITE Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halachos 12, 13

Halacha 12: If it’s not so easy to talk about someone who proactively did something against you, then all the more so to tell people how other didn’t do you a favor, like not lending money, or giving tzedaka, or not inviting you into their house as a guest, or even just not being friendly and going over to you with a smile saying hello. In all these cases and the like you cannot repeat them to other people especially if you are condemning an entire community who might be good kosher Jews who believe in Hashem. For example, to say people in New York are cold and not friendly, they are always in a rush and never say hello to strangers even if I am a guest in shul, that would be lashon hara even if it is true. (This example of New York is not to hint at anything specific. I just chose a location with a high concentration of Torah observant Jews all living in the same area.) However, the one exception would be that if you tell people of authority who will be listened to and they are able to speak out in the town and reprimand or inspire them to be nicer then you can tell them because it’s for a positive purpose, assuming your attitude is to try to help and create a positive outcome and you meet all 7 prerequisites. For example, if a person drove through a town with a Young Israel shul and no one went over to him to say hello. If he tells people in the next town what happened would be lashon hara but if he would go to the Young Israel headquarters and tell them and they have the clout to go over to this shul and speak to them to reprimand or inspire them to change their ways, that would be productive and permissible. (The Young Israel example is only given because it’s an easy example to make of an umbrella organization with many Shuls under its name, I was not trying to send any message across.)

Halacha 13: Now, one is absolutely and totally permitted in monetary cases to tell the authorities or people of influence like relatives of the perpetrator or anyone that can help him get his money whether stolen, damaged, or a bad business deal. He can even tell them of a threat so that they can help him avoid losing money or being hurt, as well as if they can help avoid future problems. A person has every right to protect himself and his money and get it back or compensated if owed to him or her. It is not lashon hara to tell the truth to people who can help you. Even in a nonmonetary situation for example to avoid being embarrassed or cursed at you can tell people, even his own family what happened and why you suspect this guy will go after you and scream at you, if you have a convincing story and they can help you avoid being yelled at and embarrassed then you are allowed to tell them the story so that they can convince the person not to confront you or wrongly speak out against you. This is whether to avoid an anticipated argument or to stop an ensuing argument or any embarrassment you think could be caused to yourself in the future. You can go over to them privately and not in a group of at least 3 because Rabbeinu Yona in Shaarei Teshuva (228) only says you need 3 for the sake of the truth to teach others lessons not to do bad things, if otherwise speaking out in public could be misconstrued as flattery or not convincing of being truthful, but in this case your story of a plea for help, even asked in private should be pretty convincing.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halacha 11 conclusion of footnote 31

Without going into too many details of each of the gemara’s the Chofetz Chofetz Chaim brought in his Be’er Mayim Chaim, there are a number of lessons that can be derived from these cases where at first glance it seems Rabbanim complained to others that they were personally insulted

  1.  It is very important for the listener to ask “how did this all start” to get a picture of what’s going on and it’s possible that the entire story could change. This is even if the gadol hador, the leader of the generation who is for sure honest is the one complaining, aw we saw with the stories of Rav Anan, in Keubos, who was a rabbi from the time of the gemara who Eliyahu Hanavi even spoke to.
  2. Various reasons why these cases from various gemaras were not considered lashon hara ranged from the fact that in one case (Kesubos 69a) Rav Anan was just asking advice, from Mar Ukva what could he have done wrong to be insulted in that way by Rav Huna.

Another time (Kesubos 79a) Rav Anan intent was for the sake of the truth to go to Mar Ukva the head of the court to stop Rav Nachman from mistakenly ripping up documents that Rav Anan thought were in fact valid and the point was for Mar Ukva to investigate deeper into the matter. If it’s possible to potentially make peace and judge favorably then it’s a mitzvah to listen to complaints in order to potentially resolve an issue.

Another reason to complain is if you know he won’t listen to your rebuke but he will listen to someone else’s rebuke as we saw (Kiddushin33a) Rebbe Shimon bar Rebbe complain to his father Rebbe how Rebbe Chiya didn’t treat him with proper respect as kavod haTorah would dictate and he knew Rebbe Chiya wouldn’t listen to him, so he asked his father, Rebbe Yehuda HaNasi, the leader of the generation to rebuke Rebbe Chiya.

It’s also possible in certain circumstances to believe honest rabbis since they are like witnesses and then rebuke the perpetrator as we saw in Bechoros 30a.

 3. Bottom line we have no proof that you are allowed to tell others of someone who accosted you personally in whatever way if it won’t amount to anything productive, but we have proofs that it is forbidden. The clearest example in conclusion was from Gitten 7a where Mar Ukva, the head if the court approached Rebbe Eliezer for advice of what to do about certain people who were threatening him and he had the power to turn them over to the non-Jewish authorities but he didn’t tell Rebbe Eliezer their names because he didn’t need to know them because Mar Ukva knew he could take care of the problem himself once he got the advice what to do. So, in this circumstance where re his life might have been in danger, he still didn’t spill any names then one must be very careful to not say anything wrong in these types of circumstances.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 10, Halacha 11, Footnote continued

The theme of this part of the footnote is that there is no excuse to speak lashon hara even if you are trying to save your name by blaming someone else even if it is true unless there is no other way to prove your innocence. But if you can prove you are not guilty without saying any names of who is wrong then it would be lashon hara to be name dropping.

There are a bunch of cases in the gemara that seems to be going against the halacha that you can’t speak out if you were personally involved. The first case brought was from gemara Brachos 5b Rav Huna complained to Rav Yehudah that his sharecropper snatched most of his wine. Rav Yehudah asked, why are you telling me this? It seems that Rav Huna wasn’t worried that anything more would be stolen, and he had no intention of the rabbis rebuking the sharecropper. The only thing was he wanted to clear his name because Rav Huna withheld part of what he was supposed to give to the sharecropper since the sharecropper stole his stuff. How was he able to do that?

We see from the gemara in Bava Basra 164b that Rebbe reprimanded his son Rebbe Shimon bar Rebbe when he brought him a get mikushar, special kind of divorce bill that was folded and sown together without a time by the date. Rebbe asked where is the time, his son responded maybe it’s inside the bill we should open it up. Rebbe opened it up and it wasn’t there. He looked at his son angrily and his son said I didn’t write it; Reb Yehuda Chaita wrote it. Rebbe responded, why are you speaking lashon hara? If that’s the case, why is Rav Huna any different, in both cases blaim is just being moved to someone else and the speaker is just proving, truthfully, his innocence.

However, there are two reason why Rav Huna was permitted to say what he said. First off Rashi alludes to the fact that this sharecropper was a known thief so it’s not lashon hara to blame him for what he did and second, Rebbe Shimon bar Rebbe did not have to tell his father who wrote, he could have just said I did not write it, but Rav Huna had no choice but to reveal what happened which obviously showed who was in the wrong.

In another episode in Gemara Erechin 16b, Chiya bar Rav complained to Shmuel in yeshiva that Rav Huna was bothering him. Rav Huna said he would stop. After Chiya bar Rav Rav Huna told Shmuel that he was doing something wrong to me. Shmuel asked why didn’t you let me know that beforehand? Rav Huna said I didn’t want the son of Rav to be embarrassed on my part. Rav Huna’a intent was to push off blame from himself without embarrassing Chiya bar Rav for the sake of the truth, but he had no choice for it to be known that Rav Chiya bar Rav had done something wrong.

However, to be allowed to prove your innocence at the expense of the revealing the guilty party when permissible one has to be very careful to meet the prerequisites that will be discussed in halacha 14, for if not, it is guaranteed he will stumble into speaking lashon hara. If you aren’t trying to take the blame off yourself but you aren’t trying to degrade anyone else, it is still lashon hara because someone is degraded whether it was your intention or not, even if it is true, as we saw in chapter 3 halacha 3.

Posted on

Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halacha 11


The victim of a crime, like if someone stole from him, cheated him, or even just cursed him out, embarrassed him etc. cannot tell others of what happened to him even If he tries meeting the 7 prerequisites discussed at the beginning of the chapter because there is no way he can tell anyone what happened purely for the sake of the truth to teach people the severity of the crime or to apply pressure to convince the perpetrator repent, he can’t honestly do this because he has personal interests. If people accept what he says he’ll feel justified to tell others and blaspheme the perpetrator and feel good about it since he did a crime against him. There is an exception to this rule that will be discussed in halacha 13.

The Chofetz Chaim feels a need to go into much detail to explain why personal interests are a reason not to speak out since many people make the excuse that they have the right to speak up against criminals who have wronged them personally. Quoting Rabbeinu Yonah he points out that a single witness is only allowed to testify in court if it will be productive, for example it will force the litigant to swear so that the truth will hopefully come out. But one who testifies about what happened to himself in court cannot force and oath because he is invalidated to be a witness for himself, if he testifies in court it is lashon hara and there is a separate sin for the judges to accept what he said, called “lo sisa shema shav” this prohibition will apply if he spoke to the judge before the court case about what happened, even what he says is true, and certainly if he just tells anyone else what happened to him it is lashon hara and anyone who accepts it even if it is true is accepting lashon hara which is forbidden. The only exception would be if a messenger of the court was sent to bring someone to court and he was cursed out and got a refusal to come to court, for example when Nadav and Avihu refused to show up before Moshe then the messenger of the court is allowed to tell them he was cursed out, as mentioned in Moed Katan 16a. The Ram”a in Shulchan Aruch in Choshen Mishpat 228:1 poskins that if someone insults you, you can insult him back halachically (though it is good character to stay silent) but that is only in private, that does not mean you can go reveal to others that someone insulted you.