When the Chofetz Chaim said that if a person consistently is transgressing a prohibition between man and G-d which is known to everyone to be against Jewish law and he is doing it on purpose this means it has become part of his way of life, not a sin that he’s done once or twice. If you only saw him do it once or twice then you have to assume maybe he repented but if this is something which is known as part of his lifestyle and he is purposely doing it and it6a sin which everyone knows is a problem, for example every Jew, even those non-observant know that shellfish, pig, and milk and meat together are against Jewish Law so if a person is known to go out to eat at McDonalds and order a bacon cheeseburger all the time you are allowed to speak out against him as long as you meet the 7 prerequisites and speak out in public in front of at least 3 people so that word will spread and no one will suspect him of flattery. One way a sin perpetrated against his fellow man like stealing or hurting someone is different than a sin between man and Hashem is that for the most part besides maybe stealing, if a person is bullying someone physically, emotionally, or monetarily he usually does it because he thinks the victim deserves it. Many times, he has excuses and justifications why he is doing what he is doing he is not outright sinning maliciously just to spite Hashem therefore the reason why you are allowed to speak out against him is for the sake of justice to protect the innocent and the victims and resolve the problems the perpetrator caused if he hasn’t already fixed the issues himself. The perpetrator is still considered “part of your nation” and all the mitzvos that apply to a fellow Jew still apply to him like “Love your neighbor as yourself ” or “Don’t hate your brother in your heart”. However, a person who is habitually transgressing a sin between man and Hashem on purpose which everyone knows is wrong like eating bacon cheeseburgers then he has left the fold and is not considered part of “your nation”. For this reason, one is allowed to speak lashon hara about home, insult him and does not even have a mitzvah to rebuke him since the Torah says by these three mitzvos that who you speak to must be considered part of “your nation”. If a person decides to purposefully leave the fold and not adhere to what everyone knows is wrong, then he does not have to be treated the same way as everyone else. By speaking out against and speaking down at him that might pressure him to repent. According to Jewish law you don’t even have to rebuke him directly because at this stage of the game he has the same status as a scoffed who you can assume does not listen to rebuke but it is still a mitzvah and a nice thing to do to try to engage him personally and convince him to change his ways and maybe you wouldn’t have to speak out against him to apply pressure, but there is no obligation to rebuke such a person.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim Chapter 10 halachos 9, 10
Last week we had said that if a person is speaking out against someone who hurt someone else, assuming he meets the 7 prerequisites he still can only speak out in a group of at least 3 so word will go out and he does not look like he’s trying to flatter the sinner, unless he is afraid of repercussions. Today the Chofetz Chaim said that if a person is known to be someone who doesn’t care what anyone else says and is known to be always honest then he can speak out against the perpetrator even in private, once the perpetrator is willing to listen to rebuke because everyone knows he’s telling the truth and not flattering the sinner.
There is a difference between a person who you should not rebuke beforehand if you know he will go on the defensive and not even give into pressure from others in the future, and if a person is known to always be stubborn and will never listen to anyone then it is still worth it to rebuke him first before spreading the word of his evil ways because maybe he’ll have a change of heart this time.
We’ll see in more detail next week that the same applies to one who transgressed a sin between man and Hashem, but besides meeting the 7 prerequisites there is 3 other criteria needed to speak out against him. 1. He is constantly committing this sin. 2. He is doing it on purpose. 3. It’s the type of sin everyone knows is forbidden.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halachos 7, 8
In a situation where one should not rebuke the person who speaks lashon hara about others because you don’t think they will listen to you, and in fact it might be better if you say nothing because if you would say something and they don’t listen to rebuke then they will lift up their defenses and might never change even if others will come later and rebuke him. At least if you tell others without rebuking him first, they might be able to get through to him at some point and he’ll understand and change his ways. However, when you meet all the prerequisites, and you weren’t able to rebuke him then you can only spread the word in most circumstances if you say it in front of at 3 people. This is for two reasons:
1. So you don’t look like you are flattering him by only warning others about his lashon hara in private but saying nothing about his bad ways in public.
2. So people won’t think you are lying since you are willing to say it in front of a group which will most likely lead to him hearing about what you said about him.
So since you have the audacity to speak out about this lashon hara speaker in public saying how bad he is and you should not accept a word of what he says then you have more credibility. The one exception when one can tell 1 or 2 people at a time is if you are afraid of dangerous repercussions if the lashon hara speaker finds out you are talking about him. Them Chazal says you are allowed to flatter bad people in order to save your neck and if people know you are being secretive because you a red afraid of violent repercussions then they will still take what you say into consideration and not think you are lying. However, this does not mean those listening to the person speaking out against the perpetrator are allowed to accept as truth what was said even if it is permissible to say it. They can only listen, be concerned, take proper precautions, and investigate more into the matter to see if it is really true or not. This is because it possible a fact was left out or added into the story which might change everything so one can never believe indefectibly what others says even if willing to be said in public unless he questions and proves himself to be sure it is true.
This is very important in today’s day and age where there is so much news being thrown out in public through the media and other sources which sound true and is broadcasted to millions of people but many times we find there is a fact or something missing or added to the story that changes everything so it’s important for is to have the attitude to not believe anything decisively without looking into the matter ourselves. Again, proper precautions are permitted but assuming what was heard is absolutely the truth and making judgments is not permitted until proven to be in fact true.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halacha 6
If you know you can help a victim or potential victim from lashon hara spoken against him then you can inform others who can help before informing the one spoken about. For example, if someone confides in you that a certain person he dislikes, and he has nasty words about him and says he wants to harm the person. You know he is being serious and not exaggerating, then you are allowed to tell others if they can help to avoid or prevent a nasty situation from escalating and you can certainly tell the potential victim so that he may take proper precautions to stay away and protect himself. Of course, one is only allowed to speak out about this lashon hara speaker if one meets the 7 prerequisite rules:
1. You heard the lashon hara directly or have clear evidence it was said.
2. You make sure halachically what you heard was lashon hara.
3. You don’t exaggerate what you heard.
4. You have positive intent to only help or fix the situation. You do not speak out of hatred for the perpetrator.
5. You should try to rebuke the guy who spoke lashon hara but if you see he will not listen to you it is better to not say anything because if you confront him he might either continue to say even more bad things about the person he was talking about just like the gemara in Erichin 16a says you should not overly praise someone because it will lead to lashon hara, or worse he might go on the defensive and rationalize that what he said is correct and go on to tell other people and convince others of his lashon hara. In that case it is better to warn other of the impending lashon hara this person speaks and tell them not to listen. First impressions count a lot it is harder to convince a person what they heard is lashon hara and false then to warn them beforehand to not listen or accept whatever lashon hara someone will eventually tell them. In a similar vein we find that the prophet Nasan told King David of Adoniyahu’s rebellion to usurp the throne after King David dies instead of it going to Shlomo. The prophet, Nasan saw that Adoniyahu would not heed any warnings of not trying to attempt a rebellion so he went straight to King David before matters can escalate.
6. Make sure not to cause punishment worse than what the lashon hara speaker deserves.
7. If there is any way to diffuse the situation and let the lashon hara just disappear without any harm done, with telling anyone else about it then better to keep your mouth shut and take care of the situation then to say something to others. If by telling others about the lashon hara someone spoke of someone else will stop the lashon hara from spreading then you will stop unneeded embarrassment to be worse for the victim and can potentially lesson the gehenom for the perpetrator because he will see no one is listening to him and he will stop spreading the lashon hara, besides the fact that you will be fulfilling a positive mitzvah of rebuke if the perpetrator breaks under pressure and decides to repent and not advance his lashon hara.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halacha 5
One is allowed to speak out against those who speak lashon hara if they meet the rules set down at the beginning of the chapter. Being that only the real reason to publicize the people speaking lashon hara is to warn people to start away of the sim and speak of it’s severity, therefore you can only speak out about those who speak lashon hara if the ones who lashon hara was spoken about knows what happened, if he doesn’t then because he’ll find out since word travels then one cannot speak out about it because it will most likely lead to more argument and is considered rechilus. One wouldn’t be able to first tell the person spoken about since it will lead to more arguments and is considered rechilus, even if the subject of the lashon hara was a great sage. But if a great sage or any upstanding Jew of society was spoken badly about by a low life then people can warn others of the severity if speaking lashon hara about rabbis even if the rabbi did not find out about it because telling others isn’t rechilus, and in most circumstances the rabbi won’t escalate a fight but of course each case should be judged by itself.
Proof to this halacha is from a gemara in Moed Katan 16a (according to the Rosh) which says that if not for the fact that the person was a messenger of the court he would not have been allowed to tell Moshe Rabbeinu that Dasan and Aviram was saying lashon hara about him by the rebellion of Korach. Even though Moshe Rabbeinu was the greatest leader of the Jewish people, and they were incredible lowlifes, having told on Moshe to pharaoh in Egypt when he killed the Egyptian, almost having him killed, and trying to collect manna on Shabbos, still in all it would have been rechilus to tell Moshe the lashon hara they spoke about him if not for the fact that this was a messenger of the court and it was his job to ensure law and order is preserved.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 footnote 18 and rest of halacha 4
The Chofetz Chaim had mentioned in his note that you must first tell the victim what had happened to him and who did it before you tell anyone else in matters where it’s unlikely or not the situation where he would be compensated. This is because word spreads and if he finds out second hand what happened that might make matters worse and create a tremendous fight. We want to avoid internal fight amongst the Jews. The #1 reason for arguments is rechilus, people tell on each other to others in a fashion which allows a bad situation to escalate. Hashem created a prohibition of rechilus (which the Chofetz Chaim discusses in the next part of this book, after chapter 10) just for this reason, to minimize the possibility of finding amongst His children. A person might make an excuse for himself that he would be allowed to tell others, before he tells the victim, assuming he meets all the rules, because anyways there is a chance, albeit a farfetched chance that maybe the criminal will repent and give back what he owes. But we have to assume that it is a farfetched chance that he will actually repent since he was already rebuked and didn’t listen or is known not to listen to rebuke, therefore, unless it is probable compensation can be exacted then it is forbidden to spread the word if what happened before telling the victim even if it is for the proper intent of teaching people not to follow the ways of this evildoer. It is better to not cause fighting amongst the Jews then teach others a lesson not to follow in the bad ways of these criminals.
Furthermore, you have to be careful who you give this information to, for if you tell people who aren’t willing to listen to your warnings not to follow the ways of the criminal, for example if you are talking to people who are also thieves or part of the mafia who don’t care about the way this criminal acted. Then you might cause them to speak rechilus because they might tell the criminal what you told them, even if you met all the rules and had the right intent to try to stop them from following what he did, but telling the wrong people might escalate a big argument and might even cause them to tell on you to the government or other non-Jews and create serious problems for the Jews.
It also doesn’t matter if someone asked you what happened or you just tell them if you are allowed to then it’s fine if not, then not. Many times people make up excuses that they can tell their family members what other people have done to them, and it’s a mitzvah to do so because the verse in Yeshayahu 58:7 says “You shall not hide anything from your own flesh and blood” However only if all the prerequisites are met them you can tell them if not, then it’s absolutely forbidden and straight out rechilus/lashon hara.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halacha 4 footnotes 14-17
The positive use of telling others about a person who humiliated someone else besides making an impression on other how bad it is to embarrass others or to potentially convince the perpetrator to apologize, besides that there is a great benefit that can come out for the victim even if he doesn’t get any money out if the deal, which is other people sympathizing with him which will make him feel better.
Now, you might think that only for the purpose of helping the victim can you tell one person at a time what happened but if you want to spread the word to create awareness of the severity of the sin or to get the perpetrator to fix his ways then you need to tell people in groups of 3 or more, that ensures it will spread and shows you are doing it for the right reasons and not for your own benefits, however in this case where you already tried rebuking the guy and it didn’t work you don’t have to tell people in groups, you can tell them about the severity of the crime individually and you won’t look like you are doing it for ulterior motives other than to spread the truth.
The Chofetz Chaim wasn’t sure if you are just spreading the word for the sake of warning others not to follow in that path whether you are allowed to do that with name dropping in a case where it is possible that the perpetrator my have an excuse, for example he didn’t know any better or didn’t realize the severy if his crime, then maybe you can’t say any names.
And when the Chofetz Chaim said you should tell others of what happened without first telling the victim that us only if telling other won’t have any monetary repercussions for the victim but if it does then you can tell others before telling the victim.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halacha 3 and 4
Halacha 3: Even if you try to meet all the prerequisites to speak out against a perpetrator in a legal way, but if you are the same type of sinner as the perpetrator then you can’t say a anything because we assume you aren’t speaking out to help anyone besides yourself, to make the perpetrator look back and yourself look good. For example, a thief can’t rattle on another thief, or a business swindler can’t rattle on a business swindler, or a drug addict can’t rattle on another drug addict who might be selling drugs to others etc. We see this in Navi that Yehu was accountable for killing the house of Achav even though the Navi said to do so because they were an evil kingship and Yehu was rewarded for 4 generations of kings in his family for following the prophet’s word but because he wound up following in their evil ways when he became king over Israel then he became accountable for killing them. So to you can’t speak lashon hara about someone if you yourself have the same fault because you are just making yourself look good by speaking out against him, which is just covering your tracks not the intent to help the situation.
Halacha 4: Because your whole intent must be for the good, for example to help the victim then you can only tell people who will help the situation. But not just police, it could mean telling doctors or psychologists what happened to help the person damaged or embarrassed to get healthy again, or anyone one else who can fix the situation. However, it is also permissible to tell anyone else with mentioning names of the perpetrator if it will stop them from following his ways or cause the perpetrator to repent and fix what he did out if pressure. But as soon as he repents you can’t tell anyone what he did in the past. Also you can’t tell anyone what happened until the victim is informed because if he finds out from someone else it might create more animosity towards the perpetrator then he would have if he was first told what and who did by the eyewitness who promises him he can try to get the situation resolved, or at least under control.
CITE Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halacha two concluded
Rule #6: Before speaking out against a perpetrator you have to be sure there is no other way to fix the issue besides speaking lashon hara about him whether it is to help the victim or to stop this type of behavior, for example if you can say the story of what happened without any name calling to send the message that what happened should not be done that would be better. The extent of avoiding lashon hara we see from the case of Achan in the Book of Yehoshua. Achan stole spoils of war secretly. Yehoshua wanted to know what happened. He asked Hashem who did it. Hashem said what do you think I am, a tattletaler? I won’t speak lashon hara, make a lottery and the one picked is the one guilty. Hashem would not straight out tell Yehoshua who the culprit was rather it was indirectly Divinely revealed through a lottery because another means of revealing with saying out right was possible. Hashem acted through these means even though the gemara in Sanhedrin 11a and 44a says that not only did Achan steal the spoils that were sanctified but he also was adulterous to the highest degree with a naara hami’urasa, it was because of him that the Jews last a battle, and he transgressed the Five Books of Moses. This should put him into a category of not being part of “your nation” and therefore it should have been permissible to speak lashon hara about him. However, because there was another way to reveal his guilt it was forbidden for Hashem to tell Yehoshua that it was Achan who is causing all this trouble. We find this concept of needing to act differently, if possible, by other halachos as well. For example, if someone is running after another to kill him and you can stop it by disability the pursuer without killing him, then if you kill the pursuer, you are considered a murderer. So to if someone is going to hit someone else and you can defend the victim or the victim can defend himself with hurting the attacker then one would be guilty for hurting the attacker. When the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 421:13 says the victim or someone around him can hit back a person who struck him the Shach says that’s only if he is defending himself so that the attacker will not strike again.
Rule #7: If by you telling others you will harm the perpetrator more than he would deserve if he was taken to court then you can’t tell anybody. Not only does this mean that if two of you tell others, let say about a thief, so you are like two witnesses but those that find out will not only go after the thief to force him to return the goods, but they will also beat him up, then you can’t tell them even at the expense of the victim never getting his stolen goods back. If you are only one person divulging the information to others, then the best you can do is ensure that those people could convince the perpetrator to show up in court and let the court deal with the problem just like a single witness can only force the perpetrator to swear in court but can’t be the reason for the sentencing.
If all 7 rules are met and still the problem isn’t resolved or the message isn’t clear for others to stay away from doing these actions, or the perpetrator has not repented then others can be told with divulging names so that the problem can be more easily resolved.
Sefer Chofetz Chaim chapter 10 halacha 2 continued
The next prerequisite for allowance to publicize lashon hara about a person who did some wrong to someone else and you want to try to fix the issue. 3. You have to rebuke the perpetrator first, is soft manner, in that way he might fix the issue, be it pay back the money for damages or give back what he stole, or apologize, without needing to tell anyone what happened. If he doesn’t listen, then it can be publicized to hopefully force him to make retribution. If you don’t think he will listen to you, that will be discussed in halacha 7. The Rambam says clearly that it’s forbidden to publicize the matter before rebuking him in private. There are different ways in how to understand Rabbeinu Yonah if part of the Torah obligation of rebuke is to first rebuke before publicizing or when it is just better character to not publicize the issue first. However, the Chofetz Chaim does point out that by first rebuking the perpetrator before publicizing makes sense for another reason since while confronting him you can question why he did what he did, what was his motivation, what happened in his eyes, and you will be doing some investigative work which is part of the second rule. You might come out that what happened is different then what you thought, or you might show him he is in the wrong and convince him to fix his error. Either way talking to him publicizing it is crucial because it will also fulfill the second prerequisite. Rebuking and investigating are connected to each other.