Author: Acquire@pos

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 9:3-4

In this segment, we learn of a situation where it should be permissible to speak rechilus.

Dov delivers meat for a local butcher. One day, he was carrying a heavy box of meat down the path to the Steinwaters’ door when their automatic sprinkler system went on at the wrong time and drenched Dov from head to toe. Dov, who is known for his temper, told Mendy later that day, “I don’t care if it was a mistake. Such things should never happen. I’m going back there after midnight when every­one’s asleep and I’m going to break those sprinklers so that they never get anyone wet ever again.”

Can Mendy inform Mr. Steinwater about Dov’s plans? The Chofetz Chaim states:

If the person making the threat has a reputation for such things, meaning, he has done similar things to others previously; or, if the listener can tell that the person is not merely “letting off steam” but that he means what he says and will surely carry out his threat, then he should inform the other person in the hope that he will be able to protect himself so that he will not suffer damage. However, before relating the information, he must be careful to fulfill the five conditions listed above [in the preceding segment].

This is true only if, to Mendy’s mind, Mr. Steinwater will respond merely by protecting his property from being damaged. However, if his reaction would be “I’ll teach that guy a lesson” by drenching him a second time, which will surely enrage him even more and lead to an all-out feud, then he should not inform him of Dov’s plans.

This will mean that Dov will probably carry out his plot. Mr. Steinwater will awaken to discover that his sprinkler system has been badly damaged and might require major, costly repairs. This would be terrible, and Dov would surely owe Mr. Steinwater the cost of the dam­age, in addition to having to engage in teshuvah towards Hashem and ask forgiveness of Mr. Steinwater. And this might never happen.

Nevertheless, the damage caused is surely preferable to a fight between two hot-tempered individuals, which might lead to severe monetary damage on both sides, the possibility of a full-scale feud that will involve others, and even physical attacks.

This is why the Chofetz Chaim cautions: “Therefore, one must ponder the matter well at the outset, to determine the best way to deal with the situation.” In other words, never rush to relate rechilus or lashon hara for a constructive purpose without first determining that something constructive will really be accomplished.

Many times we do things with good intentions but the results are not good. Because speech is powerful and requires little effort, we need to be on guard at all times to ensure that we speak only words that will help, and not words that will harm.

IN A NUTSHELL

One may warn his fellow Jew about an impending attack by another Jew, provided that his warning will not bring about a full-scale feud or other negative results.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 9:1-2

In this, the concluding chapter of Sefer Chofetz Chaim, we will learn when halachah permits us to speak rechilus l’to’eles, for a constructive purpose.

Consider the following example:

The Steins are considering building an extension onto the back of their house. They have met with Yosef Kregler of Kregler Construction, and are on the verge of signing a contract with him. Mr. Stein’s good friend Henoch Willenstein is dismayed. He had a terrible experience with Mr. Kregler when he made extensive renovations on his new home. When the job was eighty-percent done, Mr. Kregler requested that the balance be paid in full. Mr. Willenstein complied, and after receiving his money, Mr. Kregler vanished for six months. When he finally reappeared, he offered no explanation, other than to say, “I couldn’t get to this job until now, but now I’ll finish it fast.” It took another two months until he finished the week’s work that remained.

The Chofetz Chaim lists five conditions that need to be fulfilled for Mr. Willenstein to be allowed to share this information with his friend, Mr. Stein.

1. He must be certain that Mr. Kregler actually was at fault. If, for example, Kregler had taken ill and this was why the work dragged on for an additional two months, it would be wrong to mention this at all.

2. He must not exaggerate.

3. His intention must be to protect Mr. Stein from harm, not to “get even” with Mr. Kregler.

4. If there is a way to protect Mr. Stein without speaking badly of Mr. Kregler, then he must take that course of action. For example, he might recommend another contractor with a sterling reputation and make no mention of Mr. Kregler.

5. He must be certain that the only result will be that Mr. Stein will not hire Mr. Kregler for the job. In other words, Mr. Kregler will not suffer any loss other than this particular job which he had been hoping to get. However, if Mr. Stein is known to have a temper and will publicly humiliate Mr. Kregler the next time they meet, then Mr. Willenstein should not provide any information.

Now, let us consider the following scenario:

Mr. Willenstein decides that his opinion of Mr. Kregler is absolutely correct and he must warn Mr. Stein. However, Mr. Stein’s reaction is, “I refuse to believe such rechilus. I have known Mr. Kregler for twenty years. I can’t believe that he wouldn’t honor his commitment. Most probably you did something to really get him upset and that’s why he was slow in finishing the job.”

Mr. Kregler was hired, and sure enough, after collecting the balance of payment, he disappeared for six weeks without completing the job. Mr. Stein finally contacted him, lost his temper, and said, “I see that Willenstein was right when he said that you would vanish once you got your money. I never should have trusted you!”

If Mr. Willenstein knows that it is unlikely that Mr. Stein will take his warning seriously, with the result being that Mr. Stein will later speak rechilus, then he should not warn him.

IN A NUTSHELL

Rechilus may be spoken l’to’eles only if all necessary conditions are met.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 8:4-5

The Torah relates that Avraham Avinu and Sarah Imeinu were visited by three angels disguised as wayfarers. During their visit, one of the angels informed Avraham that in one year, Sarah, at age 90, would give birth to her first and only child. Sarah heard the angel’s pronouncement and she found it difficult to believe. “And Sarah laughed to herself saying: ‘After I have become old, my youth will be restored — and my master [Avraham] is old!’ ”

Hashem was not pleased by Sarah’s reaction. “And Hashem said to Avraham: ‘Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Can it be true that I will give birth after I have grown old?’ ”

Hashem told Avraham only that Sarah had spoken of her own old age, but He made no mention of her having said that Avraham was old. Rashi explains that Hashem omitted this for the sake of shalom, peace, between husband and wife. Avraham might have felt bad to hear that his wife had spoken of him as an “old man.”

This is truly amazing. Avraham was 99 years old at the time — certainly not a “young man” by any standard! And Avraham was one of the greatest human beings ever to walk this earth. Yet, Hashem knew that even someone so great might feel a bit hurt that his wife spoke of him in this way.

The Chofetz Chaim states:

There are other statements that are forbidden because of avak rechilus. For example, if one relates a statement in someone’s name that is not actually derogatory, but people tend to get a bit upset when it is said in their presence.

In Be’er Mayim Chaim, the Chofetz Chaim says that the story of Avraham and Sarah is the source for this halachah. Hashem would not repeat to Avraham the words of Sarah that could have upset him a bit.

The Chofetz Chaim concludes this chapter by cautioning us not to reveal secrets that others tell us in confidence. Revealing another person’s secrets often causes him harm, and is simply bad midos. The word tznius, modesty, usually refers to the way people dress, but it has a much broader meaning. The Chofetz Chaim states that to reveal some­one else’s secrets is to deviate from the way of tznius which demands that a Jew live a modest, low-key life. One aspect of tznius is to speak when appropriate and to remain silent when that is what is required.

Rabbeinu Yonah cites two verses in Sefer Mishlei. The first is:”Holech Rochel Megaleh Sod” He who reveals a secret is a gossiper. He explains, “Do not confide your secrets to someone who is a gossiper. Since he does not guard his mouth from speaking rechilus, you cannot trust him to keep your secret confidential.”

The other verse states the converse “Goleh Sod Holech Rochel” One who reveals secrets is a gossiper. Rabbeinu Yonah explains: “If you see someone who does not exercise self-control to guard his tongue and refrain from revealing others’ secrets … this will lead him to speak rechilus … for his lips are not under his control.”

IN A NUTSHELL

Never repeat a statement to someone that is not derogatory, but may offend him a bit.

Never reveal a secret told to you in confidence.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

Mrs. Atlas cannot wait for her husband to come home from work. As soon as he walks through the door, she exclaims: “You’ll never believe what I overheard today!

“I was in the supermarket and the store was quite empty and unusually quiet. That’s how I was able to stand in aisle 3 and overhear a conversa­tion between Mrs. Eigelman and Mrs. Dillman in aisle 2. They were discussing the upcoming shul elections. I couldn’t believe my ears! Mrs. Dillman said that her husband is not voting for you because he was unhappy with how you chaired the Finance Committee this past year — isn’t that a chutzpah? You were the first chairman to ever get the shul’s finances in order!”

Mrs. Atlas has spoken rechilus to her husband. Just as husband and wife are not permitted to speak lashon hara to one another, so too they cannot speak rechilus.

The Chofetz Chaim adds an important insight:

When we think into this matter well, we discover that aside from the actual sin, when a husband believes rechilus that was told to him by his wife, he brings many difficult problems upon himself. For when his wife sees that he happily accepts her [sinful] words, she will frequently come to him with such reports. This will lead to his becoming angry, depressed, and involved in arguments.

Therefore, a G-d-fearing person will tell his wife not to relate such matters to him.

As we noted in Day 81, there are situations where a wife is permitted to share with her husband what would normally be considered lashon hara. The great tzaddik and posek Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach crystallized this idea in the following way:

For a marriage to function properly, a husband and wife must share their feelings. If a woman is disturbed by something involving her dealings with others and she feels that she must unburden herself, her husband should not thrust her aside by saying, “No, it’s lashon hara.” If the problem is too difficult for her to bear alone, he must share her packet of tzaros and help her overcome them.

Of course, their purpose [in discussing such matters] must be to reach a solution to the problem and to alleviate her pain — not to gossip or degrade a fellow Jew. Even while “letting off steam,” husband and wife must be careful to abide by the laws of lashon hara [and not say that which is unnecessary or express negative opinions about certain people].

An example of the above is where a woman is being mistreated by her employer and she needs to speak to her husband about it. However, in our example involving the shul elections, there is no reason why Mrs. Atlas had to tell her husband of the conversation that she overheard in the supermarket. To the contrary, as the Chofetz Chaim points out, she is actually hurting her husband by repeating such information to him. He will become angry and aggravated (assuming he transgresses the sin of believing rechilus) and will not be able to change the situation for the better.

A good wife should do her best to uproot such a conversation from her mind and act as if she never heard it.

IN A NUTSHELL

Relatives cannot speak rechilus to one another, except in a situa­tion where they are suffering emotional pain and need to unburden themselves.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 7:3-4

“Chayah, my washing machine just died and I need a new one, fast. I’m not sure if I should go to Mr. Felder’s appliance store or Mr. Adler’s. Do you have any preference?”

“I’ll tell you, Sarah, both of them have sterling reputations. They’re as honest as they come, and they stand behind their merchandise. But you know what my husband told me? He feels that Mr. Adler doesn’t just sell appliances — he knows appliances. He understands how these machines work, so when he recommends an item, it’s with the first-hand knowledge that this appliance is the best of its kind. Mr. Felder, on the other hand, goes by what he hears from wholesalers. That’s okay, but it doesn’t compare to being electronically savvy. So I feel more confident buying from Mr. Adler.

“Please don’t repeat what I just told you. I wouldn’t want it to get back to Mr. Felder.”

If Sarah can be trusted not to repeat this conversation, then Chayah has acted correctly in responding to Sarah’s question and providing her with some sound advice. If Sarah would foolishly repeat the conversation to Mr. Felder, she would be guilty of speaking rechilus.

In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim points out that one would also be guilty of rechilus by repeating the conversation to Mr. Felder’s wife or other close relative. They, too, might feel personally offended upon hearing what Chayah’s husband had to say about Mr. Felder’s appliance expertise.

As with lashon hara, it is forbidden to speak rechilus about a Jew to a non-Jew.

“Who fixed your sidewalk, Mr. McVay?” “My neighbor, Mr. Friedman. He did a good job, and gave me a good price — only $1,200.”

“You call that a good price? I could have gotten you someone who would have done the same job for $1,000.”

In this conversation, nothing has been accomplished, other than to make Mr. McVay upset at his Jewish neighbor, who claimed to have been doing the job for a bargain price. Even if it would be true that someone else would have done the job for less, the job was already done and had already been paid for. And who is to say that the person who charges $1,000 would have done the same quality work? As the saying goes, “You get what you pay for.” It is possible that Mr. Friedman’s work is actually worth more than the price he charged.

Criticizing someone’s work is no simple matter.

IN A NUTSHELL

We may not tell someone a negative report concerning his or her close relative.

We may not speak rechilus to a non-Jew.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 7:2

How’s business, Gershon?”

“Not so good, Yisrael. That new dairy res­taurant down the block has been drawing custom­ers away from me. I think my food is just as good, but you know how it is — people always like to try something new.”

“It could be something else, Gershon. Someone told me that the Rav has been advising people to use the new store. He claims that the kashrus supervi­sion is better there. Who knows? Maybe the owner is the Rav’s cousin and he’s trying to get him customers.”

Of course, Yisrael has been guilty of speaking rechilus. The Chofetz Chaim points out that while it is forbidden to speak rechilus about any Jew, it is particularly severe when the subject is a talmid chacham.

He offers three reasons for this:

• The sin of rechilus is worse when the report is false. In the case of a talmid chacham, it is highly unlikely that he would have said or done something that is contrary to halachah. In our example, either the rav never made such a statement, or he had good reason for doing so. Suggesting that he encouraged people to use the other restaurant because the owner is his cousin is slander.

• The Torah commands us to draw close to talmidei chachamim, to assist them in any way possible, and to honor them. By speaking rechilus about a talmid chacham, one is drawing others away from him.

• Very often, people will ignore insults that others are reported to have said about them. In such cases, rechilus causes little damage. However, when someone hears that a talmid chacham has spoken against him, he tends to take it seriously, and the result can be terrible.

In our example, where the one reported to have done Gershon harm is his rav, the results can be tragic. If Gershon accepts the rechilus as fact, he may seek to have the rav fired.

The importance of showing respect for talmidei chachamim at all times cannot be overemphasized. The Chofetz Chaim once likened a talmid chacham to a doctor who possesses a wonder potion that can cure a terrible disease. And he likened those who show disrespect for a talmid chacham to someone who takes the potion out of the doctor’s hand and casts it into the river, making it impossible for him to cure anyone.

Said the Chofetz Chaim: Talmidei chachamim possess the wisdom of Torah, the “potion” that can help people to deal with all sorts of seri­ous problems. But their wisdom is beneficial only as long as respect is shown to them. When people are disrespectful towards talmidei cha­chamim, they are like the person who casts the potion into the river, for they cause others to ignore the talmid chacham’s words.

IN A NUTSHELL

Speaking rechilus about a talmid chacham is a particularly severe sin.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 6:8-10

In Hilchos Lashon Hara, the Chofetz Chaim dis­cussed two situations where one would be inclined to think it would be permissible to accept lashon hara as fact. One is where lashon hara is uttered as a casual remark and therefore appears to be true. The Chofetz Chaim stated that this leniency cannot be relied upon, as the sin of lashon hara is a Torah prohibition. Therefore, it is only in the most extreme cases that we would permit someone to accept lashon hara as fact.

Another situation that might permit leniency is the case of “devarim hanikarim” (recognizable signs), where evidence proves that the lashon hara is true. As with lashon hara, devarim hanikarim would permit us to believe rechilus only if the following conditions are met:

• The evidence must be relevant evidence that the listener personally witnessed.

• Based on the evidence, the person’s actions cannot be explained in a positive light.

• The information is important to know l’to’eles, for an important constructive reason (such as, so that the listener will know to keep his dis­tance from the person).

• The listener cannot rely on the information to attack the person physically, or to cause him a financial loss without taking him to beis din.

In today’s segment, the Chofetz Chaim bemoans a situation in which people sometimes take action which is clearly against halachah:

When a person suffers a financial loss in business because someone informed on him (to government authorities), and strong evidence points to a certain Jew as the guilty party, the victim responds by inform­ing on the alleged culprit! For, as the saying goes, “If he informed on me, I can inform on him.”

The Chofetz Chaim explains why this response is terribly wrong: One cannot rely on devarim hanikarim to take action against another person. Only if one personally witnessed the culprit informing on him, or if two valid witnesses testified in beis din to this effect, would one be permitted to take action. Even then, it would be permitted only l’to’eles, for a con­structive purpose, such as to prevent him from informing in the future. Certainly, it is forbidden to inform on someone out of revenge.

IN A NUTSHELL

We may not believe rechilus related as a casual remark.

We are permitted to believe rechilus that is accompanied by strong evidence only when certain conditions are met.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 6:5-6

“Chaim, you’ll never believe what I overheard today in the grocery. Asher Farneigel has also starting marketing doughnuts and he was trying to convince Mr. Fried to place a huge order …”

“Sarah, please, I don’t want to hear. It makes no difference to me what Farneigel does …”

“Chaim, just wait till you hear what Farneigel said! ‘Mr. Fried, I know whose doughnuts you’ve been getting. Believe me, that stuff doesn’t compare to what I have to offer. Besides, we use only natural ingredients, not the junk that those guys use.’

“Doesn’t Farneigel have some nerve, Chaim? I was so tempted to shout, ‘How dare you degrade my husband’s mouth-watering products — shame on you!’ “

“Sarah, I know you mean well in telling me all this, but you shouldn’t do it.”

“Chaim, what do you mean? I’m just fulfilling my duty as a devoted wife!”

“Sarah, what you’ve told me is actually rechilus. There was really no to’eles in your reporting it to me and I am not permitted to believe it. Even if your report is true, what can I do about it? Bad-mouth Farneigel in return? All that would accomplish would be to create a real machlokes.

“Besides, what we earn is decreed in Heaven on Rosh Hashanah. No one can deprive me of what is destined for me by speaking badly about my merchandise.”

“Chaim, look, I understand that I should not have reported it to you, and I’ll be more careful in the future. But how can you not believe it is true? I am your wife and I am telling you that I heard it myself. Are you suggesting that I am a liar?”

“Well, there are many ways that I can reject your report without accusing you of lying. You may have misunderstood something that Farneigel said; you may have imagined that what he said was worse than it actually was; and even if your report is accurate, not once did he mention me by name. Perhaps there was some other doughnut company to which he was referring.”

As the Chofetz Chaim notes, one cannot accept rechilus as fact even when it is related to him by someone whom he trusts implicitly, such as his father, mother, or wife. In Be’er Mayim Chaim, he comments that it is common even for sincere, G-d-fearing people to exaggerate or to omit certain details when relating a story, details that might help to convey an altogether different picture of what happened.

IN A NUTSHELL

One cannot believe rechilus even when it is related by someone whom he trusts implicitly.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 6:3-4

Dear Chatzkel: This is to inform you that our contract for your rental of the inn and its surrounding gardens is being terminated as of the end of this month. This means that by the last day of the month, you, your family and all your belongings are to be off my property.

I must say that I was shocked by the report I received this morning from Zanvil. He was kind enough to inform me that for the past six months, you have been running a liquor business on my property without informing me of this! Of course you didn’t inform me, because had I known, I would have demanded a percentage of the profits.

I am shocked that after we have known each other for so many years and I have treated you so well, you would go and do this behind my back. Don’t forget to drop off a check for any furniture that may have broken during your use of the inn.

signed with great anger, the Poritz

Chatzkel is fuming. “That Zanvil! He’s jealous that my inn has been doing so well while his business is failing. So he makes up a story about me!”

Chatzkel’s friends take up his cause. Soon, they confront Zanvil and berate him for his slandering Chatzkel. Zanvil remains silent with his head bowed, proof that the poritz wrote the truth when he reported that Zanvil had spoken against Chatzkel.

Wrong, says the Chofetz Chaim.

He points out that if Zanvil is innocent, he should say so. The Torah states: “And you shall be guiltless before Hashem and Yisrael.” If the poritz’s version of what happened is true, then Zanvil is a moser (informer), a most despicable, sinful individual. His silence does seem to indicate that he is guilty.

Nevertheless, we cannot be absolutely certain that he is guilty until we have proof. Zanvil may have chosen to remain silent because he feels that no one will believe his denial; or, that his denial will cause his accusers to say worse things about him. Therefore, even in such a case, we can only suspect that the poritz’s words might be true and take pre­cautions for the future. In the meantime, everyone is obligated to accord Zanvil every courtesy and service as if nothing had happened.

This would be true even if two or more people report (outside of beis din) that they witnessed Zanvil visiting the poritz in the middle of the night. It would be true even if the two inform Chatzkel that they overheard Zanvil telling the poritz about the secret liquor business. Chatzkel cannot believe this report as fact even if the entire community is in an uproar over the alleged dealings between the poritz and Zanvil.

This may seem an impossible challenge for Chatzkel. His source of livelihood is being taken from him. The poritz’s accusation against him is absolutely false. And the entire town seems to be pointing an accusing finger at Zanvil.

One thing is certain. Only Hashem can help Chatzkel to find a new source of income that will allow him to provide for his family. The best way for Chatzkel to earn the siyata diShmaya (Divine assistance) that he needs is by faithfully adhering to the laws of rechilus and not believing the terrible reports about a fellow Jew.

IN A NUTSHELL

We are never permitted to believe a rechilus report related by a gen­tile, even if the entire community is in an uproar and the subject of the report is silent.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 6:1-2

Does anyone know why the air conditioning is off when it’s 90 degrees outside?” Gabi wanted to know.

“Yes,” replied Tzvi, in a loud voice that could be heard throughout the large company office. “The boss is trying to save money and doesn’t care if we all pass out from heat exhaustion or dehydration.”

From different parts of the office, grumbling could be heard. “The boss doesn’t care about us. He probably has a private air-conditioning unit for his own office. He doesn’t care if everyone else is sweltering, as long as he’s comfortable.”

“Sure he wants to save money. His daughter is engaged and he needs to throw one of those $100,000 affairs. I guess he’s gonna pay for it by cutting expenditures at the office.”

The next day, every employee found a note in his memo box. “To my dear devoted workers: My deepest apologies for what happened yesterday with the air conditioning. I want you to know that I discovered the problem on Sunday and paid a repair company double the usual fee to come in on the weekend to fix the problem. However, a part was needed that had to be shipped from out of state. The part first arrived last night and the repairs were made during the night.

“Once again, my humble apologizes.”

Tzvi’s outburst, which angered his co-workers and left them with bad feelings towards their boss, was rechilus. They should not have believed Tzvi’s words, despite the fact that he said them publicly for all [except his boss] to hear. The fact that someone makes a forbidden statement in public does not give anyone the right to believe it.

What if Tzvi was the company manager for the last forty years, was the boss’s first cousin, and therefore was certain that he would never get fired? This would allow the scenario to be played out differently …

Everyone was sweltering in the heat when the door to the boss’s private office opened and the “man himself” stepped out. “My, it’s hot out here,” he said, looking a bit embarrassed.

“What do you care?” Tzvi shot back. “As long as the air conditioner in your office is working, everything is fine. You treat your workers like slaves, and if one or two passes out from heat exhaustion, it’s no great loss. I told you a few days ago that something was wrong with the air conditioning and that you should call the service to come before it broke down in the midst of this heat wave. Well, you ignored my warning and look what happened!”

The boss quickly returned to his office and closed the door.

“He didn’t answer me,” said Tzvi, turning to his co-workers, “because everything I said is 100% true and he knows it.”

The next morning, there was note inside every memo box: “To my dear devoted workers: My deepest apologies for what happened yesterday with the air conditioning. It is true that Tzvi did bring the matter to my attention a few days ago. Tzvi is not aware that I did call the repair service as soon as he alerted me to the problem. The service informed me that with the onset of the heat wave, they were overloaded with repair requests and could not get to our facility until tomorrow at the earliest. I offered to pay twice the usual fee if they would come right away, but they said that money was not the issue, they simply did not have the manpower.

“I want you to know that I felt very guilty having my office air conditionerrunning while all of you were sweltering. I do not like publicizingmy personal situation, but trust me that my current state of healthmakes it dangerous for me to be exposed to heat for too long.

“Once again, my deepest apologies.”

The fact that Tzvi’s tirade was uttered in the boss’s presence and the boss did not respond did not give anyone the right to believe it. The boss was probably too embarrassed.

The Chofetz Chaim points out that we are not permitted to believerechilus even when the speaker is relating it for our benefit (so that wecan protect ourselves from future harm) and therefore, is not sinning by relating it (assuming that his report is accurate). We are permitted only to investigate the matter and take precautions on the chance that it might be true. In our example, Tzvi’s tirade was clearly forbidden by halachah; nothing was to be accomplished other than to get everyone angry at the boss. Tzvi did something sinful, and certainly his words should not be believed

IN A NUTSHELL

We are not permitted to believe rechilus, even when it is related in public or in the subject’s presence and he remains silent.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 5:6-7

The “Thursday Night Clan” made their way to the school auditorium for their weekly get-together. Each week, they would sit and watch a famous talmid chacham deliver a shiur on the weekly para-shah that was beamed live via satellite. Tonight, they had convinced a few friends to join them for what was sure to be another informative, fascinating evening.

To everyone’s shock and dismay, the auditorium was locked. Someone went to find Greg, the school custodian. “Greg, could you please open the audito­rium? The weekly program is going to start in only five minutes!”

“Sorry, young fella, I’m not opening it. Rabbi Berman said he don’t want you guys using the auditorium no more. And what Rabbi Berman says goes! Good night!”

The boys were furious. “Why does it bother RabbiBerman if we watch the shiur?” one of the newcomers asked.

“Who knows?” a regular to the shiur replied. “Maybe he doesn’t like the speaker, or maybe he just wants to save money on electricity.”

The Chofetz Chaim has already informed us that often, when a person speaks or accepts lashon hara, he transgresses the mitzvah of “Judge your fellow favorably, “which requires us to give others

the benefit of the doubt. In today’s segment, we learn that this applies to the sin of believing rechilus as well. Often, people believe rechilus and feel bitterness towards the one who allegedly has caused them harm, because they fail to judge the person favorably.

In our example, the students cannot think of any valid reason why the principal would deprive them of an activity that was educational and informative.

Perhaps they overlooked something.

The previous week, one of the group decided to celebrate his birthday at the Thursday night get-together. He came with a large pot of cholent, assorted cakes, and soda. The boys ate the food as they sat enjoying the shiur. When the shiur ended, they left behind dirty bowls and cups, and a couple of benches in need of cleaning.

This was the second time this had happened.

Rabbi Berman was not planning to cancel the shiur permanently. He wanted the boys to apologize and to assure him that this would not happen again. If they would have approached him to ask why the auditorium was closed, he would have been happy to explain this to them.

Had the boys thought of their obligation to judge others favorably, they would have said to one another, “If Rabbi Berman locked the auditorium, he must have had a good reason. Let’s try to think what we could have done wrong.”

It probably would not have taken them long to figure it out.

And what if someone has already believed rechilus and now has thoughts of teshuvah?

Says the Chofetz Chaim:

He can correct his sin by strengthening himself to purge the informa­tion from his heart so that he no longer believes it. If he finds it difficult to believe that the speaker fabricated the information, then he should tell himself that perhaps the speaker added or deleted a detail, or omitted a few words [that would have put a positive spin on things]; or perhaps he should have repeated the perpetrator’s statement in a different tone which would have changed it from negative to positive.

The listener should accept upon himself to refrain from accepting lashon hara or rechilus about any Jew and he should confess his sin before Hashem. All of the above will serve to correct his sin — provided that he did not repeat the information to anyone else.

IN A NUTSHELL

Not giving others the benefit of the doubt is a prime cause of speaking or accepting rechilus.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 5:5

In the previous segment, we learned that although one may protect himself upon hearing a report that someone is trying to harm him, he may not believe any negative information as fact. All he may do is take precautions on the chance that the report is true.

The Chofetz Chaim continues:

From this, you can see how foolish many people are, for they are in the habit of always asking others, “So what did So-and-so say about me?” They do this even though they know that this information has no bearing on the future. When the person declines to tell them what the speaker said, they pressure him a lot until he finally reveals it. They are told that the person spoke of them in a derogatory way and they accept this information as absolute fact — and through this, the two become bitter enemies.

The page is too short to list the great destructiveness and the many sins that result from such behavior.

Understand well: It is forbidden to accept lashon hara or rechilus as fact even if someone offers the information on his own and the information is relevant for the future. In such a case, the Torah com­mands that we take precautions on the chance that the information is true, but not to believe it as fact. When it is not relevant for the future, we are not even permitted to listen to it.

Certainly, it is forbidden to stand over someone and pressure him until the speaker sins by relating rechilus and the listener sins by listening and accepting it. Someone who does this is a chotei umachti (one who sins and induces others to sin).

Therefore, one has to stay very, very distant from seeking such information, unless he is certain that it is relevant for the future so that he will know how to protect himself from the speaker.

A person may wonder: “What can I do if I worry that someone is talking about me behind my back? Even if I know that his words cannot cause me any actual harm, I still want to know if he is speaking against me. I actually lose sleep at night wondering what he might be saying — and the only way I can find this out is by convincing those who know him to tell me whether or not he talks about me!”

A person who is truly devoted to serving Hashem and who knows that his path of life is correct will not worry about what others might be saying about him.

Two famous brothers, great talmidim of the Vilna Gaon, R’ Chaim and R’ Zalman of Volozhin, were once traveling when they stopped at an inn for the night. The innkeeper was extremely insulting to the two strangers, unaware that he was speaking to two of the greatest tzaddikim of the generation. Later, R’ Chaim found R’ Zalman weeping.

“Zalman,” he said, “why are you crying? Who cares what that man said? “

“Chaim,” his brother replied, “I am crying because at the moment when he was hurling his insults, I felt that it was bothering me a bit. I yearn to attain a level where insults will not bother me at all.”

IN A NUTSHELL

Unless it is absolutely necessary for personal protection, one should never ask what others are saying about him.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 5:3-4

In Hilchos Lashon Hara, we learned that a person is permitted to investigate if he suspects that some­one may be trying to harm him, even if this will cause others to speak [what would normally be considered] lashon hara. The same applies if others will be forced to speak rechilus.

As with lashon hara, the person seeking the infor­mation is not permitted to believe the rechilus until it is confirmed as fact. Without conclusive proof, he has to assume that the report is probably false. However, he should protect himself on the chance that the report is true.

Because he is not allowed to believe the report, the person may only protect himself; he cannot take any action against the person. He may not cause him personal or financial harm, and he may not embarrass him or cause him any sort of discomfort.

He may not withhold any assistance that he would normally give him, and he may not feel any ill will towards him.

This may seem like a tall order. I cannot bear a grudge against someone who might have harmed me, or might be attempting to harm me? Why, I heard from a reliable source that this fellow is no good and is out to hurt me!

From the great among us we can learn that it is possible not to bear a grudge even against someone whom we know with certainty has caused us harm.

Rabbi Tzvi Genot of Jerusalem was a great tzaddik from whom we can learn this lesson. In his eulogy of R’ Tzvi, Rabbi Yechezkel Levenstein related the following:

Someone committed a wrong against R’ Tzvi. How did the tzaddik respond? Every day for one month, he would write down two good things about that person. At the end of the month, he reviewed all sixty points he had written about the person. When he finished, he said to himself: “What am I, a fool? How can I bear a grudge against someone who has so many wonderful qualities?” And with that, R’ Tzvi forgave the man with all his heart.

Surely, if we make the effort, we can rid ourselves of any hard feel­ings towards someone whom we suspect of having wronged us.

Another reason why great people are able to refrain from bearing a grudge is that they have a deeper understanding of the greatness of every Jewish neshamah. The tzaddik sees in every Jew the indestructible spark of G-dliness that is waiting to be fanned into a huge flame.

Rabbi Sholom Noach Berezovsky, the late Rebbe of Slonim, once went to pray at the Kosel HaMaaravi on a day when the Kosel plaza was crowded. Someone asked the revered tzaddik if he would like someone to vacate a spot right by the Wall so that the Rebbe could stand before its stones without anyone in front of him.

The Rebbe smiled and replied, “Is there a problem with a Jew standing between me and the Kosel? Can a Jew be a chatzitzah (something that causes a separation)?”

A person with great ahavas Yisrael will find it easy not to bear a grudge.

IN A NUTSHELL

While we are permitted to protect ourselves against someone who may be seeking to harm us, we cannot believe the information about him without proof, and we cannot bear a grudge against him.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 5:1-2

Doeg HeAdomi is one of the most tragic figures in all of Tanach. He was a great Torah scholar but a jealous person, and this proved to be his undoing. In particular, Doeg was jealous of Dovid, even before Dovid had ascended the throne as King of the Jewish people.

Doeg convinced Shaul HaMelech that Achimelech, the Kohen Gadol, was aiding Dovid against the king. Shaul accepted Doeg’s slander as fact and ordered the murder of Achimelech and the other kohanim of Nov.

Shaul sinned in accepting the rechilus spoken by Doeg. Our Sages tell us that because of this tragic episode, Shaul later died in war and Doeg lost his share in the World to Come. This illustrates the Sages’ teaching: “Lashon hara kills three: the speaker, the one who accepts the report, and the one of whom it was spoken.”

As with lashon hara, there are times when it is permissible to listen to rechilus for a constructive purpose. However, one is not permitted to accept the report as fact. Instead, he should investigate the matter, and in the meantime take whatever steps are necessary to protect himself in case the report is true.

At Yeshivah Anshei Chesed, fifth-grader Ari was given detention for throwing an eraser out the win­dow. A week later, Ari’s mother met a friend whose son, Asher, was in the same class.

“Asher told me that your son was punished for throwing an eraser out the window. He also told me that two other boys did the same thing before your son did it, but nothing happened to them. Maybe the principal didn’t catch them.”

That night, Ari’s mother wrote a letter to the principal, repeating what she had heard and concluding that obviously, her son had been unjustly disciplined since he was merely copying others. To herself she said, “I think the principal just has it in for my son.”

The next morning, the principal called Asher into the office. “I hear that two boys threw the eraser out the window before Ari?”

“Uh, that’s what Efraim told me. I wasn’t there when it happened.”

Minutes later, the principal was questioning Efraim about the incident.

Efraim, looking a bit uncomfortable, explained. “Actually, they didn’t throw the eraser out the window. They were having a catch with the eraser in the classroom, then Ari grabbed it and threw it out the window.”

Before we get angry over something that we have been told, we should first make sure that the information is correct. In our example, before repeating her son’s words to Ari’s mother, Asher’s mother should have asked him, “How do you know they threw the eraser out the window? Did you see it?” Her next step could have been to ask Asher to double-check with Ephraim that the story was accurate.

Ari’s mother also should have realized that information related by children (as well as adults) is not always accurate. Therefore, she was wrong to believe the report as soon as she received it.

IN A NUTSHELL

We are permitted to listen to rechilus l’to’eles without believing it as fact. We must check that the facts are correct before drawing conclusions.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 4:1-3

Henoch walks out of beis din, tired and defeat­ed. As he nears the corner, he meets his good friend, Baruch. “Henoch, why so glum? Don’t tell me the beis din issued their psak (ruling) today?”

“They sure did,” Henoch replies, “and it’s worse than I ever imagined. Not only does Shmuel not owe me any money, I actually owe him for causing him a loss by dissolving the partnership.”

“What?” Baruch responds with outrage. “Those dayanim (judges) don’t know what they’re doing! I learned the Gemaras about just this sort of case, and it’s clear to me that you should have won. This beis din really shortchanged you.”

That night at supper, Henoch tells his wife, “Those dayanim were out to get me. I know, because my friend Baruch, who is somewhat of an expert in these laws, told me that I should have won the case.”

Baruch has committed a terrible wrong by causing Henoch to feel animosity towards the dayanim and by convincing him that their ruling was incorrect. This is rechilus of the highest order.

Baruch might reason: “Henoch already knows the facts of the case; I just told him my view of the matter.”

The Chofetz Chaim states:

The prohibition of rechilus applies even if the speaker is not revealing anything new to the listener, for he also is aware of what the other party has said or done. However, he [i.e. the listener] has not come to the understanding that the other party has done any­thing wrong towards him, and the speaker awakens this feeling within him. This is considered rechilus, for the speaker has added something new to the situation, namely, his words have brought hatred into the heart of the listener towards the other party.”

The Chofetz Chaim then discusses the following scenario:

Reuven and Shimon are present as Levi makes a derogatory comment concerning Yehudah. Reuven reports this to Yehudah. Shimon reasons, “I guess that now I can tell Yehudah that I was also there when Levi made his comment. After all, I’m not telling Yehudah anything that he does not already know!”

Shimon is wrong. If Yehudah had any doubts whether or not Reuven’s report was true, Shimon’s report will confirm it. Even if Yehudah has already accepted Reuven’s report as fact, Shimon is wrong to repeat it. Hearing the report from a second person can only strengthen Yehudah’s anger towards Levi, and will convince him yet further that Levi did, indeed, make those comments. It may very well be, says the Chofetz Chaim, that Shimon’s report will cause a full-scale feud to erupt.

How does one repent for speaking rechilus? As with any sin bein adam l’chaveiro (between man and his fellow), he must seek forgiveness from the person whom he wronged. He must also seek forgiveness from Hashem, as we have discussed in Day 47 regarding the sin of lashon hara.

IN A NUTSHELL

Never tell someone that beis din misjudged his case.

Never strengthen someone’s rechilus by saying, “I was there too.”

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 3:2-4

Moshe meets Chaim in the cafeteria during their lunch break. “I just met Zevi; he was at the meeting with the boss and the heads of his department. He said that Michoel delivered a report on the company’s profits for the past three months. The boss was not very pleased with the report — and he had a fit when Michoel tried to lay the blame at the boss’s doorstep!

“Zevi says that Michoel had better watch his step, or else he might find himself without a job.

“Now please, don’t tell anyone what I said — I’m sure Michoel would be very upset that Zevi spoke about this, and I’m sure that you don’t want to cause any bad feelings between him and Zevi.”

Had Moshe not warned Chaim to keep the information confidential, then, without question, he would have been guilty of speaking rechilus. The same way he repeated Zevi’s words to Chaim, Chaim would rep eat them to someone else … and eventually, Michoel himself would hear from someone that Zevi had been speaking about him.

The Chofetz Chaim points out that even with the warning not to repeat his words to anyone, and even if he is positive that Chaim will heed his warn­ing, Moshe has sinned by speaking lashon hara. It is obvious that Zevi feels Michoel has acted foolishly by blaming the boss for the company’s problems. Thus, both Zevi and Moshe have cast Michoel in a negative light and have spoken lashon hara about him.

The Chofetz Chaim notes that in the majority of cases, when Reuven tells Shimon what Levi has said about Yehudah behind Yehudah’s back, Reuven has spoken lashon hara either about Levi or about Yehudah. If Levi was correct about what he said, then lashon hara has probably been spoken about Yehudah; if Levi was wrong, then lashon hara has been spoken about Levi.

The Chofetz Chaim notes that there is a situation where Moshe would be correct to tell Chaim this information. If Moshe is convinced that Zevi has been unfair in his criticism of Michoel and he knows that Zevi plans to voice his criticism to others, he would be correct to attempt to silence him. If he knows that Zevi will not listen to him, but he would listen to Chaim, then he would be correct to relate to Chaim what Zevi had said.

The Chofetz Chaim points out an unfortunate mistake that can have serious consequences.

Mrs. Stern meets Mrs. Hoch in the supermarket. “Funny that we should meet today. Just yesterday I was in the doctor’s office, and this fellow Jason who works in your husband’s office was on his cell phone. Boy, was he mad at your husband. Something about having to stay overtime to complete a project …”

Just as it is forbidden to tell such information to Mr. Hoch, so too it is forbidden to tell it to Mrs. Hoch. This is not only because Mrs. Hoch will probably relate it to her husband. It is only natural for a wife to be upset at someone who speaks badly of her husband. Mrs. Hoch will harbor bad feelings towards Jason for what he said. Mrs. Stern, therefore, has sinned by relating such information.

IN A NUTSHELL

Cautioning someone not to repeat rechilus is not necessarily a license to relate such information.

Beware not to speak rechilus when the listener is the subject’s spouse.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 3:1

In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim refers us to a footnote in the Preface to Sefer Chofetz Chaim, where he offers a real-life, most disturbing illustration:

Reuven approaches Shimon and says, “Want to hear what Levi said about you?” and he proceeds to relate some nasty comments which, he claims, were made by Levi.

Shimon, contrary to the law that one may not believe rechilus, accepts the report as absolute truth. The next time he meets Levi, he gets straight to the point. “How dare you spread such lies about me!” and he proceeds to tell Levi what he heard from Reuven.

Levi defends himself. “Reuven is lying — I never said those things.”

Shimon reports Levi’s denial to Reuven. “Oh, so now he’s denying it!” Reuven responds. “You come with me, and we’ll see if he’ll deny it in front of me.”

The two approach Levi and, in Shimon’s pres­ence, Reuven repeats what he claims to have heard from Levi concerning Shimon.

Levi’s face reddens from embarrassment and he has difficulty getting the words out of his mouth. Finally, he says to Shimon, “I did say something like that — but not in the tone of voice and gestures that Reuven has used. If you would have been present when I spoke, you would have realized that I did not intend to degrade you in any way.”

“Don’t tell me stories,” Shimon retorts angrily.

“The fact that Reuven did not hesitate to repeat what you said in your presence proves to me that he is speaking the truth.”

In this illustration, numerous sins have been transgressed. Reuven was, of course, guilty of speaking rechilus. Shimon was guilty of believing rechilus. The fact that Reuven repeated the comment in Levi’s presence does not give Shimon a right to believe it. In fact, Reuven’s sin is compounded by the fact that he repeated it in Levi’s presence, for not only did he once again speak rechilus, he also embarrassed Levi.

And why did Reuven confront Levi and embarrass him? To preserve his own self-image, since he had been accused by Levi of lying. Had Reuven had any interest in following the ways of Hashem, says the Chofetz Chaim, he would have swallowed his pride and remained silent rather than embarrass Levi and cause Shimon to be furious. Furthermore, by confronting Levi in Shimon’s presence, Reuven was guilty of a most serious form of rechilus. As long as Reuven’s report is not said in front of Levi, there is always the chance that Shimon will choose not to believe it. However, now that Reuven has confronted Levi in Shimon’s presence, Shimon will surely say to himself, “This must be true, for if not, Reuven would not have had the nerve to repeat it in front of Levi.”

The Chofetz Chaim concludes: “May Hashem save us from such lowly behavior.”

IN A NUTSHELL

The sin of rechilus is compounded when a speaker repeats his sinful words in the subject’s presence to prove their truth.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 2:3-4

The class met at the park after school for a game of baseball, and teams were chosen. Sixteen out of seventeen boys had been selected, leaving Pinny still not chosen by either team.

“That’s funny,” Pinny thought to himself. “I’m probably the best first baseman in the class. I won­der why no one picked me yet.”

One of the teams headed out to the field as the game was about to begin. “One second,” Pinny said to the captain whose team was at bat, “which team am I on?”

“Neither,” the captain replied. “There are 17 who want to play. You’re the odd man out.”

Pinny did not understand. “It’s not my fault the class has an odd number of boys. Besides, this is about the tenth baseball game we’re having this year. The odd man always gets put on a team. Why is today different?”

The captain replied, “Because Dovy told everyone that your parents asked the principal to switch you to the other class, only there was no room. If our class is not good enough for you, then you can go play with the kids in the other class.”

The Chofetz Chaim states:

If a business partner is seeking to end the partnership because he would rather become a partner with someone else, but in the end his plans do not materialize, it is forbidden for someone else to tell his current partner about what he was planning … for his partner will surely have bad feelings towards him for wanting to do this … and in the end, this may actually cause the partnership to break up. At the very least, this will cause the partner aggravation and, as Rambam writes, the sin of lashon hara includes relating information that may frighten someone or cause him distress.

In our example, the captains were, of course, terribly wrong for not including Pinny in the game. However, the problem all began with Dovy, who revealed to his classmates that Pinny had wanted to switch to another class. This was private information that Dovy had no right to divulge. His doing so caused his classmates to harbor bad feelings towards Pinny and led to his being hurt and humiliated at the park.

The following true incident illustrates the importance of this halachah:

A summer camp was seeking to hire a new head counselor. A head counselor of another camp applied for the position. When submitting his application he told the camp director, “I am sure that you will want to speak to people who have worked with me in the summer. I have one request: Please do not speak to the director of the camp at which I am currently employed. I don’t want him to know that I’ve applied elsewhere. After all, if you decide not to hire me, I will return to that camp. If the director finds out that I wanted to leave, our relationship will never be the same.”

Had anyone related this information to the director, he would have been guilty of speaking rechilus.

IN A NUTSHELL

Never reveal private information that could damage relationships between partners, classmates, etc.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 8:1-3

Avak rechilus (lit. the dust of rechilus) are state­ments that are not actually rechilus, but contain some aspect of rechilus. In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim offers three examples.

1) Implied rechilus

Nesanel tells Menachem, “You know, I asked Ezzy about that incident you were involved in at recess the other day. But he wouldn’t talk about it. He said, ‘I’ve decided that I’m not going to tell anyone what Menachem did. If there will be any repercussions, you’ll hear about it.’“

Ezzy’s words, as reported by Nesanel, do not contain anything negative about Menachem — but they certainly imply that Menachem did something wrong. Therefore, such a report is liable to cause Menachem to have bad feelings towards Ezzy. Nesanel should not have repeated Ezzy’s words.

2) Seemingly innocuous statements that will irritate someone

Shaya Grobler of “Grobler and Mannis Insurance” walked into shul for Shacharis after being away on a two-week vacation. The first person he met was R’ Yankel, a friendly Jerusalem fund-raiser who was on his yearly visit to the city.

“R’ Shaya, so good to see you! You and your partner, Yechezkel Mannis, are my two best friends in this city. You know, while you were away, R’ Yechezkel gave me a check for $2,500 from your firm’s charity fund! It’s the largest donation your firm has ever given us, and the largest one to date that we’ve received in this city. Thank you, and may you be blessed!”

Quite possibly, the two partners have an arrangement where each may issue charity checks without consulting the other. However, there is the possibility that Mr. Grobler will be upset to learn that his partner gave such a large donation to a single cause. The fund-raiser should not have revealed such information.

3) Revealing knowledge of a favor done privately

Ephraim Stein needed to borrow money to pay for the wedding of his daughter. One night, he visited the well-to-do Zanvil Holtzman and got straight to the point. “My daughter’s wedding is in six weeks. Right now, I’m twenty thousand dollars short of what I need. I came to you to request a $10,000 loan.”

Mr. Holtzman replied softly, “Ephraim, you’re a good man and I want to help you. But right now, the most I can offer you is $5,000.”

Ephraim was extremely disappointed. Without thinking, he blurted out, “But Yanki Sterber told me that for his daughter’s wedding, you lent him $15,000!”

Mr. Holtzman fought to control his anger over this remark. “I don’t understand Yanki,” he thought. “I went out of my way to extend so much money to him, and then he goes and tells others about it — and now I’m having trouble because of it! Talk about gratitude!”

Yanki was wrong for revealing the details of Mr. Holtzman’s loan to him, and Ephraim was guilty of speaking rechilus by relating to Mr. Holtzman what Yanki had said.

IN A NUTSHELL
We must avoid all forms of avak rechilus.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 1:10-11

Pinchos Kornstein and Leibel Barnfeld were at it again. This time, the fight erupted over who would lead the congregation for Shacharis on the Shabbos when both men had yahrtzeit. In the end, the rav ruled that Mr. Kornstein should be chaz­zan, since he had yahrtzeit for his father, while Mr. Barnfeld was observing his grandfather’s yahrtzeit. Mr. Barnfeld had no choice but to step aside — as he simmered inwardly.

A few weeks later, on the morning of Shabbos Chanukah, Mr. Barnfeld met Chaim Landau on his way to shul. Mr. Barnfeld suddenly recalled an incident that had occurred 10 years earlier. The shul caterer had erred and mistakenly allowed both Mr. Kornstein and Mr. Landau to book the simchah hall for their sons’ bar mitzvahs — on Shabbos Chanukah. The rav sided with Mr. Kornstein, and Mr. Landau had to postpone his celebration for the following Shabbos. For weeks afterwards, Mr. Landau refused to even speak to Mr. Kornstein. However, as time passed the two became friends again — much to Mr. Barnfeld’s dismay.

Now, ten years later, an angry Leibel Barnfeld was eager to stir up trouble against his enemy, Pinchos Kornstein. In as casual a manner as he could muster, he said to Chaim Landau, “Chaim, when I think of Shabbos Chanukah, you know what comes to mind? That bar mitzvah you made ten years ago. I don’t even remember who the other party was, but I do remember that there was a problem with a double booking. And in the end, you had to postpone the bar mitzvah, though the invitations had already gone out. Every time I think about it, I still feel bad for you and your son …”

Mr. Barnfeld is guilty of “rechilus by way of deception.” Without saying anything nasty outright, he has reminded Mr. Landau of an incident that caused a fight between himself and Mr. Kornstein. Though Mr. Barnfeld did not mention Mr. Kornstein by name (and claimed that he could not recall his name), Mr. Landau is sure to remember who the other party was. Reminding Mr. Landau of this might reawaken within him the anger he felt toward Mr. Kornstein at that time, and possibly could lead to an eruption of the old feud — which is exactly what Mr. Barnfeld is hoping for.

The rule, then, is: Do not make any statement that can awaken bad feelings. It makes no difference whether or not names are mentioned or events are merely hinted to. It also makes no difference whether the words of rechilus are spoken or written.

In Hilchos Lashon Hara, we learned that it is forbidden to malign a storekeeper’s merchandise. Here, the Chofetz Chaim applies this to rechilus. It is forbidden to tell a produce dealer, “You know, the other day, Donny Cohen mentioned that your fruits are second-rate and over­priced.”

Such a statement is sure to cause the dealer to have bad feelings towards Donny Cohen, and therefore is rechilus.

IN A NUTSHELL

Never say anything that can reawaken bad feelings which the listener once felt towards the subject.

Never tell a merchant that someone maligned his merchandise.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 1:8-9

A Kohen Gadol (High Priest) is required to protect his unique level of holiness. While other kohanim are permitted, and even commanded, to become tamei (ritually impure) upon the death of a close relative, a Kohen Gadol cannot become tamei even upon the death of his father or mother.

There is one exception to this rule. If a Kohen Gadol comes upon a meis mitzvah, a corpse that is lying in disgrace with no one available to attend to its burial, and the only one who can accomplish this sacred task is the Kohen Gadol, then he is commanded to bury it, and in the process become tamei.

Yes, safeguarding the Kohen Gadol’s sanctity is very important, but attending to the burial of a corpse lying in disgrace is even more important. In a similar sense, speaking the truth, and nothing but the truth, is a crucial Torah concept. “Distance yourself from falsehood” is how the Torah expresses it. And our Sages teach, “The seal of Hakadosh Baruch Hu is truth.”

To what extent will a Jew go to avoid falsehood? We can learn a lesson from Lieutenant Mayer Birnbaum.

When Lieutenant Birnbaum was attending Officers Training School, he was brought before an army court on charges of knowingly ignoring an army regulation. When eating his meals in the army “mess hall,” Private Birnbaum always wore his yarmulka, against army regulations requiring that one’s head be bare when inside an army building.

A lawyer was assigned to help Birnbaum plead his case. The lawyer told him, “Just tell the judge that you forgot the rule against wearing head coverings.”

Mayer Birnbaum replied, “But I didn’t forget the rule.”

“You know that,” the lawyer countered, “but the judge doesn’t know it. Anyway, it’s just a ‘white lie’; you’re not hurting anyone by saying it.”

Mayer Birnbaum had attended public school, but his mother had given him a solidly Jewish upbringing. He refused to go along with the lawyer’s suggestion. “I’m not going to lie,” he said adamantly.

In the end, he was acquitted by arguing that by wearing a yarmulka while eating, he was merely following the soldier’s oath that he had uttered upon being inducted into the army. In that oath, a soldier promises to be faithful to “G-d and my country.” “The oath,” he told the judge, “places G-d ahead of our country. That is what I do when I cover my head while eating.”

Yet, there are certain situations where the halachah requires that we not tell the truth. This is when we need to say an untruth for the sake of maintaining peace. Shalom, peace, is the greatest receptacle for earning Hashem’s blessings. If speaking the truth will lead to ill will and possibly a fight, then it is preferable that we not speak the truth.

Thus, the Chofetz Chaim, states:

Regarding how to respond to someone who asks, “What did he say about me?”:

It is best, where possible, to respond in a way that is neither rechilus nor an outright lie. However, if one realizes that such a response will not be accepted [i.e. the person will assume the worst and ill feelings will result], then it is permissible to lie for the sake of peace. However, one should not swear, G-d forbid.

It is forbidden to relate what was said without mentioning names, if the listener will be able to deduce on his own who the person is. Similarly, if someone already knows that something uncomplimentary was said about him, but he does not know who said it, it is forbidden to even hint to him to indicate the person’s identity.

From all of the above, we see how utterly crucial it is that we avoid speaking rechilus in any way at all, except for a constructive purpose, as will be discussed in forthcoming lessons.

IN A NUTSHELL

One is permitted to lie, when absolutely necessary, to prevent bad feelings between Jews.

Never convey information, through hints or other means, that will result in bad feelings between Jews.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 1:6-7

Yehudah Burke, owner of Burke Mortgage Bankers, enters his office one morning to find a note on his desk:

“Dear Mr. Burke: We really did not appreciate having to work overtime right before Succos. We all have succahs to build and yom tov needs to pur­chase, and the long work hours made our prepara­tions very difficult. Please be more considerate in the future. Sincerely, A Disgruntled Employee.”

Mr. Burke, who is known to be short-tempered, is not too pleased with the note. He summons Yisrael, a loyal, quiet, respectful worker, shows him the note, and says, “I know you didn’t write this note, but I have a hunch that you do know who wrote it. Tell me who it is!”

Yisrael knows that Heshy Greenberg is the culprit. He also knows that to reveal his name would be to speak rechilus. On the other hand, his boss is demanding to know the writer’s identity. What should he do?

The Chofetz Chaim leaves no room for doubt. Yisrael is not permitted to reveal the writer’s name. Even if he knows that his boss will react by screaming and insulting him, he may not reveal this information. The Chofetz Chaim quotes our Sages’ famous teaching:

Those who suffer insult but do not insult in response, who hear their disgrace but do not reply, who per­form G-d’s will out of love and are happy even in suffering, of them it is written, “And those who love Him [Hashem] shall be like the sun going forth in its might.”

To bear insult for the sake of Hashem and His Torah is a sign of true greatness. Yisrael can rest assured that the long-term gain for remain­ing silent will far outweigh whatever momentary discomfort he may suffer from his boss’s insults.

What if Burke responds by threatening to fire Yisrael? Even in this case, Yisrael must remain silent. A Jew must be prepared to give up all his money and possessions rather than transgress a single lo sa’aseh (negative commandment).

There are situations where it would be permissible for Yisrael to reveal the writer’s identity. For example, if in addition to leaving a note, Heshy spray-painted his boss’s office with graffiti, Yisrael would be allowed to reveal Heshy’s identity, provided that the conditions for speaking rechilus l’to’eles (for a constructive purpose) are met. These will be discussed in forthcoming segments.

Remaining silent when the result might be losing one’s job or being embarrassed is a difficult test. It is at such times that we must bear in mind: We never lose from doing what is right. If the Torah demands that we not speak rechilus, then we should be proud to uphold the halachah and not be intimidated by threats, insults, or even the possibility of being fired.

When the great rosh yeshivah Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky arrived in America in 1937, his first job was as a fund-raiser for a charity organization. The moment he discovered that the organization was not being run with absolute honesty, he quit — though he had absolutely no idea how he would support himself and his family. The very next day, R’ Yaakov met an old friend who arranged for him to serve as temporary Rav in Seattle. The rav in Seattle for whom R’ Yaakov substituted arranged for him to be appointed to a prestigious position as rav in Toronto. Through that position, R’ Yaakov became acquainted with the legendary founder of Mesivta Torah Vodaath, R’ Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, and was subsequently appointed Rosh Yeshivah of Torah Vodaath.

R’ Yaakov was not fired; he resigned his position as fund-raiser because he was certain that that was what Hashem wanted him to do. As a result, he became head of a great yeshivah and recognized as a leader of the generation.

One never loses from doing what is right.

IN A NUTSHELL

One may not speak rechilus even under the threat of being embar­rassed or fired.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Rechilus 1:1-3

We now begin, b’ezras Hashem, the second part of Sefer Chofetz Chaim, the Laws of Rechilus.

The Torah states,” Do not go as a gossipmonger among your people.” As we have learned, these words prohibit us from speaking all forms of lashon hara. However, the word “rochil” gossipmonger which literally means peddler, refers specifically to someone who goes “peddling” his gossip from person to person, telling each one: “Do you know what So-and-so said about you …?” “Do you know what So-and-so did behind your back?” Such talk is called “rechilus” [from the word rochil] and does much to destroy the unity and ahavas Yisrael of our people. In the Chofetz Chaim’s words:

It is a great sin and causes many among the Jewish people to be killed. This is why this prohibition and that of “You shall not stand aside while your brother’s blood is shed” are placed in the very same verse.

The Chofetz Chaim makes a very crucial point regarding rechilus:

Chaim has been the shul’s caterer for three years and his contract is up for renewal. The shul’s board votes not to renew his contract. Chaim is angry and confronts a board member, Danny Walters. “What do you want from me?” Danny responds. “I voted in your favor, but I was outvoted by people like Friedman and Pollak.”

The next time Chaim meets Mr. Friedman, he confronts him. “You voted against me at that board meeting — don’t try to deny it!”

Mr. Friedman responds calmly: “Yes, I did vote against you. And I’ll be very straight with you. In the past year, I’ve been to at least a dozen weddings and bar mitzvahs which you catered. I’m sorry to say that I was very disappointed, both with the quality of the food and the service.”

Though Mr. Friedman readily admitted that he voted against Chaim and maintained that his vote was absolutely correct, Danny was nevertheless guilty of speaking rechilus. He had no right to reveal how the voting went and thereby cause bad feelings between Chaim and those who voted against him.

The Chofetz Chaim then discusses an all-too-common case:

Bunk 31 has just lost its fourth baseball game of the summer. The campers are dejected. Dovid tells his bunkmate, Yechiel, “I’ll tell you the truth. We could have won the game if you wouldn’t insist on trying to hit a home run every time you’re at bat. Don’t say it’s not true. Even Simchah, your best friend, said that it was obvious you were trying for a homer.”

Though Simchah did make that comment and though Dovid’s intention in relating it to Yechiel was just to prove his point, nevertheless, Dovid had no right to repeat it. By doing so, he caused Yechiel to have bad feelings towards Simchah and is guilty of speaking rechilus.

IN A NUTSHELL

We are not permitted to relate rechilus, even when our intention is just to make a point, and even when the perpetrator would readily admit that the report is true.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Lashon Hara 10:17

Avromi had a very annoying practice, one that his bunkmates wished he would stop. After swimming or showering, he would drape his soak­ing wet towel over the front door of the bunkhouse. Avromi’s counselor and fellow bunkmates did not appreciate getting wet every time they went in or out of the bunk. They would ask him to drape the towel over the porch railing or on the clothesline behind the bunkhouse, but Avromi would respond, “The door is the most convenient place and the wind that’s created when the door is opened and closed helps the towel to dry faster.”

One day when Avromi was not present, Yossi, a fellow bunkmate, removed the towel from the door and draped it neatly over the porch railing. A few minutes later, Avromi returned to the bunk. Seeing the towel on the railing, he flew into a rage. “Who moved my towel without my permission?” he demanded of his bunkmate Usher.

Yossi did nothing wrong by moving the towel. Nevertheless, Avromi will be angry at him if he finds out that he is the one who moved it.

If Avromi will not be able to determine which of his bunkmates moved the towel, then Usher would be allowed to say that he was not the one. This is the halachah; however, it would be proper for Usher to go lifnim mishuras hadin, beyond the letter of the law, and accept the blame for what happened. This is because if Usher denies involvement, there is a reasonable possibility that Avromi will eventually identify Yossi as the culprit. This may lead to an argument or Yossi’s embarrassment. We learn this, says the Chofetz Chaim, from a number of incidents in the Gemara. In one incident, Rabban Gamliel [the Nasi] asked that seven judges come to his court for an important meeting. When eight judges arrived at the meeting, Rabban Gamliel announced that whoever was not invited should leave. Shmuel HaKattan rose and said, “I am the one who came without permission.” In fact, Shmuel had been one of those summoned, but he wanted to spare the uninvited individual embarrassment (Sanhedrin 11a).

Now, let us change the scenario:

As Yossi enters the bunkhouse, he becomes entangled in the wet towel and decides that he has had enough. He removes the towel from the door and, in order to teach Avromi a lesson, throws the towel into the mud in front of the bunkhouse.

Most of the bunk has gone hiking. Avromi, Yossi and Usher are the only ones who have remained behind. When Avromi finds the towel in the mud, he immediately realizes that either Yossi or Usher is the culprit. He confronts Usher, “Are you the one who did this?”

If Usher responds, “No,” Avromi will know that Yossi is the culprit. Is he allowed to respond “No”?

There is no doubt that Yossi had no right to throw the towel into the mud. Since his action is clearly wrong, Usher has every right to insist that he would never have done such a thing, even though his insistence automatically implicates Yossi.

However, if, as in the first scenario, Yossi had placed the towel neatly on the porch railing, it is questionable whether or not Usher is allowed to deny having done it when this will automatically identify Yossi as the guilty one.

IN A NUTSHELL

When one is wrongly suspected of a misdeed that someone else has committed, he should study the halachah and think the matter through carefully before deciding how to respond.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Lashon Hara 10:15-16

It is safe to assume that no one was more careful with his words than the Chofetz Chaim. There is no doubt that Sefer Chofetz Chaim contains no exaggerations or, G-d forbid, inaccuracies. Every word is one-hundred-percent Torah truth.

It should, therefore, make a great impression on us when the Chofetz Chaim writes about lashon hara in grave terms, as he does in this segment. In the previous segment, he wrote that one is permitted to tell others of the wrong done against him when this can help his situation. Here, the Chofetz Chaims cautions the speaker to be extremely careful with his words when conveying such information …

… because at the time when he is relating the information, he is in great danger, of speaking lashon hara if he will not meet the seven conditions listed above. About such situations it is written, Death and life are in the power of the tongue.

What is the solution? How can a person tell others how someone has harmed him, or is seeking to harm him, without getting caught in a web of lashon hara? The only way, says the Chofetz Chaim, is to think the matter through carefully before relating the information. In this way, one will choose his words carefully and decide exactly what he should or should not say. The Chofetz Chaim warns that without proper forethought, the person runs the risk of being overcome with anger towards the one who has wronged him, and this will result in him saying things that he should not have said.

I n the previous segment, the Chofetz Chaim inserted a footnote that bears special mention.

We have seen that a person is allowed to speak what would normally be considered lashon hara in order to enlist someone’s help to save himself from harm. There is a situation where the perpetrator cannot be stopped, and nevertheless it might be permitted to speak what would normally be labeled as “lashon hara.”

Mrs. Friedman put the finishing touches on her year-end report and handed it in to her superior at the office. She was proud of the final product, the result of countless hours of research, writing, and rewrit­ing. She placed it on her superior’s desk and hoped to hear a compli­ment within a few days.

The next morning, her superior greeted her by saying, “I flipped through that ‘scrapbook’ you left on my desk. Maybe you thought you were still back in high school doing special projects for the G.O. This is a highly professional office and we expect much better than that!”

Mrs. Friedman had to restrain herself from bursting into tears. When she came home that night, her husband took one look at her and knew that something was wrong. “What happened?” he asked, quite concerned.

“Am I allowed to tell him?” she asks herself. “He knows who my superior is — we daven in the same shul. Isn’t it lashon hara?”

The Chofetz Chaim suggests that when a person is suffering emotional hurt and needs to unburden himself (or herself) to someone, he would be allowed to do so even though this would mean relating lashon hara. He cites the famous teaching, “When there is worry in a man’s heart, he should tell it to others.”1 This is considered speaking lashon hara l’to’eles (for a constructive purpose).

Of course, this is only when there is a real emotional need to tell someone one’s personal problems. The attitude that “if he can speak lashon hara about me, I can speak lashon hara about him” is immature and contrary to halachah.

IN A NUTSHELL

We must ponder our words very carefully before speaking lashon hara l’to’eles.

Speaking to relieve emotional pain is considered lashon hara l’to’eles.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM —Hilchos Lashon Hara 10:13-14

In the previous segment, we learned that Yonason cannot publicize the wrong that was done to him by Mr. Stockman, because it is virtually impossible for his intentions to be completely pure. Here, the Chofetz Chaim notes a few exceptions:

Yonason knows that Mr. Stockman has great respect for Mr. Stern, who serves as president of their shul. He feels that if this gentleman would speak to Mr. Stockman about his shameful business practices, Stockman might be convinced to return the money he swindled from Yonason. In this case, Yonason would be permitted to speak to Mr. Stern.

Chaim walked out of shul one day wearing Rafi’s raincoat. It was three weeks before Chaim realized the mistake. Immediately, he rang Rafi’s doorbell, returned the coat and apologized profusely. But Rafi would not accept the apology. “What kind of shle­mazel (ne’er-do-well) are you? It’s bad enough you took the coat — what took you so long to realize it’s not yours? My name is on the label! Can’t you read?”

That evening, between Minchah and Maariv, Rafi told two men about Chaim’s mistake. Chaim was very embarrassed. He fears that until Rafi finally calms down, he will tell others what happened and cause him further embarrassment. If Chaim tells the rav what is happening and the rav speaks to Rafi about it, Rafi will be embarrassed. Nevertheless, if this is the only way to get Rafi to stop shaming Chaim, Chaim is permitted to speak to the rav. In this case, as in the case of Yonason, we assume that his intention in relating the information is to right the wrong, and not to take revenge.

The Chofetz Chaim cautions that before seeking help to protect oneself, a person must be certain that he has met all seven conditions that permit such talk. This is so important that the Chofetz Chaim finds it necessary to review the seven conditions. For our purposes, we will use the illustration of Yonason and Mr. Stockman:

• Yonason must be absolutely certain that Mr. Stockman has taken his money. He has to know this first hand; if an employee informed him of this, he has to investigate the matter and confirm that it is true before taking action.

• After confirming that Mr. Stockman has taken the money, Yonason must determine beyond the shadow of a doubt that he was wrong for taking it. Perhaps Mr. Stockman had used additional private money for business expenses and now that profits were coming in, he was merely reclaiming money that was his own.

• If at all possible, Yonason should confront Mr. Stockman directly before seeking help from others.

• Once Yonason has determined that he must tell someone what has happened, he should be careful to be absolutely truthful in relating it. He must not exaggerate and he should not make Mr. Stockman’s sin appear worse than it actually is. If even a minor detail would place Mr. Stockman in a somewhat better light, then Yonason should be careful to include it in his testimony.

• His intentions must be wholly honorable: to attempt to correct the injustice that was done. His intentions cannot be to exact revenge.

• Yonason must be certain that there is no way to retrieve his money other than to tell someone what has happened. If he can accomplish his goal and minimize the wrong that Mr. Stockman has done, then he is required to do so. For example, he might be able to tell the rav, “It is possible that Mr. Stockman thinks that he is entitled to a larger share of the profits than myself, but he is mistaken.”

• He must be certain that he will not be causing Mr. Stockman a greater loss than the halachah permits.

IN A NUTSHELL

There are times when even someone who has been personally hurt by an individual can relate lashon hara l’to’eles about that person.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Lashon Hara 10:11-12

One of the seven rules that permit lashon hara l’to’eles is that the speaker’s intentions be purely l’shem Shamayim (for the sake of Heaven), to right a wrong or to teach others not to learn from the person’s sinful ways. Based on this rule, we can derive the following:

Yonason entered into a business deal with Mr. Stockman and had a very bad experience. Yonason is certain that Mr. Stockman cheated him out of thousands of dollars. He wants to publicize what Mr. Stockman did, so that others will realize how shameful such behavior is. Yonason also hopes that when Mr. Stockman realizes that he is being scorned by the community, he will change his ways.

The Chofetz Chaim says that it is virtually impossible for Yonason’s intentions to be entirely l’shem Shamayim. Though he may think he has only the purest intentions, there is no doubt that if he does publicize what Mr. Stockman did to him, it is because he is angry and bitter towards him. That being the case, he is not permitted to spread such news. There is one situation which the Chofetz Chaim does not mention here: Yonason would be correct to warn someone considering entering a business deal with Mr. Stockman, provided that the seven rules of to’eles are met.

The following scenario is sad, but unfortunately not far-fetched:

Mr. Dinstein is marrying off a child and needs to borrow a large sum of money. He approaches Mr. Brigsman, one of the wealthiest men in the community, and requests a $10,000 loan. Mr. Brigsman refuses to lend him anything.

Mr. Dinstein is furious. He knows that Mr. Brigsman is a millionaire, and has extended loans to others. That night, between Minchah and Maariv, he tells his friends all about “that stingy miser, Brigsman.”

There is no question that Mr. Dinstein has spoken lashon hara. The Chofetz Chaim says the following:

To our misfortune, many make this mistake, as we see before our eyes. If someone feels that a certain community has not treated him in a friendly manner, then, when he visits another city, he disparages the leaders of that community for not helping him. Certainly, if he disparages the entire community, he is guilty of a grave sin. For the sin of lashon hara, even when the facts are true, is transgressed even when one speaks against an individual — and all the more so when he speaks against an entire city of Jews who hold steadfast in their faith in Hashem. Surely, this is a terrible sin.

It is interesting that the Chofetz Chaim refers to those who are being slandered as “those who hold steadfast in their faith in Hashem.” The person who spoke against the community is lacking in faith in Hashem. If his emunah would be strong, he would realize that everything in this world, including aggravation and satisfaction, are decreed from Above. If this man arrived in a city expecting assistance and did not receive it, his reaction should have been “Gam zu l’tovah, this too is for the good.” With this attitude, he would accept whatever happened calmly and even happily, and would have no need to resort to lashon hara.

IN A NUTSHELL

Someone who has been personally hurt by someone else is usually not acting purely l’shem Shamayim when he speaks against that person.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Lashon Hara 10:9-10

R’ Yaakov Yosef Herman was a great American Torah pioneer. In All for the Boss, R’ Yaakov Yosef’s daughter Ruchoma Shain paints a picture of a man whose heart and home had a place for every Jew, and who feared no one but Hashem. R’ Yaakov Yosef would do anything to help a Jew in need or to help someone come closer to Torah. At the same time, he stood ready to defend the honor of Torah and to ensure that the halachah was not trampled upon.

He lived in America in the early 1900’s, a time when many who viewed themselves as observant Jews sometimes did things in public that clearly were contrary to Torah. R’ Yaakov Yosef did not hesitate to point out their error, even if it meant becoming the object of scorn and insults.

We mention this because R’ Yaakov Yosef was the kind of person described by the Chofetz Chaim in today’s segment:

If the speaker is someone known to everyone as a man who does not show favoritism; whatever he says when his friend is not present, he would say in his presence; he fears no one; and he is renowned as someone who speaks only the truth …

In the previous segment we learned that when speaking lashon hara l’to’eles, the speaker must address a group of at least three people so that no one will suspect him of lying or of trying to conceal the report from its subject. In today’s segment we learn an exception to this rule. If the speaker is the fearless, truthful person described above, then no one will suspect him of lying or trying to hide his intentions. Therefore, he is permitted to relate the information even to one or two people.

Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky, a great Torah leader of recent times, was renowned as a man of truth. When he was past the age of 90, someone asked him if he could think of a particular zechus (merit) that earned him long life. R’ Yaakov replied, “Never did I knowingly say an untruth.”

As a young man in Russia, R’ Yaakov was ordered to appear before an army officer for possible induction. When R’ Yaakov stated why he felt himself exempt from army service, the officer accused him of lying. R’ Yaakov replied, “I have never lied in my entire life.” His words were said with such conviction that the officer exempted him.

Even a non-Jew believed the words of a man who would speak noth­ing but the truth. Certainly, a Jew would believe the words of such a man and not suspect him of distorting the truth.

IN A NUTSHELL

Someone whose integrity is beyond reproach can relate lashon hara l’to’eles even to one or two people.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Lashon Hara 10:7-8

Before telling others, he must first speak to the guilty party in a soft tone and attempt to con­vince him to mend his ways.

This is rule #3 for relating lashon hara l’to’eles. This rule applies only in a case where there is a possibility that the guilty party will accept the criticism and cor­rect the wrong that he committed. However, in a case where it is clear that he will ignore any criticism, no matter how gently and respectfully it is offered, then one is not required to speak with him first.

However, says the Chofetz Chaim, in order to speak lashon hara l’to’eles, the person must have a group of at least three listeners who will hear the report together (in a case where one must relate the information to friends or neighbors, not to the guilty party’s parents or rav.) This is necessary so that his goal will be accomplished. If he tells the report to only one or two people, the listener(s) might be thinking:

“Now, why is Shlomo being so secretive? If Meir really did drive recklessly, then shouldn’t Shlomo want more people to know about it? It seems to me that he doesn’t want Meir to know that he is talking behind his back. I wouldn’t be surprised if Shlomo made up the whole story to make Meir look bad.”

When the speaker offers his report before three or more listeners, everyone present knows that news of the report is bound to spread and will probably reach Meir’s ears. Therefore, says the Chofetz Chaim, it is as if Shlomo said his words in Meir’s presence, and his listeners will not suspect him of deceit.

Nevertheless, they are not permitted to believe his words as fact. As we have learned earlier, even when a person may listen to negative reports for important, constructive reasons, he may only suspect that they are true. In this case, though they know that Shlomo is an honest, G-d-fearing person and surely means to be truthful, they have to consider the possibility that he may have left out some detail or been unaware of some fact that would have painted a different picture. (Perhaps Meir did not want to reveal to Shlomo that the car’s faulty brakes made it appear as if he was driving recklessly.) They should take proper precautions and speak to Meir privately, confront him with the information and weigh his reaction.

If the guilty party is a difficult, angry person who, if he should find out that someone spoke against him, would take revenge, then, says the Chofetz Chaim, it is possible that the speaker could relate the information in private to one or two individuals.

IN A NUTSHELL

In most situations, lashon hara l’to’eles should be related to a group of three or more. The listeners should act on the possibility that the information is true, but should not accept it as fact.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Lashon Hara 5-6

“Rachel is a horrible person. I can think of 20 things I don’t like about her,” says Sarah.

Leah responds, “You really should not say such things. It’s pure lashon hara.”

“I don’t care. I can say whatever I want,” is Sarah’s retort.

Leah says to herself, “This is not the first time I’ve heard Sarah talk like that about others. I’m going to tell people what she said about Rachel so that they will know to avoid conversations with her until she changes her attitude.”

This seems to be a classic case of lashon hara l’to’eles. However, there may be a problem. Suppose Rachel has no idea that Sarah has spoken against her. If Leah tells people why they should avoid conversations with Sarah, word might get back to Rachel about what was said. This would cause Rachel to have bad feelings towards Sarah. When someone utters words that cause bad feelings between Jews, he or she is guilty of speaking rechilus.

In such a case, Leah would have to find some other way to convince Sarah to mend her ways.

There is an exception to this rule; there is a case where Leah would be allowed to spread the word about Sarah’s forbidden talk although Rachel knows nothing about it.

Leah responds, “You really should not say such things. It’s pure lashon hara.”

“I don’t care. I can say whatever I want,” Sarah retorts. “In fact, tomorrow when I get to school, I’m going to tell everyone exactly what I don’t like about Rachel.”

In this case, Leah has to act quickly to prevent Sarah from carrying out her evil intentions. Leah would be correct to warn her friends in advance that Sarah is planning to say nasty things about Rachel — and that they should not believe a word of it.

IN A NUTSHELL

Lashon hara l’to’eles should not be spoken if it will result in rechilus — unless a specific situation warrants such talk.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –

SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM — Hilchos Lashon Hara 10:3-4

In sefer Melachim, the prophet decreed that the family of the wicked King Achav would be eradi­cated because of the widespread idol worship that Achav had brought about. This prophecy was fulfilled through Yehu, and Hashem rewarded Yehu by decreeing that he and three succeeding generations would rule over the Ten Tribes.

However, Yehu himself was later guilty of idol worship. Therefore, he was held accountable for killing the family of Achav. A person has no right to execute punishment upon others for sins of which he himself is guilty.

From this we learn an important halachah regarding lashon hara l’to’eles. A person can only report on someone else’s misbehavior if he himself is innocent of it. However, if he himself is guilty of such behavior, he may not relate it to others, although he wants to do so for an important, constructive purpose. The reason for this is simple. If he himself is guilty of the same “crimes” then his intent in relating such information cannot be entirely pure.

Chanina has the bad habit of riding his bicycle on other people’s property without permission. In the process, he has destroyed gardens, knocked down wooden fences, and broken children’s toys. He and his parents have been spoken to, but nothing has changed. Chanina’s parents insist that since the gates of the properties were left open, their son innocently assumed that he could ride inside, and therefore there is no reason he should have to pay for damages.

Is it permissible to speak about Chanina’s reckless, damaging behavior?

A number of benefits can result from speaking about it. When other children hear how people scorn Chanina’s behavior, they will learn to be different, to respect the property of others and to pay when damages occur. Perhaps when Chanina and his parents become aware that people are voicing their disapproval of his antics, they will finally realize that he has to cease this practice of riding on private property, and that the victims of his recklessness have to be paid for damages.

The Chofetz Chaim notes that one has to be careful to relate such information only to someone who will understand that such behavior is wrong. If, however, another boy is guilty of the very same recklessness and his parents are also guilty of indifference, there is no license to speak to them about Chanina’s behavior. In fact, great harm could result from this. Since they don’t disapprove of such behavior, they may tell Chanina and his parents what is being said about them, and offer them moral support. In doing so, they would be guilty of speaking rechilus, lashon hara that causes bad feelings between Jews. Furthermore, this could lead to a full-scale machlokes (feud) within the community.

The Chofetz Chaim points out an all-too-common mistake.

Mr. Goldberg drives a milk truck, which he keeps parked in his driveway. One morning, he finds the car of his neighbor, Mr. Milton, blocking his truck. He rings the Miltons’ doorbell, but no one is home. He gathers a few strong neighbors, and together they push the carfar enough aside to allow room for the truck to pass. Still angry, Mr.Goldberg phones his brother, a hot-tempered fellow, and tells himwhat happened. The brother calls the police, who come and ticket Mr.Milton’s car.

Mr. Goldberg was wrong for thinking that he could share what happened with his brother, and his brother was wrong for believing the report about Mr. Milton. Even if the report was true, this did not prove Mr. Milton’s guilt. Perhaps he has an explanation for why he blocked his neighbor’s driveway. Even if Mr. Milton’s action was inexcusable, the brother had no right to call the police without consulting a rav to determine if the halachah permits this.

What is at the root of the Goldbergs’ mistakes? People mistakenly think that when it comes to relatives, the rules of shemiras halashon fall by the wayside. This is completely incorrect.

IN A NUTSHELL

Before relating lashon hara l’to’eles, be sure that you are not guilty of the same misbehavior, and that you are relating the information to someone who has the desire and ability to correct the situation in a way that the halachah permits.

 -A project of  Mesorah Publications –