In the Sefer Chafetz Chaim, there are actually two halves: one on what he calls Lashon Hara, and the other he calls Rechilut. There is a difference between the two; it's a fine line. In the opening of the laws of rechilut, he describes the difference. In Se'if Bet (section two), he defines rechilut as follows: Eizehu rachil, who is a rachil? Now, rachil and rochel are basically from the same root in the Jewish Hebrew language, which means a peddler. A peddler is a rochel; he takes his merchandise and goes from place to place to try and sell his wares. And in the language of a gossiper, the Chafetz Chaim goes with the language of the Pasuk (verse), Lo telech rachil be'amecha, don't go like a peddler, this type of information amongst your people.
Now, basically, Lashon Hara, remember, was a true but negative or harmful or both statement made by a person about another person. “He's a crook; it hurts his business.” He is a crook; it doesn't matter, he's still spreading Lashon Hara. He says something that hurts the business, but it's not really a negative statement. If it causes harm, it's also called Lashon Hara.
Rechilut is a little different. So he says, Eizehu rachil: who is the one who's categorized, or what does the term rachil refer to when we say peddler? It's someone who peddles what I'm going to call inflammatory information from one person to another. Let's say you have Reuven and Shimon. You have two Jewish people. One is named Reuven and one is Shimon. One person, let's say Reuven, goes to the second person, Shimon, and he says, “This is what Shimon said about you.” But that's Shimon, so let's pick Yehudah. Yehudah said about you. Reuven tells Shimon what Yehudah said about him. That's called inflammatory. It may not even be negative. It may be, “I can't tell you what Yehudah said about you,” or, “I wish I could tell you what Yehudah said about you,” but it becomes inflammatory because why can't you tell me? Why can't you describe it? Or, “This is something somebody did regarding you or your business.” In other words, he's spreading information that's going to create negative feelings. It's going to create animosity or a coldness or an “I'll get you back” type of feeling between one and another. It's called creating strife. Sometimes it can be very harmful. Like Nov, Ir HaKohanim. Somebody reported to Shaul that this place took care of David when he was in pursuit of David, and the whole city was wiped out.
Even in a much, much less inflammatory way, even if it's not negative, it's not something that we would consider a degradation of the person he's talking about, even according to the peddler's account, he's just telling, “He said something,” or, “He said something about you.” Even if he himself were confronted and asked directly if the report were true, he wouldn't deny it because it's not negative, it's not harmful. It's just, “Somebody told me that you said...” It's still called rechilut. It's called rechilut if you relate from one to the other something that was said by one about the other, which now raises questions in the mind of the subject of the conversation. And that questioning could lead to animosity. That's called rechilut.
Eli, I can't tell you, I was in your shul the other day, you weren't there, and I spoke to the rabbi about you. “Yeah, what did he say? What did he say?” “Ah, forget it.” That's rechilut. The fact that I'm telling you the rabbi mentioned you. I did see Jack. He told me he saw you, so that conversation is rechilut because now Eli leaves the room and he says, “You know, if the rabbi said something nice, Rabbi Beda would have told me. He didn't tell me. He said, ‘Nah, forget it.’” Maybe Rabbi Beda just realized he's spreading rechilut and he wanted to stop himself. But on Eli's behalf, if he already heard that the rabbi of his shul spoke about him, that's a rechilut.
Now, there's a principle. It's a very difficult principle. It's one I get a lot of, “Come on, rabbis, you don't mean that literally.” But a person who has a situation where we would be over on a lav (negative commandment) in the Torah, and if he's not over, if he doesn't violate the lav in the Torah, he will lose a substantial amount of money, even his job, even income that he has on the side for 25 years, even the money to pay for his daughter's wedding, he's not allowed to speak in order to save that money. Here's what... I knew you were going to have a question. The guy says, “So please tell me, what did he say?” His livelihood will suffer a heavy loss. I'll give you an example. He doesn't own his own business. He works for people, and when they realize what happened—now I know that you know that this person spoke about me—he might have spoken about my products, he might have spoken about my business, he might have spoken about my relationship with my wife, but he spoke about the fact that he's not telling me. That means, let's say I had a dispute with somebody, and he tells me that guy mentioned me, and he doesn't want to tell me, maybe he agrees with him. Now let's say they start threatening him: “If you don't tell me, I'm firing you.” That's a tough situation. Even Eli is shaking his head yes, and Joe behind the pink J is saying, “I wish that never happens to me. I wish it doesn't happen to me.” But as it happens to me, says the Chafetz Chaim, to reveal, like all other negative commandments, it's an amazing principle. A person is required to forfeit everything he has, and it will not be worth it. One sin is not worth it. It's not some midrash (rabbinic exposition), it's not some fanatic, it's not black hat, it's not white hat, it's not Ashkenaz, it's not Sephardic. It is 157 one rama. But if there is an opportunity to reveal what was said to dispel hard feelings, to make peace amongst the protagonists of our conversation, he has the right to tell, says the Chafetz Chaim. Don't jump on this permissible act, because there are so many conditions, and you have to be so sure of the way it's handled that there's a good possibility it wouldn't be handled right.
One salesman becomes privy to another salesman's plan to quit his job. The boss hears rumors about the employee's plans and demands from the first salesman to tell him all he knows about the situation. The boss implies that if he doesn't supply the information, he'll be gone. Even though he stands to lose his job, he's not allowed to reveal the other's intentions, even if it's true and even if it's not bad.