Good morning. Welcome back to Torah Tuesday, a special Tuesday, the last Tuesday in the month of Av, which means we are approaching Elul, actually tomorrow night, Rosh Chodesh (new month). Anyhow, we meet every Tuesday, whenever possible, at 11.45 to discuss proper speech. We base it on the works of the Chafetz Chaim and others who have written about his awesome work on this complicated subject.
Now, today I want to discuss a situation that comes up very often, which is a feeling nearly everyone experiences at some point in time. It seems like when people get into a conversation, there's always two ways to look at anything, but each one feels that justice, halacha (Jewish law), and truth are on my side. Now, that's a good way to feel, but it's not always true. Sometimes it's quite the opposite. Let's say there's a dispute over money. Even a businessman who keeps the Torah's laws meticulously and follows business ethics has a chance of veering off track, maybe without even realizing it. He might find justification for his actions. For example, "The guy cheated me, so I'm not paying him." Is that what he's supposed to do? The Chafetz Chaim says that sometimes rationalization—in fact, often rationalization—is what leads a person to take the law into his own hands; this is the result of rechilut, which is our subject. Rechilut is peddling information between one and another.
As an example, Reuven and Shimon, he sees them overpay for an item in a particular store, so he bought it. He bought the item without knowing he was overpaying. So Reuven tells him—tells Shimon, the buyer—"You know, you could have gotten it less expensively, or cheaper, at a discount outlet." Shimon decides, "Since the guy overcharged me, since he basically misled me or cheated me, you know something? I don't have to pay. I owe a balance; I'm not paying. It's only my money anyhow." Or some other rationalization. Of course, he's wrong. As we learned previously, those of you who come here regularly: it may be rightfully yours, but it's not yours to keep because you promised to pay for it. He's wrong.
It seems there are times when a beit din (rabbinical court) will not force a storekeeper to refund the amount, but in any case, nobody has the right to take the law into their own hands. So, holding back money based on the statement—the person who made the statement told her he was overcharged—caused damage: the guy decided not to pay, and the guy to rely on is also wrong. We got a hodgepodge of mistakes here. For example, for a purchase to be considered to'elet, which is one of the reasons we permit lashon hara (evil speech), and which is a constructive purpose, there has to be a reasonable possibility that it will in fact serve a constructive purpose. If no constructive purpose will be achieved, and it can only lead to further dispute or trouble between the parties, or a loss for one of the parties, it's out-and-out rechilut.
Now, it is true and it is valid, but spreading it is rechilut, so says the Chafetz Chaim. We can't inform someone that he's been cheated or been overcharged, if I want to use a nicer word, if it might lead him to withhold payment or try some other way to single-handedly take the matter into his own hands, and somehow he'll justify it, but it's based on what you told him. Many people stumble in this area, offering their opinion to others regarding a purchase, and their friend's reaction is now hinged on and contingent upon what they told them, true or not. An action is taken that harms the other person, the seller. That's called rechilut. Now, rechilut is true, but it's not permitted to spread it.
The Chafetz Chaim explains at length that these people fail to foresee the outcome or the consequences of what seems like a simple observation. It's a concerned friend. To make matters worse, they often incite the buyer by telling him, "Give back the merchandise, go get a refund, tell him you can buy it cheaper somewhere else." That's unsolicited advice. "If you're embarrassed to do that, send someone else to take it back. Take your neighbor ladies goes to the store all the time, and if he won't take it back, don't finish paying what you owe." This advice is so poor, it's so raw, it's so negative. You're violating the sin of lo telech rachil be'amecha. And not only that, Lifnei iver lo titen michshol. You're speaking rechilut and you're making somebody else do something, or inciting them to do something, or suggesting they do something that is totally wrong, and now they're going to do it. So you put a stumbling block before your friend.
Now, first of all, I don't know about you, but the price of, let's say, a necktie—a man's necktie—could be $15 or $20, and I understand today they're $250 and $300. A person looks at the tie and says, "How much did you pay for the $100? You're crazy. They're $50 around the corner. It's the same tie." Did you verify that? Is it the same quality? Is it the same brand? Or does it just look like the same tie? Or maybe it's a copy of the better tie. You can't make those statements until you verify for sure that the person overcharged. Did he overcharge? Or is that the fair price for the one he sold, as opposed to the one you think it is? So what kind of advice are you giving? Did you verify your statement? Did you verify your accusation?
Somebody buys the best. We have a joke in the family. A child says, "Daddy, daddy, I need a bike"—or today they need a scooter—"Daddy, daddy, daddy, I need a bike. Mommy, mommy, take me for a bike." Mommy tells the child, "Go with Daddy, you'll get the better one. He's the guy who always says, 'Don't you have anything better?'" I once had a relative, he always wants, it's like he sets himself up. A guy shows him the best he has, and he says, "Don't you have better?" One of those salespeople who owned the store called me up. He says, "Is this guy really related to you?" I said, "Yeah." He says, "Oh." I said, "What's up? He's related to me." He said, "Yeah, but now he's really asking to be gypped. And I can't do it now because he's related to you."
Some people ask for it. Some people want it. "What's in your business?" He wants the better one, he paid for the better one, he got the better one, and you didn't do your homework. You tell him he got cheated and he didn't get anything worth it, and now he's going to take action that may be illegal, probably illegal, and was caused by you. The two sins are: don't be a spreader of gossip, and, second, don't put a trap in front of someone who doesn't know better. So, the advisor didn't consider these factors because he acted without studying the issue and considering the results of his speech; he's putting himself in a place he doesn't want to be.