Good morning, everybody. Torah Tuesday. Proper speech is a very important factor in the judgment of a person in this world and the next. We have been following the Sefer Chafetz Chaim, Hilchot Lashon Hara, and Rechilut: one is negative speech or harmful speech, and the other is what we call Rechilut, gossip—carrying information that is negative or harmful from one person to another.
Today we have Chapter 9, halacha (law) 5, in Hilchot Rechilut, at the end of the sefer. For those who follow the daily Chafetz Chaim learning, this would be day 117, and there are only 127 days, so we’re very near the end—128 days, 10 days away from the actual end of the sefer. It should be Rosh Chodesh (new month) again, I think, because next week, Wednesday and Thursday, are Rosh Chodesh.
In this case, we’re following up on Rechilut LeTo'elet. Rechilut is asur (forbidden), though sometimes it has a positive purpose of protection or compensation when something is revealed to a party who has been cheated or harmed by another. The Chafetz Chaim says there are five conditions that will permit transferring the information from one place to another to make the victim aware. The positive purpose would be, let’s say, to make sure it won’t happen again. We listed the five conditions, and the fifth one is a little bit hard to effectuate. It is that the person you are telling about something negative or harmful done to them by another is going to use the information, but only for defensive purposes. In other words, they won’t take remedial action or vengeance against the person who spoke about them, but they will take steps to protect themselves from any damage or recurrence.
So the allowance for telling somebody constructive Rechilut—gossip—depends on how the recipient is going to use the information, and that’s what makes it touchy. I ain’t him. I’m not him. How do I know what he’s going to do? And yet condition number five is that you must know what he’s going to do before you can transfer the information, because he’s only allowed to use it defensively.
So what does the halacha require? The halacha requires that we take stock of this person’s mind and behavioral patterns. I can pretty much go through the rows of the shul (synagogue), where we’re there every day and have been in touch with these people regularly, and tell you who’s the hothead, who’s the one who lets things slide, and everything in between. You may be off one step or on one step, but the extremes are clear. Is this a thoughtful person? Is this a person who would not violate halacha? Would he go ask his rabbi what to do? What does he think? If we know the victim of the Rechilut to be such a person, then we can tell him because he’s not going to lash out, strike out, or take revenge on the person who spoke about him—or, at least, it’s not likely. On the other hand, if we suspect that he may—what are we saying in Brooklyn, “Shoot first and ask questions later”?—he might just get the guy, lash out at him, publicize what he did, call up his competitors, whatever, and you can’t tell the information over. Now, it sounds like I could be able to help somebody, and sometimes I’m forbidden to because I don’t like the way he’s going to react, and that’s true.
So why is it that way? The basis for this halacha is a little complicated, a little deeper than what we normally handle in this particular shiur (lesson). The reason why the halacha does not allow the subject of positive, constructive Rechilut to undergo damage relates to witnesses and the laws of witnesses. If two people see something—that’s the minimum in Judaism—and they’re able to testify honestly and be examined, so we know they’re not making it up and they’re not lying, then those two witnesses in a court of law determine the outcome of the judgment. Of course, we have many situations involving the laws of witnesses. But if those same two people, those same two who we call witnesses in a court of law, came together to the victim and told the victim, “This is what so-and-so said about you, and this is the effect in the market, how people are talking today,” it’s not testimony, because testimony is in a court of law. It’s gossip for a constructive purpose, verifiable gossip because there are two people, but it’s not testimony. Therefore, the degree to which we are allowed to believe it, and especially to react to it and act upon it, is limited.
Who says? Where is the court order or the judgment that says this is actually what happened? We don’t have it because they never appeared before a court. Now imagine an individual saying, “I heard something. You’ll never believe what his name told me. You’ll never believe what so-and-so said about you.” It’s not two witnesses; it’s one, and it hasn’t been brought to a court of law. It’s being spoken about. How weak is that?
Now, what if two people want to inform the potential victim of someone else’s plans against that individual? The Chafetz Chaim asked that question, and the Chafetz Chaim gives a ruling, a pesak (ruling): They should not relate the information to someone who is likely to take matters into their own hands—as I said, shoot first and inflict damage upon the victim. This applies even if the two witnesses, the same two guys with the same testimony, would go to Beit Din (court of law), and that Beit Din would then allow XYZ behavior; that behavior is still forbidden to them. Why? Because it’s not testimony. They’re not in the court of law. They’re not being examined and reexamined. They’re not being verified. They can’t be certified. They can’t even guess, “Oh, the Beit Din would have ruled like us anyhow.” Sounds like a good one. “The Beit Din would have ruled like me anyhow. So, therefore, I’m telling you no.” Why can’t you do that? If that’s the din (ruling), why not?
The answer is that people are not experts in halacha. People don’t know that even one minor detail can change a very serious outcome. And therefore, since they are not a Beit Din—since there are two—it’s even more dangerous.
So the question becomes—I remember now an interesting case I had, maybe 20 years ago now, maybe 15. It was in the summertime. I was in Long Branch and frequented the Kollel (Torah study center) in the afternoons. I had a question proposed to me regarding who gets the deal. There was a deal available, and two people claimed it was their deal. They wanted some type of intervention, and they said, “We’ll trust you.” I said, “But I’m not a dayan (rabbinic judge), and I don’t know.” They said, “No, no, we don’t want to know what you think, and whatever you say, that’s what we’re going to do.” As long as it wasn’t considered a pesak din (halachic ruling), I was fine with that. We call that arbitration, binding arbitration.
I got all the facts from one party. I got all the facts according to version two from the second party. One day, I saw two community poskim (halachic decisor) sitting together, and I asked them what would be the din. After listening and asking several questions, they concluded that party B gets the deal. I said, “Baruch Hashem (Blessed is Hashem), you gave me clarity. I’m going to call up that person now and tell them.” They said, “No, no, no, no, no. You first call the claimant who’s losing and let them know.” I said, “Okay, if that’s what you say, you’re the posek. I’m just, you know, Joe Schmo.”
So I call up the person, who happens to be an agent for one of the parties. The agent says something, and I say, “Well, the pesak is, party B gets it.” The agent asks, “How come?” When I explained, the agent said, “That’s not how it was. You’re missing a detail here: who called whom, when they called there.” There was one detail. I said, “I’ll call you back.” I went back to the posek, of course. It’s not important, but I just found out. “What do you mean, not important? The whole din is the opposite. Party A gets the deal now.” How could you expect two witnesses of haki of talk that somebody brought up? How could you now, at this point, come and say he gets it, she gets it? How much law do you know? How much halacha do you know? So it becomes an issue of unsubstantiated, nonprofessional, certainly not expert testimony, and that’s why it’s forbidden.
So the weakness in the testimony is what determined the law here. The weakness in the testimony means that the person who hears this, even though it’s constructive, cannot tell it over if it’s outside of a court of law. What they could do is warn the person without a basis in fact, saying, “You know, there’s something I’m troubled about. You say something about the violator, and I’ve been trying to avoid getting hurt, so I took this approach.” Now, you didn’t say he did anything wrong. You’re not confirming he did anything wrong. You’re certainly not saying he did it to this guy. But you say, “Be careful. I don’t know. I heard things on the street. It’s like when somebody’s credit is going sour, everybody talks. So I wouldn’t ship him right now.” That’s the attitude you have to take.