In the laws of loshon hora (Day 61), we discussed a situation where the person relating the loshon
hora is Mheiman K’Brei Trei, that is, where the listener considers the speaker’s integrity beyond reproach, to the point where he considers the speaker’s words equivalent to that of two valid witnesses testifying in court. Here, the Chofetz Chaim discusses a situation of rechilus. Can we accept such a report when the person relating it is Mheiman K’Brei Trei?
Obviously, if there is no constructive purpose in relating the information, it cannot be accepted in any case. If there is a constructive purpose, and the speaker is the type of trustworthy individual whom we have described, then it would seem that the listener could accept the information as fact (as opposed to merely protecting himself in case the information is accurate). However, the Chofetz Chaim makes the following points:
For a person to have this status of Mheiman K’Brei Trei, he has to be someone whom we trust implicitly in all situations. However, says the Chofetz Chaim, “If in other matters one does not believe him that much, and the real reason for believing him here is because the listener enjoys an interesting piece of loshon hora or rechilus, then surely it is forbidden to believe him — and to the contrary, the more the listener believes him and accepts the information as fact, the more he transgresses the sin of accepting rechilus.”
The Chofetz Chaim concludes that, practically speaking, we should not rely on the license of Mheiman K’Brei Trei to accept rechilus, for a number of Rishonim (Early Commentators) maintain that it is difficult to know for sure the level of integrity that is needed for a person to have this status. The Chofetz Chaim adds, “Many people err regarding this halachah. They are careful not to speak loshon hora, and not to accept it when they hear it from the average person, but they do accept it as fact when hearing it from their father, mother or spouse…This is a total error.”
In conclusion, even when told rechilus for a constructive purpose, by someone whom you trust implicitly, act upon the information but do not accept it as fact.
Married couples often mistakenly think that passing information from one to the other is not rechilus. They assume that because their lives are so intertwined, each should know what the other knows. This, the Chofetz Chaim cautions us, is wrong: “One should not reveal this (i.e. rechilus) to others, even to members of his own household.”
A classic illustration of the dangers of rechilus between husband and wife is the tragic episode of Korach’s rebellion.
Korach was born to the tribe of Levi, and before leading his rebellion, he was considered a great man. Yet he led a shameful challenge against the leadership of Moshe Rabbeinu (our Teacher) and in the end he, his family and his associates died a terrible death.
Our Sages (Sanhedrin 110a) inform us that it was Korach’s wife who incited him to rebel. She convinced him that Moshe had personal motives in mind (G-d forbid) in appointing his brother Aharon to the Kehunah Gedolah (High Priesthood) and in other decisions as well.
On the other hand, the wife of Ohn ben Peles convinced her husband to leave Korach’s camp, thus saving his life. To these two women our Sages apply the verse, “She who is wise among women builds her house, but the foolish one destroys it with her own hands” (Mishlei 14:1).
The story has been told of a man who discovered that his business partner of many years cheated him out of a sum of money. The man was prepared to “wage war” and break up the partnership. A friend in whom he confided convinced him: “You’ll go home and tell your wife about what he did. She’ll blast his wife while you blast him. Most probably, your partner and his wife will go on the defensive and have some of their good friends join their ranks. Soon, the feud will be the talk of the town.
“Take my advice. Sit down with your partner and, without raising your voice, try to work things out. Offer to call in an impartial mediator, if necessary.”
The man accepted the advice and was able to resolve the matter to his satisfaction. By accepting his friend’s wise advice, much rechilus, sinas chinam (baseless hatred) and strife was avoided.
(The subject of Mheiman K’Bei Trei is discussed in Day 106.)
The Chofetz Chaim continues his discussion of the prohibition against accepting rechilus as fact. In this segment, he describes a very common scenario in the business world: a case of a buyer who is seeking the lowest possible price for an item.
The story begins with a gentile who negotiates a price with a Jewish wine merchant for several barrels of wine. They conclude on a price and the gentile brings his own empty barrels to be filled by the Jew the next day. That evening, the gentile goes to another Jewish merchant and, without telling him that he had already concluded the deal with the first merchant, prices this particular product. The second merchant is a bit more anxious than the first for some business, so he offers the wine at a slightly lower price. The gentile returns to the first merchant and cancels his order.
The merchant is astounded. “But we had a deal and you even have your barrels sitting here in my house! How can you break the agreement?” The gentile, not wanting to look bad, says, ”I’ll tell you the truth. I met your competitor on the street and he asked me, ‘Why don’t you buy from me? My wine is much better than that fellow’s merchandise and besides, my prices are cheaper!’”
This is all the first merchant needs to hear. “How could he have done such a thing?” he wonders about the other merchant. “He literally took the bread out of my mouth!” Having accepted the gentile’s word as fact, the first merchant harbors great hatred towards his competitor and feels fully justified in launching an all-out-war against him. He tells himself — and his friends — that his competitor is a wicked soul and that it is a mitzvah to speak against him and run him out of business.
Meanwhile, the second merchant responds in kind and a full-scale war erupts. And how did it all begin? By accepting one report of rechilus.
The Chofetz Chaim reflects: Had the first merchant told himself the truth, that the second merchant had no idea that he had already concluded a deal with the gentile, the story could have ended so beautifully. The first merchant would fulfill the positive commandment to grant a fellow Jew the benefit of the doubt. He would avoid transgressing several negative commandments, including accepting rechilus, harboring hatred towards a fellow Jew and seeking revenge. When the second merchant would be told of what the gentile did and of his competitor’s reaction, he would tell himself that in the future he would be careful to check that the buyer has not already concluded a deal with someone else. The result of all this would be: No loshon hora, no price wars, no hatred.
The Chofetz Chaim declares that this path would bring the two merchants blessing and joy both in this world and the World to Come. He cites the verse: “Who is the man who wants life, who loves days, to see good? Guard your tongue from evil…” (Tehillim 34:13-14). The Chofetz Chaim comments: “Who is the man who wants life”— in the World to Come; “who loves days”— in this world.
By contrast, the sin of one who accepts rechilus is even greater than that of the one who speaks it.
We have been discussing the issue of accepting rechilus, a report that somebody said something negative about you or did something harmful to you. In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim deals with cases where circumstances seem to indicate that the report is true.
Sitting among a crowd at a bar mitzvah, David says, in a voice loud enough for everyone to hear, that Reuven did something which was damaging to Shimon. One might assume that since this announcement was made in public, it is probably true. Can Shimon believe David? No. Shimon has to discern if there is anything constructive to be gained from absorbing this information. If it will help him to prevent further harm, he is allowed to suspect that the information is true and he can investigate further. If the information has no relevance for the future, he should assume that it is not true.
The Chofetz Chaim then offers another case which has already been mentioned and bears repetition. You are talking to Reuven in the presence of Shimon and Reuven tells you that Shimon spoke negatively of you. Now, you know that Shimon is the type of person who is very confrontational; if someone accuses him of something of which he is innocent, he vocally defends himself. Today, on the other hand, as he hears Reuven tell you that he said something derogatory about you, he remains uncharacteristically quiet. What better proof can there be that Reuven’s report is true? The Chofetz Chaim tells us that even in this extreme case, you must dismiss Reuven’s report as false (assuming that there is no constructive purpose in according it your attention).
In previous segments, the Chofetz Chaim has offered us several possible reasons for rejecting such a report. Here, he reminds us of the most compelling one.
“Even if the report is true, Reuven is still a rasha (wicked person) for reporting it. As we have already learned, the average Jew has a chezkas kashrus; that is, he is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.”
The Chofetz Chaim then challenges us:
“Are you going to rely upon a rasha’s report to remove a fellow Jew from his chezkas kashrus and assume that he transgressed the sin of loshon hora and other related sins? Surely the speaker [Reuven], who is suspect regarding the sins of rechilus and loshon hora, is also suspect regarding lying — adding to the real story or turning the entire story around.”
As we know, when a person does something which affects us negatively, our reaction will often depend on who that person is. For example:
You arranged to get a ride home with someone after a wedding. At the end of the wedding, you search for the person but cannot find him. Someone tells you, “He left already. Did he leave you stranded?” Your reaction will depend very much on who stranded you. If it was your father or brother, then your mind will immediately view the act as innocent and you will assume that there is probably a good reason for his behavior. If, on the other hand, the person who was supposed to drive you was someone that you know only casually, you might say to yourself, “He probably realized that he had no room for me. But how could he be so inconsiderate as to not even tell me?”
Of course, there could be any number of reasons why the person left without telling you. He may have been mistakenly told that you had already left, or that you wanted to stay late. Perhaps an emergency forced him to leave in a hurry. Or, he may have simply forgotten.
The Chofetz Chaim discusses a case where you have been told that someone said something negative about you or has done something against you (i.e. you have heard rechilus) and you have confirmed that the report is true. Nevertheless, says the Chofetz Chaim, you are obligated to judge him favorably if there is any possible way to interpret his statement or action in a positive light. If you do not judge him favorably, then you are guilty of accepting rechilus.
The Chofetz Chaim concludes by discussing the teshuvah (repentance) which is required of someone who has accepted rechilus as truth:
“He must work on himself to expel the matter from his heart so that he no longer believes it. If it is difficult for him to believe that the speaker fabricated the story, then he should tell himself that perhaps the speaker added some details, or omitted a detail or some words which had been said about him; or that the person uttered his words using nuances which would give his statement a positive interpretation.”
“The listener should take upon himself not to accept loshon hora or rechilus in the future from any Jew, and he should confess his sin (before Hashem). Through this, he will have corrected his sin, provided that he did not relate the information to others.”
The following case represents an all-too-common practice: Reuven works for a company which determines salary raises for its employees through an annual salary review. Today is the day when company managers meet to discuss Reuven’s performance and decide on his coming year’s salary. Among the managers at the meeting will be Reuven’s friend, Shimon. While Shimon is not among those who make the salary decisions, he will be privy to the discussion. Therefore, Reuven considers him the perfect source for inside information on what management is saying about him. As soon as the meeting is over, Reuven finds a chance to speak privately to Shimon. “What did they say about me?” he desperately wants to know.
The desire to know what others think about us is often deeply rooted. It can begin in childhood, develop in the self-conscious adolescent, and remain an issue for many people for the rest of their lives. Whatever the context, the Chofetz Chaim informs us that a person who inquires into what others are thinking or saying about him is guilty of asking someone to speak rechilus. He writes:
“How foolish are those whose nature it is to always seek to know what others are saying about them — even when such knowledge will have absolutely no effect on their future. When people do not want to reveal this information, they are pressured intensely until they finally reveal it. The person who wanted the information accepts it — in all its derogatory detail — as truth, and he and the subject now become bitter enemies.
“If we would list all the pitfalls and transgressions with which this person has involved himself, the page could not contain them all… One who stands over his friend and pressures him to speak rechilus — so that he himself can hear it and accept it — is a chotei u’Machati, a sinner who causes others to sin.
“Therefore, one should remain far, far away from such behavior and not seek such information, unless he is certain that he needs to know it for future purposes, in order to protect himself from that person’s plans.”
In the previous segment, we learned that we are permitted to listen to rechilus—without accepting it as fact—in order to protect ourselves from possible harm. In the laws of loshon hora (Day 63), we learned about Devarim Hanicarim (recognizable signs), evidence which seems to point to an individual’s guilt. Here, the Chofetz Chaim informs us that if such evidence gives us reason to believe that someone is attempting to harm us, then we are permitted to investigate the matter even though this may force others to speak derogatorily about the person.
In Be’er Mayim Chaim, the Chofetz Chaim adds that this license is not limited to people who exhibit outright suspicious behavior. Even if someone is simply behaving in an unusual way, which could possibly mean that he is planning to cause us harm, we are allowed to inquire about him, though we may hear rechilus in the process. This applies even if no ill will was known to exist between the individual and ourselves.
Once again, the Chofetz Chaim stresses that in such cases, we are permitted to take action on the possibility that our suspicions are correct. We are not permitted to assume that our suspicions are correct. The Chofetz Chaim says more: We should not even view the matter as “50-50,” with an equal possibility of the person being innocent or guilty. The average Jew has a chezkas kashrus; that is, he is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. When we act upon our suspicions, it is only on a slight chance that there is cause for concern.
The Chofetz Chaim concludes: “Therefore, it is forbidden to do anything against the person, to cause him any sort of harm or shame, neither large nor small. Even to hate him in one’s heart is forbidden by the Torah. Certainly one has no right to free himself, because of rechilus which he hears, from any obligations which he has towards that individual. He is required to benefit that person with every good thing which the Torah commands us to provide to any Jew—for this man’s worth should not be lowered in our eyes, not in the slightest way.”
“Just as the Torah prohibits us from accepting loshon hora as fact, so too, it is forbidden to accept rechilus,” the Chofetz Chaim states. To accept rechilus is to transgress the negative commandment “Lo Sisa Shema Shav” Do not accept a false report (Shemos 23:1).
The Chofetz Chaim distinguishes between accepting rechilus as fact and listening to rechilus. It is always forbidden to accept rechilus as fact. However, we are permitted to listen to rechilus, without believing it as fact, in order to protect ourselves from possible harm or financial loss. To better understand this, let us consider an example:
Levi and Reuven work together in a law office. One day, Reuven takes Levi aside and tells him that Shimon, another attorney at the firm, has been quietly petitioning the firm’s partners to reassign to him an important case which Levi is now handling.
It would seem self-destructive for Levi not to believe Reuven. If he does not act on the information, he stands to lose a great deal of prestige and income. Aside from the loss of the case itself, Levi’s standing in the firm may be affected if his employers become convinced that he is not qualified to handle such a case. The Chofetz Chaim says that certainly Levi is allowed to listen to Reuven’s report and take measures to protect himself from loss. But he is not allowed to believe in his heart that this report is true (until his own investigations confirm the report).
However, in a case where listening to the report would not result in any constructive purpose, one would be prohibited from listening at all.
In our example, Reuven’s first sentence is enough to tell Levi that a constructive purpose would be served by his listening to what Reuven has to say. Therefore, the Torah permits him to listen and to take defensive action.
The Chofetz Chaim hints at the primary tool for rejecting necessary information as fact, while acting upon it on the suspicion that it may be true. He says that one should not believe such information “in his heart.” To avoid believing a negative report about someone else, we have to focus on the person’s merits and assume that there was no malice involved, or that the report was erroneous. To do this, one must fill his heart with ahavas Yisrael, love of one’s fellow Jew. If we abide by the mitzvah to love our fellow Jew, then our hearts become a source of compassion and understanding. Ahavas Yisrael inspires us to look for motivations which cast a different light on the situation.
In our example, perhaps the partner actually asked Shimon to take the case. Or perhaps the client requested him. Perhaps Shimon possesses certain skills which are more suited to this particular case. Or perhaps Reuven, for reasons of his own, is trying to set Levi against Shimon.
To disbelieve information which is relevant to our personal lives while acting upon the information seems like a tall order. But with a heart infused with ahavas Yisrael, one is well equipped to accomplish this task.
This brief chapter in Sefer Chofetz Chaim is a very revealing one. Earlier (Day 93), the Chofetz Chaim presented a situation where one is guilty of rechilus without telling the person any facts which he did not already know. In this chapter, the Chofetz Chaim presents other such situations. He begins with a case involving a din Torah (court case):
Yaakov leaves the beis din (rabbinical court) having lost a din Torah. While he is not pleased with the results, he does accept them and is prepared to abide by the judges’ ruling. But when he meets his friend Shimon and tells him the news, Shimon is enraged, insisting that Yaakov has been wronged and a terrible injustice has been committed by the court. Though nothing has changed regarding the actual beis din proceedings, and Yaakov still has no choice but to abide by the ruling, he is now angry with the judges, convinced that the case was totally mishandled.
Shimon is guilty of rechilus (of particular severity, since he has spoken against Torah scholars).
This same dynamic is sometimes responsible for marital problems. A wife, for example, may not be terribly bothered that her husband did not remember her birthday. But her friend might feel that she is being taken for granted, and provides her with a perspective that will make her angry with her husband. A husband may not care that his wife does not prepare elaborate dinners. But his well-meaning brother might step in and convince him that his spouse is not fulfilling her obligations as a wife.
The Chofetz Chaim offers another case:
Reuven spoke badly of Shimon in the presence of Levi and Yehudah. Levi goes and reports this to Shimon. Yehudah reasons, “There can’t be anything wrong in my telling Shimon that I was there too—he already knows about it from Levi!”
Yehudah is wrong, says the Chofetz Chaim. Shimon may have doubted Levi’s report—until Yehudah came along and reinforced it. Even if there was no reason to suspect that Shimon doubted Levi’s report, nevertheless, Yehudah’s words add credibility to Levi’s report and strengthen Shimon’s bad feelings towards Reuven. Furthermore, says the Chofetz Chaim, it may be Yehudah’s repetition of the report which causes Shimon to explode with rage and ignite a full-scale feud.
Until this point, we have dealt with what we will call “first-level rechilus,” where Reuven talks negatively about Shimon to Levi, who reports this conversation back to Shimon.
The Chofetz Chaim now discusses “second-level rechilus,” where the subject of the rechilus, in this case Shimon, goes back to Reuven and confronts him concerning the negative remarks he allegedly said. “Levi told me that you said some very nasty things about me!” With this action, Shimon himself has spoken rechilus, for by telling Reuven of Levi’s report to him, Shimon has caused Reuven to be upset with Levi.
The Chofetz Chaim laments the fact that unfortunately this form of rechilus is all too common.
The Chofetz Chaim adds that even if Shimon were not to mention Levi’s name when confronting Reuven with the report, he would be guilty of rechilus if Reuven could deduce on his own that Levi was the culprit.
Furthermore, if Shimon were to report this story not to Reuven but to Reuven’s family, he would be equally guilty. It is natural for people to take offense when they hear that negative remarks have been said about their relatives.
Finally, the Chofetz Chaim informs us that it is even rechilus for Levi to tell Yehudah that Reuven has spoken badly of Shimon. As we know all too well, such reports often find their way to the subject, and ill will is the result. In addition, says the Chofetz Chaim, to inform someone that one Jew has spoken negatively of another is to speak loshon hora.
It is all too often that a baal loshon hora ends his tirade with, “And if he were standing here, I would say it anyway!” In the laws of loshon hora, the Chofetz Chaim taught that such bravado is greatly misplaced. Here, in the laws of rechilus, the Chofetz Chaim reinforces his stand. He informs us that it is actually a greater sin to speak rechilus in the presence of the one whose comment is being repeated. For example:
Reuven has told you loshon hora about Levi. “Did you hear Levi speak at the school dinner — it was awful!” Later that day, you happen to meet Levi and Reuven on the street together. You casually remark, “Levi, I heard you spoke at the school dinner. Reuven said that it was absolutely awful.” Levi turns to Reuven who, after turning every color of the rainbow, mutters some kind of denial.
Why is this type of rechilus particularly severe? The Chofetz Chaim explains: If you report Reuven’s comment to Levi when Reuven is not present, then in Levi’s mind there is always a question of whether or not Reuven actually made the statement and whether you reported it accurately. On the other hand, if you tell Levi what Reuven said and Reuven is standing right there, there is absolutely no question in Levi’s mind that the report is true. As the Chofetz Chaim puts it, “If the report would not be completely true, then he would not have the audacity to say it in [Reuven’s] presence.”
In Day 15, the Chofetz Chaim leads us through this very type of rechilus conversation and provides another reason why it is so severe: it has the potential for transgression of an unusual amount of positive and negative Torah commandments.
In the laws of loshon hora, the Chofetz Chaim discussed the concept of “api tlasa” (before three), where a negative statement was made in the presence of three people, which is considered a public forum. Rambam states that such information may be repeated because it is certain to become publicized, and therefore repeating it will not be causing any harm. However, as the Chofetz Chaim explained at great length (Day 29-31), because there are many limitations of this license, it should not be relied upon in practice.
Here, too, the Chofetz Chaim cautions us not to rely upon the license of api tlasa with regard to rechilus. If Shimon publicly speaks badly of Reuven, it would be forbidden for Levi to make Reuven aware of this (or to relate this to anyone else as well).
The Chofetz Chaim then discusses a halachah which has wide application in our daily lives. He offers a case of a business partner who is seeking to break up a partnership and find himself a new partner, but is unsuccessful in finding someone who meets his requirements. It is forbidden to tell that partner, “You know, your partner was thinking of replacing you.” Obviously, the second partner will feel very hurt that his partner wanted to break up the partnership. Furthermore, once a seed of distrust is planted in one’s heart, it is difficult to uproot it. The second partner will worry about the stability of the partnership and will start viewing his partner’s actions by the light of, “Is he happy with me or is he about to walk out the door?” This insecurity can lead to anger, and ultimately may very well destroy the partnership.
We can easily apply this to other cases. Two friends always coordinate their work schedules so that they can vacation together. One of the friends contemplates taking a new traveling partner on his next vacation, but then changes his mind. Someone tells the other friend about his traveling partner’s original plans. Obviously he will feel hurt and rejected.
The Chofetz Chaim concludes by quoting Rambam ( Hilchos Dei’os 7:5): “One who tells his friend words which cause…harm to someone physically, or financially, or which cause him distress or fright — this is loshon hora.”
Rechilus is forbidden even when told to one person. Certainly, says the Chofetz Chaim, it is forbidden when said publicly. One might argue: “If I announce in public, ‘Chaim called Meir a fool,’ Chaim is sure to find out what I said. So obviously, I’m not afraid for Chaim to find out, and obviously I’m telling the truth.” Anyone who would put forth such an argument is overlooking a fundamental point of hilchos rechilus. As we have already learned, rechilus by definition is true information and it is forbidden even if the speaker would be unafraid to make the same statement in the subject’s presence.
The Chofetz Chaim presents a case of avak rechilus, “the dust of rechilus.” The classic case of avak rechilus is where a person makes a statement which could be interpreted either positively or negatively. A few people standing outside a shul (synagogue) are approached by a stranger. He wants to know where he can get something to eat. One member of the group says, “Why don’t you go to Levi? He always has something cooking on the stove.” The issue is whether or not this is a derogatory statement. The speaker may have meant, “Levi is always eating, so he always has food cooking” or he may have meant, “Levi always has guests, and he’s always prepared for extra company.”
In the first part of this volume (Day 29), we discussed whether or not such ambiguous statements are permissible. Here, the question is whether or not someone else may repeat this statement to Levi in the speaker’s name. The Chofetz Chaim informs us that it is surely forbidden to repeat the remark to Levi in a way which indicates that it was meant derogatorily. If it is repeated in a way which indicates that it was intended as a compliment, this would seemingly be permissible. However, if Levi is a person who tends to be suspicious of people’s motives and judges them unfavorably, then the remark should not be repeated to him even where the connotation is positive. The same would apply where there already exists some bad feeling between Levi and the person who made the remark, for here, too, it is likely that Levi will understand the remark the wrong way.
Rechilus comes in many forms. In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim examines a case which is unusual in that the listener is not being told anything which he did not already know. Consider the following:
The Finestones and the Breckers were celebrating the bar mitzvahs of their sons on the same night. They became embroiled in a dispute when both attempted to book the same catering hall. Three years later, the feud is all but forgotten. Mr. Sanders, who does not get along with the Breckers, would like to reignite the feud. So he casually remarks to Mr. Finestone, “There are so many simchas (happy occasions) being celebrated these days, I’ll bet it happens that friends try to book the same hall.” “Yes,” replies Mr. Finestone, “as a matter of fact, it happened to us a few years ago …” Mr. Sanders is guilty of speaking rechilus.
The Chofetz Chaim adds that, as with loshon hora, it is forbidden to communicate rechilus in writing.
It is also forbidden to inform a businessman that someone has spoken badly of his merchandise. Such comments are considered rechilus because obviously the businessman may feel ill will towards the person. This applies not only to merchandise, but to anyone’s personal possessions.
For example: imagine that you bought a dented, noisy old car. Your neighbor meets you and says, “Shimon saw that car of yours. He says you must have picked it up in the junkyard!” Though you know it’s dented and noisy, nevertheless, hearing such a comment about something you own stirs bad feelings inside you toward Shimon. To report such a comment is to speak rechilus.
The Chofetz Chaim has already informed us that we are not permitted to speak rechilus even when pressured to do so. In this segment, he tells us that if possible, one should evade the issue without resorting to an outright lie. However, if it is obvious that the other person will not accept such an answer, one is even permitted to lie. Our Sages teach that though “the seal of G-d is truth” and we are commanded to distance ourselves from falsehood, it is permissible to lie for the sake of peace (Yevamos 65). This is derived from the episode in the Torah where the angels (disguised as wayfarers) informed Avraham and Sarah that they would be granted a child. Sarah laughed incredulously, for how could a couple so old be granted a child? Hashem was displeased with Sarah’s laughter, and He confronted Avraham, asking, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Can it be true that I will give birth when I am old?’” (Breishis 18:13). In fact, Sarah had also said, “… and my husband is old.” As Rashi states, Hashem altered the truth for the sake of peace, for Avraham may have felt hurt that his wife referred to him as “old.”
From this, we see the incredible importance the Torah attaches to maintaining peace within the Jewish people, whether among friends, family or communities. In instructing us to alter the truth for the sake of peace, Hashem is not asking us to transgress. Truth, from the Torah’s perspective, is more than words. Maharal explains that from the Torah’s perspective, animosity is a form of falsehood. This attitude is expressed by the Sages’ term for animosity: sinas chinam, baseless hatred. Peace itself is a form of truth, and strife is a form of falsehood. When we speak with the goal of avoiding strife, we are preserving truth and rejecting falsehood.
The Chofetz Chaim makes the crucial point that though we can lie to avoid rechilus, we may not swear for this purpose.
This segment concludes with the case where someone is seeking just one piece of information which will complete the picture. He knows that someone has spoken behind his back, he knows what was said, but he does not know who said it. To supply this piece of information would be rechilus. The same would apply if one were to relate the story without mentioning names, but the listener could deduce the identity of the culprit.
Rechilus has particular application to the business world because it is common for customers and vendors to traffic information to advance their commercial position. A vendor looking for his customer’s favor might reveal what the customer’s competitors have said about him or done to him. An employee might try to ingratiate himself to his supervisor by reporting what his fellow employees are saying about him, positioning himself as the boss’s ally and confidant.
Whatever the case, it is forbidden to speak rechilus, even if it means losing one’s job. If an employee is pressured by his supervisor to reveal rechilus and his refusal will place him under suspicion as an accomplice in the alleged “crime,” he is required to accept that consequence and remain silent. As the Chofetz Chaim notes, a Jew is required to surrender all his possessions rather than transgress a single negative commandment. To speak rechilus is as much a Torah prohibition as eating ham.
The Chofetz Chaim adds that one may certainly not speak rechilus if the consequence is embarrassment or derision. He cites the famous Talmudic passage (quoted above in Day 58) where our Sages apply the verse “And those who love Him are like the sun going forth in its strength” (Shoftim 5:31), to a person who remains silent in the face of insult.
Previously, the Chofetz Chaim declared that it is better to be considered a fool one’s entire life on this world than to be considered a fool for one moment before the King of all kings. Here, he reminds us that when suffering shame or ridicule for refusing to speak rechilus, one earns the great distinction of being called an oheiv Hashem, one who loves Hashem. Furthermore, though he is humiliated now, he is assured that ultimately he will be glorified, not diminished. Our Sages grant this assurance to anyone who bears insult in silence. Surely, says the Chofetz Chaim, this applies to someone who suffers disgrace for the sake of a mitzvah — in this case, the mitzvah of shmiras halashon.
Just as, by definition, loshon hora is derogatory or harmful information which is true, so, too, is rechilus true information which can cause ill will. If the information is false, the transgression is even more severe. The Chofetz Chaim cites a series of verses (Mishlei 6:16-19) which state that a person who causes bad feelings between friends through rechilus is deemed a rasha (wicked person) and is despicable in the eyes of Hashem.
It is a serious mistake to think that speaking rechilus to someone who is already an enemy of the subject is not forbidden. It is. Though animosity was already present, it is forbidden to deliver a report which will deepen the rift.
The Chofetz Chaim warns us concerning another misconception, that it is not a sin to reveal information when pressured to do so. Consider this scenario: Your friend the contractor has just finished renovating a kitchen for your friend the homeowner. The homeowner was not completely satisfied with the job and he told this to some friends. Now you meet the contractor, and he says, “Someone happened to mention that you were present when Levi talked about the work I did at his house. What did he have to say?” If you hesitate before responding, he might say, “What’s the matter? Is he unhappy about something?”
At this point, you are in a difficult situation. If you say, “He’s not unhappy,” you’re implying that he isn’t particularly happy, either. If you refuse to discuss it, the implication is also negative. The best strategy, if you can anticipate this type of situation, is to prepare a quick, simple answer that will preempt further conversation about that topic. You should not relate what Levi actually said, despite the pressure to do so.
The Chofetz Chaim concludes that even if one’s father or rebbi (Torah teacher) asks him, “What did so-and-so say about me?” it is forbidden to say anything negative. Responding negatively to, “Did they like my shiur (Torah lecture)?” also falls under the category of rechilus. Here, too, one must delicately and respectfully avoid an accurate response.
The Chofetz Chaim begins the laws of rechilus with some fundamental points. Good intentions do not remove a statement from the category of rechilus. If a statement can cause ill will it is forbidden, regardless of the speaker’s good intentions.
The Chofetz Chaim focuses on a common tactic used in arguments between husband and wife, child and parent or employee and employer. Often, people name a third party as supporting their opinion.
A wife tells her husband, “Even your sister agrees with me. She says I’m right.” A son tells his mother, “Even David’s mother says I’m right that boys my age should be allowed to drive.” An employee tells his boss, “You know, your friend Mr. Friedman told me that I’m worth a lot more than you’re paying me.”
Using another person’s opinion to bolster your case does not win arguments. Often it serves to infuriate the person with whom you are arguing. The employer who is underpaying his employee will not suddenly be won over to his employee’s way of thinking because his friend thinks that the man deserves a raise. The more likely response is, “What right does he have to interfere? What does he know about my business?” The mother whose son wants to drive will not suddenly change her mind based on another mother’s opinion. Her response most likely will be, “How dare she meddle in matters between myself and my child?”
Despite its ineffectiveness, people use this strategy for a simple reason. They feel that it strengthens their position by turning it into a majority opinion. The hope is that the opposing party will feel outnumbered and therefore capitulate.
But Halachah looks past the strategies to the end result, and it identifies this strategy as one that is likely to create ill will. And that is why it is forbidden.
With this segment, we begin the second part of Sefer Chofetz Chaim, which is devoted to hilchos rechilus, the laws of gossipmongering. The Chofetz Chaim begins by citing the verse which explicitly prohibits rechilus: “Lo Seileich Rachil B’Amecha,” You shall not go as a peddler of gossip among your people (Vayikra 19:16). The Chofetz Chaim emphasizes the gravity of this sin: “It has destroyed many souls among the Jewish people.” He explains that in the Torah, this commandment is immediately followed by “You shall not stand aside while your fellow’s blood is shed.” Words of gossip, which cause ill will and hatred among Jews, have the power to destroy and defame families, friends and communities.
As proof of the damage which rechilus can cause, the Chofetz Chaim cites the case of Doeg HaAdomi. Doeg informed King Shaul that Achimelech the Kohen Gadol (High Priest) had granted refuge to David, for whom Shaul was hunting. Shaul accepted this wicked report and ordered the Kohanim of Nov killed. Such is the power of rechilus.
The Chofetz Chaim offers us a very clear picture of a rachil, a peddler of gossip. This is a person who goes from one person to the next saying, “Did you hear what Reuven said about you?” “Did you hear what Reuven did to you?” “Did you hear what Reuven wants to do to you?”
The Chofetz Chaim goes further. Even if the reported information is not inherently negative and the subject himself would freely admit to it, it is still rechilus. It is rechilus, says the Chofetz Chaim, even if the person’s words or actions were absolutely justified.
For example: Reuven has a habit of double-parking his car in congested areas. One day his doubleparking causes a major traffic jam. Shimon passes by and comments that parking in such a way is inexcusable. Someone approaches Reuven and says, “Do you know what Shimon said…?” Though Shimon’s comment may have been justified, the person who quoted Shimon in Reuven’s presence was guilty of rechilus.
The animosity which rechilus creates is what matters; the fact that the subject was correct does not erase the ill will which the report caused. Such ill will is the product of feeling attacked. It comes from finding out that someone has been talking about you. Think of your own reaction — the instant anger — that is aroused from hearing that someone has criticized your performance in some area.
The Torah recognizes the terrible destruction which strife causes within Klal Yisrael (the Jewish people). Disunity disqualifies us from receiving Hashem’s blessings. Rechilus fosters strife and creates rifts among Jews which sometimes are irreparable. The laws of shmiras haloshon are a gift from Hashem designed to preserve love and unity. Follow them and you will be a source of blessing for yourself, your loved ones and all the Jewish people.
In this segment, the Chofetz Chaim examines a case in which you are wrongly accused of something, and it is obvious that the real wrongdoer had to be either you or someone else within your circle.
Obviously, it would be forbidden to inform on the real culprit. The Chofetz Chaim tells us that the halachah does allow you to say, “I didn’t do it.” However, in cases where there are only two possible culprits and saying “I didn’t do it” automatically places the blame on the other person, other factors need to be considered in deciding the halachah (see Be’er Mayim Chaim §43).
Even where you are allowed to say, “I didn’t do it,” this response would be considered acting according to the strict letter of the law. However, it is considered praiseworthy to go beyond the letter of the law and actually accept the blame to protect the guilty party.
Obviously, the Chofetz Chaim is recommending this only for someone with the emotional strength to absorb the consequences. He is certainly not recommending that one do something which would cause him great distress or involve him in a feud. On the other hand, there are situations in which there is much to be gained by accepting the blame for someone else.
For example, suppose someone feels slighted because he was not invited to an important shul (synagogue) function which you helped organize. If you have an established, close relationship with the person, he is more likely to be forgiving of your wrongdoing than he would be toward someone else. If you accept the blame for this oversight, your friend will understand that no harm was intended, and the tension will be defused.
Important Numbers
