Halakhah sobre Proverbios 9:19

And all that we have written applies even if he said about him only that he is not wise in worldly matters. How much more so, if he said about one whom the people of the city thought to be wise in Torah, that he is not so wise, and that he knows but little in Torah, and through this they come to think less of him. Certainly this is in the category of lashon hara, even if true, since his intent is not for benefit but only to lower his friend in the esteem of the hearers. For through this, on whichever level he stands, this can cause him harm, or, in any event, distress. I will provide two illustrations. If one says about the city Rabbi before the people of the city that he is not very wise in Torah, but that he knows a little of the halachic rulings that are needed in practice — even if this be true, it is absolute lashon hara according to the Torah. For by this, he completely lowers his honor and undermines his very livelihood, and decreases thereby the honor of the Torah and the fulfillment of its mitzvoth (as mentioned in section 2). The same applies if he says the like about one who was recently married in the city. For certainly his honor will fall in the end in the eyes of his in-laws and of the members of his household when it becomes known to them that he is of little consequence in the city. And there is no greater harm and pain than this and the like. It is difficult for me to illustrate everything, but, "Give to the wise and he will wax yet wiser" (Mishlei 9:9). For I have come only to arouse, and the wise man will understand all by himself. And know also that the same applies if he says about a worker that he is not a good worker. This, too, is absolute lashon hara, for here, too, all the aforementioned considerations apply. (And if in this and all the other instances that we have spoken of, his intent is not to demean, but only to derive some benefit, this will be discussed, the L–rd willing, in Principle IX of the laws of rechiluth.)

But if they see that the sinner is one of the foolish scoffers who hate their reprovers, as it is written (Mishlei 9:8): "Do not reprove the scoffer, lest he hate you," and their words will certainly not be accepted, and men such as these readily return to their folly, so that he may very likely come to sin again — if so, it is better for them if they tell it to the judges of the city, so that they chastise him for his sin and keep him from future transgression. And it would seem that the same holds true for [telling] the relatives of the sinner if [we know that] their words [of reproof] will be accepted by him [see Be'er Mayim Chayim]. And the entire intent of the teller should be for the sake of Heaven and in zeal for the L–rd, and not because of their hatred of him for something else. And the judges, too, should chastise the sinner in secret and not "whiten his face" in public, as it is written (Vayikra 19:17): "Reprove shall you reprove your neighbor, but do not bear sin because of him." And all this if they saw him with [i.e., if they were] two witnesses, but if he were a single witness, he may not testify against his friend, for his testimony is in vain, the judges being unable to rely upon it, viz. (Devarim 19:15): "One witness shall not arise against a man for every transgression and for every sin." Therefore, [if he does so], he is considered a motzi shem ra [the spreader of an evil report], concerning which our Rabbis have said (Sha'arei Teshuvah 22): "One who testified singly against his friend receives stripes of rebellion." And our sages have said (Pesachim 113b): "Three are hated by the Holy One Blessed be He," one of them being "one who sees a thing of ervah [immorality] in his friend and testifies against him singly." But he can reveal the thing secretly to his [the sinner's] Rabbi and to his close confidant, if he knows that his words will be accepted as those of two witnesses. And his Rabbi is permitted to hate him for this and to distance himself from his company, until it becomes known to him that he has repented of his evil way. But his Rabbi may not tell this to others, it being no better than seeing it himself, as we have written above in section 4.

Rav Shlomo Zalman notes that this is an example of Shlomo Hamelech’s advice, “Do not reprimand the scoffer lest he come to hate you” (Mishlei 9:8). In fact, Rav Dov Brisman (Teshuvot Shalmei Chovah 33), in support of this ruling, cites the Teshuvot Chavot Ya’ir (185), who writes explicitly that this Halachah does not apply when it will cause enmity and hatred. Nonetheless, Rav Auerbach expresses hesitancy at the conclusion of his responsum and writes, “Nonetheless, the matter needs a decision.” It seems that Rav Shlomo Zalman’s hesitancy emerges from his fear that his ruling would create the perception that a Halachah from the Shulchan Aruch has been eliminated, since in most modern-day situations, Rav Shlomo Zalman’s reasoning will apply.

This applies only in a case when you [have reason to] believe that the sinner will listen to you,⁴⁹If the sinner is your friend you should chide him even if you know that he will pay no attention to your words. (Magein Avraham 156:2) but when you know [for sure] that he will not pay attention to your words, then you are forbidden to admonish him. For Rabbi Ila'a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon,⁵⁰Yevamos 65b. "Just as it is a mitzvah for a person to say something that will be heeded, so it is a mitzvah to refrain from saying something that will not be heeded." Rabbi Abba says, "It is his duty" [to refrain from saying anything that will not be taken under consideration]. for it is said:⁵¹Proverbs 9:8. "Do not admonish a scorner lest he hate you; reprove a wise man and he will love you."

Behold, they explained that the deterrent to our [understanding of] the explanations of the commandments is only from the blindness of our intellects; and that the explanation of the most difficult one of them was already revealed to the sages of Israel. And there are many such statements in their words - and in the Torah and in Scripture, very many. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, mentioned some of them. But [as far] those homiletic teachings (aggadot) with which the Teacher was challenged, according to [Ramban's] opinion, they are about a different matter: that they wanted to say that there is no benefit in the commandments to the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself, may He be blessed. Rather, the benefit is for the person, himself, to deter him from harm or a bad belief or an ugly trait or to remember wonders of the Creator, may He be blessed, [so as] to remember God. And this is [what was meant by] "to refine them with them" - that they should be like refined silver. As the action of the one who refines silver is not without explanation, but [rather] to remove all the dross. So too are the commandments to remove from him any bad belief and to inform him of the truth and to always remind him. And the language of the aggadah itself in Yilamdenu in the section, 'This is the animal ' (Midrash Tanchuma, Shmini 8) is "And for what would the Holy One, blessed be He, care if one slaughters a beast and eats or stabs [it] and eats? Does it help Him or hurt Him at all? Or what would He care whether one would eat pure foods or eat carcasses? 'And if you have been wise, you have been wise for yourself.' Behold, the commandments were only given to refine the creatures with them, as it states (Psalms 12:7), 'The words of the Lord are pure words'; 'The word of the Lord is refined' (Psalms 18:31). Why? So that it will a shield for you."