-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Seif 11
And now, according to what we have explained, with the help of the Blessed L–rd, of the principles of apei telata, [we realize that] care must be taken that when the seven city dignitaries preside over the actions of the men of the city in matters of assessments and the like, where their judgment will be to the detriment of one and to the benefit of another, and they differ in opinion and decide according to the majority — when they leave the communal chamber, each one must take great heed not to relate thereafter his opinion or the opinion of Ploni to the effect that in the beginning of the case his opinion was to be lenient with the man involved, but his colleagues overruled him and compelled him to accept their view. And it goes without saying that if they agreed among themselves from the beginning that when they left the communal chamber they would not reveal or relate their deliberations to the man involved in the debt — [it goes without saying] that if he did so, this would be an absolute issur; but even if quite casually, without even intending to reveal anything, he happened to tell this to another in such a manner as to make it appear from his words that he did not incline to this [the majority opinion] even now, but that he could not contest it with the others, this, too, is an absolute issur. (And according to the opinion of Hayad Haketanah (Hilchoth Deoth 9) even if one relates casually that it was his opinion in the beginning to be lenient with the man involved, but it came to a vote and they decided according to the majority, this, too, is forbidden.) And there is no difference between whether one reveals this of his own volition or his friend rises against him with insults over this decision which they arrived at in a certain matter. In all instances it is forbidden to place the onus on his colleague and remove it from himself, even if what he says is true.

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Seif 12
I have also found it fitting to write of another thing explicitly, for I have found many people to be habituated to it. That is, when someone lectures in the house of study it is forbidden according to the din to mock him and to say that there is nothing to his lectures and there is nothing to hear. And in our many sins we see many people to be remiss in this, not considering this mockery as an issur at all. But according to the din it is absolute lashon hara. For through such speech it often happens that he causes monetary loss to his friend, and, sometimes, pain and shame, too. For even if it were true, lashon hara is forbidden even if true. For what benefit does this mocker and jester hope to gain by his levity? If he is a sincere person, to the contrary, he should counsel him [the lecturer] afterwards, in private, and suggest other ways to present his lecture. For in his present approach [mockery], his words are not attended to; and by this [the above] counsel [to the lecturer] he would also fulfill (Vayikra 19:18): “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” In any event, he should not render him a mockery in the mouths of men. And the heter of apei telata is of no avail here as I have clearly explained in the Be’er Mayim Chayim.

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Seif 13
If one revealed to his friend, in the presence of three, details of his occupation or trade or the like, things which, in general, are otherwise forbidden to repeat afterwards to another, lest this result in injury or pain to him — now, since he himself revealed it in the presence of three, it is evident that this is of no concern to him, even if it comes to be known in the end. Therefore, the one who hears it from him is permitted ab initio to reveal it to others, so long as he [the teller] does not make it clear that he is opposed to his doing so. [But none of the qualifications adduced above in the discussion of apei telata should be lacking. See Be’er Mayim Chayim.]

There is tremendous power in learning from the Sefer Chofetz Chaim each day. In this crucial time, we’re going to help encourage that effort with a few halachos a day using Sefaria’s translation (https://www.sefaria.org/Chafetz_Chaim).

Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Seif 9
And all this that we have said applies to the issur of repeating it itself, but (G–d forbid) to add even one word or to “embroider” the thing before the hearer, as by saying that what was said against Shimon was very well said, and the like — this certainly is forbidden in all modes, for he thereby harms him with his words more than he would have been harmed had he himself heard [the original report] within the normal dynamics of apei telata. And, furthermore, by this [adding to the original], it is clear that he accepts the report as true, and this is forbidden by all [poskim] in all modes, as will be explained below, please G–d, in Principle VII, section 1.

And, therefore, one must take great heed, even if a man is known to have had a certain fault in his youth, but from then until now he has been conducting himself correctly; or if it is known about his forbears that they did not conduct themselves correctly at all, but he does not hold on to their ways, and all such things, where, in truth, he is not open to aspersion, it is forbidden to demean him or to shame him before his friends because of this [early fault]. And one who transgresses and speaks about these things before others, even if not in his presence, in order to shame him in the eyes of his people, even if he adds nothing to the truth, is in the class of the speakers of lashon hara, who do not behold the Divine Presence, as stated in Sha’arei Teshuvah 214. And the heter of apei telata does not apply in such an instance, even if the thing is known to all, since, in truth, he [the object of this report] bears no blemish in this, as written in Yechezkel (18:20-22): “The son shall not bear the sin of the father. And the wicked one, when he turns from all his sins which he has done… All of the sins which he has done shall not be reckoned unto him in his righteousness. In the righteousness which he has done shall he live.” And he [who does bring these things up to him] renders him a mockery in the mouths of men.

Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Seif 10
And know also that the entire heter of apei telata applies to the speaker. But, as far as the hearer is concerned — that is, if he knows the nature of the hearer to be such that as soon as he hears the report he will accept it as the truth against Shimon, and may even add some demeaning things against him — to a man like this it is forbidden to intimate anything demeaning about his friend in any form. And one who does so transgresses (Vayikra 19:14): “Before the blind man do not place a stumbling-block,” as we expatiated above in the introduction in relation to this negative commandment. And all that we have written concerning this principle in the direction of issur applies even if this speaker did not mention the name of the first speaker, who spoke in the presence of three, but only stated that this and this was heard about Ploni. Even thus it is forbidden. And after all these things and this truth that we have explained, see, my brother, how much one must distance himself from this leniency [of apei telata], which has practically no place in reality; and, especially, even if all the conditions [for leniency] obtain, it is still to be determined whether the halachah is consistent with this opinion [of leniency], since, according to many poskim there is no source for this leniency in the Talmud (as we have written in section 4 in the Be’er Mayim Chayim). Therefore, one who guards his soul will distance himself from this.

There is tremendous power in learning from the Sefer Chofetz Chaim each day. In this crucial time, we’re going to help encourage that effort with a few halachos a day using Sefaria’s translation (https://www.sefaria.org/Chafetz_Chaim).

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Seif 7
And if the speaker exhorted [the hearers] not to reveal it, even if he said it before many, the issur of lashon hara obtains for the one who reveals it afterwards, even by chance. And even if he sees that one of the hearers or two did not heed this exhortation and revealed [what “he” heard] to others, in spite of this, this third one, may not reveal the thing to others, even by chance. [See Be’er Mayim Chayim.]

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Seif 8
There is no difference in the language of the exhortation, whether he exhorted them not to mention the subject at all anymore, or whether he said to them, “Let none of this be made known by you” — in all modes, it is forbidden to reveal the demeaning of another, even to a different person; how much more so to the person demeaned himself. For if it is revealed to another, in the end it will become known to all, and even to him [the person demeaned] through the channels of “Your friend has a friend, etc.” It also seems obvious that [the heter of apei telata applies] only if the hearers were three, as opposed to an instance of two who spoke before two, where this heter does not apply at all. [See Be’er Mayim Chayim.]

There is tremendous power in learning from the Sefer Chofetz Chaim each day. In this crucial time, we’re going to help encourage that effort with a few halachos a day using Sefaria’s translation (https://www.sefaria.org/Chafetz_Chaim).

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Seif 5
It seems to me that if the recounting in the presence of three were before G–d- fearing men, who guard themselves against the prohibitions of lashon hara, then, as a matter of course, this report is not bound to be heard; and if so, it is forbidden by Torah law to repeat it afterwards to another. And even if only one of the three were G–d-fearing, guarding himself against the issur of lashon hara, the din remains the same, for there are no longer three [potential] “publicizers.” And it may be that this is the din if one of the three were a relative or a close friend of the object of the slander. The same rationale applies here. For he certainly will not go and reveal to all the taint of his relative or his close friend, so that there are not three [potential publicizers] who were present.

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Seif 6
It also seems to me that only in that city in which the report was heard in the presence of three is it permitted to reveal it on the basis of “Your friend has a friend, etc.,” but not in a different city, even if there were communication [lit., “caravans”] between the two. [See Be’er Mayim Chayim.]

There is tremendous power in learning from the Sefer Chofetz Chaim each day. In this crucial time, we’re going to help encourage that effort with a few halachos a day using Sefaria’s translation (https://www.sefaria.org/Chafetz_Chaim).

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Seif 3
There are some who say that if one speaks demeaningly of his friend before three, even though he certainly transgresses the issur of lashon hara, as mentioned before, still, if one of the three who heard this thing told it thereafter to others, he does not thereby transgress the issur of lashon hara, by reason of the fact that if three know of it, the thing has been heard and become known by all, for “Your friend has a friend, etc.,” and the Torah did not forbid as lashon hara something which is bound to be known. And [this is so] only if he relates it by chance; but not if he intends to spread it and to publicize it more.

Even if he does not relate it in the name of the one who told him [so that there is no rechiluth], but casually, to the effect that such and such was heard about Ploni, still he does not escape the issur of lashon hara.

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Seif 4
And even our heter [to repeat this to another] where there is no intent to publicize it, applies only to the first hearer, who himself heard what Reuven said about Shimon in the presence of three. But he who heard it from him is forbidden to go thereafter, on the authority of his having been told that he heard it in the presence of three, and to tell another of the taint he heard attributed to Shimon, even if he does not mention who it is that purveyed this slander against Shimon — unless the thing were publicized and became known to all. And this applies not only when this second hearer does not himself know whether the allegation itself — that Reuven slandered Shimon — is true, in which instance he certainly is forbidden to believe him [his informer] that Reuven transgressed the issur of lashon hara. But even if he knows himself that Reuven spoke demeaningly of Shimon, but he does not know if he did so in the presence of three, in spite of this, he is forbidden to rely on his words to this effect, and we fear that perhaps it was not in the presence of three and that it is not bound to become public knowledge, wherefore he [the second hearer] is forbidden to tell it to anyone.

There is tremendous power in learning from the Sefer Chofetz Chaim each day. In this crucial time, we’re going to help encourage that effort with a few halachos a day using Sefaria’s translation (https://www.sefaria.org/Chafetz_Chaim).

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Opening Comments
In this principle there will be explained the din of lashon hara in the presence of three [apeitelata] in all its details. It contains thirteen sections.

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Seif 1
It is forbidden to speak lashon hara against one’s friend, even if it is true, even before one, and, more so, before many. And the more listeners, the greater the sin of the speaker; for his friend is more greatly demeaned thereby, his taint being publicized before several people. Also, in doing so, he makes several people go astray in the issur of listening to lashon hara.

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2, Seif 2
As to there being found a heter [a halachic permit] in the words of Chazal to speak it before three, this applies to something which is not an absolute taint and which can be understood in two ways. It is well known that such things depend on how they are said. It is such a thing that Chazal permitted to say in the presence of three, the rationale being that since he says it before three, he knows for a certainty that these things will come to his [the object’s] ears (for “your friend has a friend, etc.”). The speaker, therefore, heeds himself in speaking, that what he says will not be understood negatively. (Let one illustration serve for all cases of the same kind. If one is asked: “Where is fire found?” and he answers: “You can find it there, where they always cook flesh and fish.” This can be understood according to how it is said at the time. If he wishes he can say it in such a tone that contains no taint against his friend. For in truth, there is sometimes no fault in this. It may be that he has a large family and that the Holy One Blessed be He has blessed him with wealth, or that he is an innkeeper or the like, and that when he [the speaker] is asked where fire is to be found, he answers [quite appropriately] that there is no fire to be found now except in that house, where they always cook, etc. All of these things in the category of the “dust” of lashon hara depend upon how they are expressed at the time. But if the “tone” of his voice and movements is that he [the proprietor of the house or the inn] overindulges in feasting, even though this is not an absolute taint, Chazal has termed it the “dust” of lashon hara, and it is forbidden to say it even in the presence of three.)

There is tremendous power in learning from the Sefer Chofetz Chaim each day. In this crucial time, we’re going to help encourage that effort with a few halachos a day using Sefaria’s translation (https://www.sefaria.org/Chafetz_Chaim).

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 1, Seif 7
And from this we can understand that lashon hara is certainly forbidden in an instance where only one’s personal honor is at stake. As when one is sitting in a company of men and has no way of avoiding them, and they are speaking of things which are forbidden according to the din. If he sits in silence and in no way abets them in their talk, he will be regarded as “crazy.” Of this and all such things, Chazal have said (Eduyoth 5:6): “Better that a man be called ‘a fool’ all of his days rather than be wicked one moment before the L-rd.” He must harness all of his powers at that moment to withstand the trial, and [if he does so], he may be completely confident that his reward for this from the Blessed L–rd will be without end. As Chazal have stated (Avoth 5:23): “According to the strain is the reward.” And, in Avoth d’R. Nathan: “One time with strain for a hundred times without strain.” (That is, the reward for the performance of a mitzvah or the abstention from an issur, which entails strain, is a hundredfold more than for that of the same kind, which entails no strain.) And to such a time [of trial as the above] there certainly applies the statement of Chazal in the Midrash: “For every moment that one ‘muzzles’ his mouth, he attains to such secreted light that no angel or [Divine] creature can conceive of.” (As to how one should conduct himself in respect to reproof and listening if one is “caught” in such an evil company as this one, see below Principle VI, sections 4-6, and above, in the introduction to the negative commandments, section 16.)

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 1, Seif 8
This issur of lashon hara obtains whether it is actually spoken by mouth or stated in a letter. There is also no difference whether he speaks it explicitly or by sign. In all modes, it is in the category of lashon hara.

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 1, Seif 9
And know also that even if in demeaning his friend he demeaned himself with the very same slur — even if he began by railing thus against himself, he has nevertheless not left the ranks of the slanderers.

There is tremendous power in learning from the Sefer Chofetz Chaim each day. In this crucial time, we’re going to help encourage that effort with a few halachos a day using Sefaria’s translation (https://www.sefaria.org/Chafetz_Chaim).

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 1, Seif 5
There is no difference in the issur of speaking [lashon hara], as to whether one speaks it of his own volition or whether his friend stands over him and begs him to tell him — in either case, it is forbidden. And even if his father or his Rabbi — whom he is obligated to honor and to fear and not to contradict their words — even if they importune him to speak of a certain thing, and he knows that in the midst of the account he will perforce come to speak lashon hara or even only the “dust” of lashon hara, he is forbidden to consent.

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 1, Seif 6
Even if one sees that if he takes it upon himself never to speak demeaningly of a Jew, or to say anything else that is forbidden, his livelihood will suffer greatly, as when he is in the employ of others who have not the faintest trace of Torah about them (and it is well known that, in our many sins, such men are steeped in this sin to such an extent that if they see one whose mouth is not open [in lashon hara] as wide as theirs, they take him for a fool and a simpleton and because of this may dismiss him from his job and deprive him of a livelihood), in spite of this, it is forbidden [to transgress], as is the case with all the other negative commandments, for which one must give up all that he possesses rather than transgress (viz. Yoreh Deah 157:1).

There is tremendous power in learning from the Sefer Chofetz Chaim each day. In this crucial time, we’re going to help encourage that effort with a few halachos a day using Sefaria’s translation (https://www.sefaria.org/Chafetz_Chaim).

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 1, Seif 3
All this, only if one spoke demeaningly of his friend by chance. But if (G–d forbid) he is habituated to this sin, like those who customarily sit and say: “Thus and thus did Ploni (so and so) do,” “Thus and thus did his fathers do,” “This and this (demeaning thing) did I hear about him” — men such as these are called by Chazal “ba’alei (men of) lashon hara,” and their punishment is far greater [than that of the former]. For in their perverseness of spirit and their malice of heart they transgress the Torah of the L–rd, and it becomes hefker to them, as explained above in the end of the introduction. And about them it is said in the tradition (Psalms 12:4): “Let the L–rd cut off all smooth-talking lips, the tongue that speaks haughtily.”

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 1, Seif 4
Chazal have said: For three transgressions punishment is exacted of a man in this world, and he has no share in the world to come: idolatry, illicit relations, and blood-spilling — and lashon hara over and above all. Chazal have proved this from Scripture. And the Rishonim have explained that the reference is to those who are habituated to this sin [lashon hara] and who do not take it upon themselves to guard themselves against it, the thing having become “permitted” to them.

There is tremendous power in learning from the Sefer Chofetz Chaim each day. In this crucial time, we’re going to help encourage that effort with a few halachos a day using Sefaria’s translation (https://www.sefaria.org/Chafetz_Chaim).

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 1, Opening Comments
In this principle there will be explained the issur of lashon hara — by mouth, by sign, or by letter — and the greatness of the punishment for one who is habituated to this sin, and the reward for him who guards himself from this bitter sin, and other details. It contains nine sections.

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 1, Seif 1
It is forbidden to speak demeaningly of one’s friend, even if it be absolute truth. And this is termed everywhere by Chazal “lashon hara.” (For if there were in his words an admixture of falsehood, by which his friend is demeaned even more, this is in the category of “motzi shem ra” [spreading a false report], in which his sin is far greater). And the speaker [of lashon hara] transgresses a negative commandment, viz. (Vayikra 19:16): “Do not go talebearing among your people.” And this [lashon hara] is also in the category of rechiluth.

-Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 1, Seif 2
This negative commandment which we adduced is what the Torah stated explicitly for this issur of lashon hara and rechiluth. But aside from this, there are many other negative and positive commandments that one transgresses by speaking lashon hara, as explained above in the preceding introduction.