שֶׁלֹּא לְרַגֵּל – שֶׁנִּמְנַעְנוּ מֵרְכִילוּת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט טז) לֹא תֵלֵךְ רָכִיל. וְהָעִנְיָן הוּא, שֶׁאִם נִשְׁמַע אָדָם מְדַבֵּר רַע בַּחֲבֵרוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא נֵלֵךְ אֵלָיו וּנְסַפֵּר לוֹ פְּלוֹנִי מְדַבֵּר כָּךְ וְכָךְ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן תִּהְיֶה כַּוָּנָתֵנוּ לְסַלֵּק הַנְּזָקִין וּלְהַשְׁבִּית רִיב. וְאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה (כתובות מו, א) בְּפֵרוּשׁ רָכִיל רַךְ לָזֶה וְקָשֶׁה לָזֶה, דָּבָר אַחֵר לֹא תְּהֵא כְּרוֹכֵל, מַטְעִין דְּבָרִים וְהוֹלֵךְ. To not spy: That we have been prevented from talebearing, as it is stated (Leviticus 19:16), “You shall not go talebearing (rachil).” And the matter is that if a person hears something bad about his fellow, that he should not go to him and tell him “x” is saying so and so, unless his intention is to remove damages or to stop a quarrel. And our Sages, may their memory be blessed, said (Ketuvot 46a) about the meaning of rachil, rach la’zeh ve kashe la’zeh (soft to this one and hard to that one). A different explanation: Do not be like a rochel (peddler), who picks up things and goes [with them to others].
מִשָּׁרְשֵׁי הַמִּצְוָה. כִּי הַשֵּׁם חָפֵץ בְּטוֹבַת הַבְּרִיּוֹת אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא וְצִוָּנוּ בָּזֶה כְּדֵי לִהְיוֹת שָׁלוֹם בֵּינֵינוּ כִּי הָרְכִילוּת מֵבִיא לְרִיב וּמַצָּה. It is from the roots of the commandment that God in His goodness desires the good of the creatures that He created, and commanded them in this so that there will be peace among us, since talebearing leads to quarrel and strife.
פְּרָטֵי הַמִּצְוָה וְרֹב הָאַזְהָרוֹת שֶׁהִזְהִירוּנוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה עַל הָרְכִילוּת וְעַל לָשׁוֹן הָרַע שֻׁתָּפוֹ, יִתְבָּאֲרוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹת מֵהַתַּלְמוּד וּבַמִּדְרָשׁוֹת בְּפִזּוּר [ה' דעות פ"ז]. וּבְפֵרוּשׁ אָמְרוּ (ערכין טו ב) בְּלָשׁוֹן הָרַע. שֶׁמֵּמִית הָאוֹמְרוֹ וְהַמְּקַבְּלוֹ וְהַנֶּאֱמָר עָלָיו, וְהַמְּקַבְּלוֹ יוֹתֵר מִכֻּלָּן, וְהִזְהִירוּ הַרְבֵּה עָלָיו עַד שֶׁאָמְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ מָשָׁל (ב"מ נט ב): מַאן דְּאִית [לֵהּ] זְקִיפָא בְּדֻקְתֵּהּ, לָא לֵימָא זְקוֹף בִּינִיתָא. וְאָמְרוּ (ערכין טז א) כִּי בִּכְלַל אֲבַק לָשׁוֹן הָרַע הוּא הַמְשַׁבֵּחַ חֲבֵרוֹ בִּפְנֵי שׂוֹנְאוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי כז יד) מְבָרֵךְ רֵעֵהוּ וְגוֹ'. The details of the commandment and the great amount of warnings that they, may their memory be blessed, warned us about talebearing and about its partner — evil speech — are explained in scattered locations in the Talmud and in the Midrash. (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Human Dispositions 7.) And they explicitly said about evil speech (Arakhin 15b), that it kills its speaker and its receiver (listener), (and) that it is said about it, “and the receiver more than all of them [does it kill].” And they warned much about it to the point that they said (Bava Metzia 59b), “One who has someone who was hung in his [family] record, let him not say, ‘Hang me a fish [on the grill].’” And they said, (Arakhin 16a), “Within the category of ‘the dust of (adjunct)’ evil speech is one who praises his friend in front of [his friend’s] hater, as it is stated (Proverbs 27:14), ‘He who blesses his friend, etc.’”
וְנוֹהֶגֶת בְּכָל מָקוֹם וּבְכָל זְמַן בִּזְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, וְהָעוֹבֵר עָלֶיהָ וְרָגַל עַל לְשׁוֹנוֹ עוֹבֵר עַל לָאו, וְהוּא כְּעוֹבֵר עַל מִצְוַת מֶלֶךְ, וְאֵין בּוֹ מַלְקוּת, לְפִי שֶׁהוּא לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְכַמָּה שְׁלוּחִים לַמָּקוֹם לְהַלְקוֹת מִלְּבַד רְצוּעָה שֶׁל עֵגֶל וְשֶׁל פָּרוֹת. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּלָּאו הַזֶּה מַלְקוּת לְפִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, פְּעָמִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֲפִלּוּ חִיּוּב מִיתָה, כַּיָּדוּעַ בְּדִין מוֹסֵר. וְזֶה הַדִּין הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים לַעֲשׂוֹת אֲפִלּוּ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לְתִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, מוּטָב יָמוּת אִישׁ אֶחָד וְלֹא יַזִּיק וִיאַבֵּד לְרַבִּים גּוּפָם אוֹ אֲפִלּוּ מָמוֹנָם. And [this commandment] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and has talebearing on his tongue, violates a negative commandment and it is like one who violates a commandment of the King. And there are no lashes, because it is a negative commandment that does not have an act [involved] with it — but [nonetheless] there are several agents to the Omnipresent to give lashes besides a whip of a calf [skin] or a cow’s [skin]. And even though this negative commandment does not have lashes because it does not have an act [involved] with it, there are times that it even has a death penalty, as is known in the law of the informer. And this law the Sages permitted to do outside of the Land [of Israel] for the improvement of the world: it is better that one man die and not damage and destroy the bodies — or even the property — of the many.
וְאֶכְתֹּב לְךָ בְּנִי מְעַט מִמָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בַּגְּמָרָא בְּעִנְיָן זֶה, וְאִם תִּזְכֶּה לָדַעַת תִּרְאֶה הַכֹּל בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. גָּרְסִינַן בְּפֶרֶק הַגּוֹזֵל בָּתְרָא (ב"ק קטז ב) הַהוּא גַבְרָא דְּאַחְוִי כַּרְיָא דְּחִטֵּי דְּבֵי רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא, חַיְּבֵהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְשַׁלּוֹמַהּ, וְטַעְמָא מִשּׁוּם דִּינָא דְּגַרְמֵי (שם קיז ב). וְדַוְקָא שֶׁהֶרְאָה מֵעַצְמוֹ אֲבָל מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹנֶס, פָּטוּר, וְכִדְתַנְיָא (שם קיז, א) יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֲנָסוּהוּ גּוֹיִם וְהֶרְאָה מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ פָּטוּר. וּפֵרְשׁוּ מוֹרֵינוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה, דְּלֹא סוֹף דָּבָר אֲנָסוּהוּ בְּגוּפוֹ אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ אֲנָסוּהוּ בְּמָמוֹן שֶׁיִּקְחוּ לוֹ מָמוֹן אִם לֹא יַרְאֶה מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ וְהֶרְאָהוּ פָּטוּר, דְּכָל מַרְאֶה עַל יְדֵי אֹנֶס פָּטוּר וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא בְּמַרְאֶה מֵעַצְמוֹ. וְכֵן כָּתַב הָרַב רַבִּי אַבְרָהָם בַּר רַבִּי דָּוִד זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה. וְאִם נָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד חַיָּב, וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל יְדֵי אֹנֶס נְפָשׁוֹת. וְאִם תֹּאמַר אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹמֵד בִּפְנֵי פִּקּוּחַ נֶפֶשׁ, יֵשׁ לוֹמַר מִי אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ יָמוּת? יִתֵּן וִישַׁלֵּם קָאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ, וְלֹא יַצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּנִרְדָּף שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹרֵחַ מִפְּנֵי רוֹדֵף וְשִׁבֵּר כֵּלִים חַיָּב, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁבְּרָן בְּכַוָּנָה אֶלָּא בְּלֹא כַּוָּנָה, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹרֵחַ לִהִנָּצֵל, וְכָל שֶׁכֵּן נָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד שֶׁחַיָּב בַּתַּשְׁלוּמִין. And I will write for you, my son, a little of that which is in the Gemara about this matter; and if you will merit knowledge, you will see everything in its place. We follow the textual variant in the chapter [entitled] HaGozel Batra (Bava Kamma 116b), “A certain man who showed piles of wheat of the Exilarch’s household [...] Rav Nachman obligated him to pay.” And the reason is because of the law of causation (garmi, Bava Kamma 117b). And [that is] specifically when he showed him on his own. But as a result of duress, he is exempt — and as “We learned, ‘An Israelite who was under the duress of gentiles and he showed them the money of his friend is exempt’” (Bava Kamma 117a). And our teachers, may their memory be blessed, explained it, that it is not the last word [that] they put his body under duress; but even if they put him under duress with money — that they would take money from him, if he does not show the money of his fellow — he is exempt. As anyone who shows [it] out of duress is exempt, and he is only obligated if he shows it on his own. And so wrote Rabbi Avraham bar Rabbi David, may his memory be blessed. But if he gave and took with [his] hand, he is liable — and even because of duress [to his life]. And if you will say [that] there is nothing that stands in front of saving a soul, it can be said, “Do we tell him to die? We say to him that he should give and pay, and not save himself with the money of others.” And even with someone pursued who is fleeing the pursuer and breaks vessels, [he is] liable [to pay for this damage] — and even though he did not break them intentionally, but rather unintentionally, and at the time that he was fleeing from the pursuer to save himself — and all the more so is he liable for repayment, when he gave and took with [his] hand.
וְאִם לְאַחַר שֶׁהֶרְאָה מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹנֶס נָשָׂא וְנָתַן בַּיָּד, מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהֶרְאָה רוֹאִין אֶת הַדָּבָר כְּאִלּוּ נִשְׂרַף וְשׁוּב אֵינוֹ מִתְחַיֵּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם נָשָׂא וְנָתַן, וּמִשּׁוּם שֶׁהֶרְאָה נָמֵי אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶרְאָה מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹנֶס כְּדִכְתִיבְנָא. וְהָכִי אָמְרִינַן הָתָם הַהוּא גַבְרָא דְּאַחְוִי חֲמָרָא דְּרַב מָרִי וְרַב פִּנְחָס בְּנֵי דְּרַב פַּפָּא, פֵּרוּשׁ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹנֶס. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ דְּרֵי וְאַמְטִי, דָּרָא וְאַמְטִי. וְאַסִּיקְנָא, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאוֹקְמִינְהוּ עִלָּוֵהּ, מִקְלָא קַלְיָא וְשׁוּב אֵינוֹ מִתְחַיֵּב עָלָיו. וְהֵיכָא דְּהֶרְאָה מֵעַצְמוֹ בְּלֹא טַעֲנַת אֹנֶס חַיָּב מִיתָה וְתַשְׁלוּמִין, דְּגָרְסִינַן הָתָם הַהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה בָּעֵי דְּנַחְוֵי בֵּי תִּבְנָא דְּחַבְרֵהּ אֲתָא לְקַמֵּהּ דְּרַב, אֲמַר לֵהּ רַב לָא תַּעֲבֵד הָכִי כְּלוֹמַר הִתְרָה בּוֹ לָא הֲוָה צָאֵת הֲוָה יָתֵב רַב כָּהֲנָא קַמֵּהּ דְּרַב, קָם רַב כָּהֲנָא שַׁמְטֵהּ לְקוֹעֵהּ כְּלוֹמַר הֲרָגוֹ וְהָכִי מוּכָח הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵהּ רַב לְרַב כָּהֲנָא הָאִדָּנָא מַלְכוּתָא דְּפָרְסָאֵי הִיא וְקָפְדֵי אַשְּׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים. וְאָמְרִינַן נָמֵי בַּגְּמָרָא (שם קיט א), גַּבֵּי מַאן דְּאִבַּעְיָא לָן מָמוֹן מוֹסֵר אִם מֻתָּר לְאַבְּדוֹ, וּמְהַדְּרִינַן לֵיהּ, לֹא יְהֵא מָמוֹנוֹ חָמוּר מִגּוּפוֹ, אַלְמָא דְּגוּפוֹ מֻתָּר לְאַבְּדוֹ, מִיהוּ דַּוְקָא בִּשְׁעַת מַעֲשֶׂה וְעַל יְדֵי הַתְרָאָה, וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו הַתְרָאָה כִּשְׁאָר חַיָּבֵי מִיתוֹת. וּמִי שֶׁמֻּחְזָק לִמְסֹר, נִרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא כְּמֻתְרֶה וְעוֹמֵד, וּמֻתָּר לְהָרְגוֹ בְּכָל שָׁעָה. But if he gave and took with [his] hand after he showed them from duress, we see the thing as if it is burned from the time that he showed them, and he is no longer liable on account of his giving and taking. And he is also not liable on account of showing, since he showed [it] because of duress, as we have written. And so do we say there (Bava Kamma 117a), “A certain man who showed the wine of Rav Mari and Rav Pinhas, the sons of Rav Pappa” — the explanation [of which] is because of duress — “They said to him, ‘Carry [it] and bring [it],’ [and] he carried and brought [it].” And it was concluded that once “he brought them to it [at the outset, it is as if] he burned it” — and he is no longer liable for it. But when he shows it on his own without a claim of duress, he is liable for death and repayment. As we follow the textual variant there, “A certain man who desired to show his fellow’s straw shed came before Rav. Rav said to him, ‘Do not do this.’” - meaning to say, he warned him. “He did not obey him. Rav Kahana was sitting before Rav; Rav Kahana rose and dislodged his neck” — meaning to say, he killed him. And this is proven [by] that which “Rav said to Rav Kahana, ‘Now is the [time] of the monarchy of the Persians, and they are particular about bloodshed.’” And we also say in the Gemara (Bava Kamma 119a) concerning the question we had whether it is permitted to destroy the money of an informer, that we respond to it, “His money should not be more severe than his body” — hence it is permitted to destroy his body. However that is only at the time of the act and with a warning, and like the story of Rav Kahana — but he does not have to accept the warning, as with other death penalties. And it appears that one who is established as an informer is as if he is warned and standing, and [so] it is permitted to kill him at any time.
וְדַעַת הָרַמְבַּ"ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה (חובל ומזיק ח י יא), שֶׁכָּתַב בְּדִין מוֹסֵר כָּךְ הוּא, כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵנִי מוֹסֵר פְּלוֹנִי בְּגוּפוֹ אוֹ בְּמָמוֹנוֹ וַאֲפִלּוּ מָמוֹן קַל הֲרֵי זֶה הִתִּיר עַצְמוֹ לְמִיתָה, וּמַתְרִין בּוֹ וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אַל תִּמְסֹר, אִם הֵעִיז פָּנָיו וְאָמַר לֹא כִי אֶלָּא אֶמְסֹר מִצְוָה לְהָרְגוֹ, וְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם לְהָרְגוֹ זָכָה. עָשָׂה הַמּוֹסֵר אֲשֶׁר זָמַם וּמָסַר, יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁאָסוּר לְהָרְגוֹ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הֻחְזַק לִמְסֹר הֲרֵי זֶה יֵהָרֵג שֶׁמָּא יִמְסֹר אֲחֵרִים, עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹן הָרַב. הִצְרִיךְ הַתְרָאָה לְמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֻחְזָק לִמְסֹר וְשֶׁיְּקַבֵּל הַתְרָאָה, וּלְמִי שֶׁהוּא מֻחְזָק לִמְסֹר נִרְאֶה מִתּוֹךְ דְּבָרָיו שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ הַתְרָאָה. וְאֵין הַמּוֹסֵר יָכוֹל לוֹמַר בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁפְּלוֹנִי מֵצֵר לִי אֲנִי מוֹסְרוֹ בְּיַד גּוֹיִם, שֶׁאֵין זֶה פּוֹטְרוֹ מֵעָנְשׁוֹ, אֲבָל הַמֵּצֵר לְצִבּוּר, מֻתָּר לַצִּבּוּר לְמָסְרוֹ בְּיַד גּוֹיִם, וְכֵן כָּתַב הָרַמְבַּ"ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה (שם הי"א). וְאָסוּר לְאַבֵּד מָמוֹן מוֹסֵר, מִשּׁוּם (איוב כז יז) רָשָׁע יָכִין וְצַדִּיק יִלְבָּשׁ. כִּדְאַסִּיקְנָא בְּפֶרֶק הַגּוֹזֵל (בבא קמא קיט א). And the opinion of Rambam, may his memory be blessed, that he wrote (Mishneh Torah, Laws of One Who Injures a Person or Property 8:10-11) about the law of an informer is thus: “Once he said, ‘Behold, I am informing about the body or money of x’ — and even if it is negligent money — behold, this one has permitted himself for death. And we warn him and say to him, ‘Do not inform.’ If he was brazen-faced and said, ‘No, rather I will inform’ — it is a commandment to kill him, and whoever is first to kill him, merits. [If] the informer did that which he plotted and informed, it appears to me that it is forbidden to kill him; unless he is established as an informer, lest he inform [on] others.” To here is the language of the rabbi. He required a warning for one who is not established as an informer and that he accept the warning. And for the one who is established as an informer, it appears from his words, that he does not need a warning. And an informer may not say, “Because x was afflicting me, I am informing [on] him to the gentiles” — as this does not exempt him from his punishment. But it is permitted for the community to inform to the gentiles about one who is afflicting the community. And so did Rambam, may his memory be blessed, write (Mishneh Torah, Laws of One Who Injures a Person or Property 8:11). And it is forbidden to destroy the money of an informer, on account of [An evildoer] “Prepares but the righteous one wears” (Job 27:17). And so is it concluded in the chapter [entitled] HaGozel (Bava Kamma 119a).