And now we shall explain the third detail that we mentioned above (2b), that he must reprove him first. This applies in general; but if he knows him to be one who will not be chastened by his words and will not accept his reproof, he need not reprove him. But he must take care to relate this thing [i.e., what he saw] in the presence of three. The rationale: If he relates it in the presence of one or two, it would seem as if his intent were that his relating it to them not reach the ears of the accused and that he wanted to flatter him or to deceive him, wherefore he demeans him in secret; and it seems as if he enjoys speaking lashon hara against his friend. Another reason: They will come to suspect him and say that the thing [i.e., his accusation] is certainly not true and that he is inventing the whole thing. For, otherwise, why did he not say it to his face first? And if so, his telling them would not achieve any of the benefits described above in section 4. Therefore, the thing must be said in public; that is, before three. For this is as if he were to say it to his face, and he will no longer be suspected. For it is rare to find a man who is kasher, saying something completely false in public. And though, even now, the hearers are forbidden to believe what he says implicitly, so that the accused is demeaned in their heart, as explained above (Principle VII, section 1), for it may be that even though the story is not completely false, it may be lacking a single detail which may change the picture from beginning to end (wherefore they are forbidden to believe the story implicitly, to his discredit), still, it [the story] should enter their ears for this purpose: that they undertake to investigate whether it is true and reprove that man of whom such evil things are spoken. Perhaps he will heed their words (along with other "benefits" mentioned in section 4).
וְעַתָּה נְבָאֵר הַפְּרָט הַג', שֶׁכָּתַבְנוּ לְעֵיל בְּסָעִיף ב', וְהוּא מַה שֶּׁכָּתַבְנוּ שָׁם, דְּצָּרִיךְ לְהוֹכִיחַ אוֹתוֹ מִתְּחִלָּה, הַיְנוּ דַּוְקָא בִּסְתָמָא, אֲבָל (כג) אִם הוּא יוֹדֵעַ וּמַכִּיר בּוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא יִוָּסֵר בִּדְבָרָיו וְלֹא יְקַבֵּל תּוֹכַחְתּוֹ אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהוֹכִיחוֹ, רַק שֶׁיִּזָּהֵר לְסַפֵּר דָּבָר זֶה בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָה, וְהַטַּעַם, שֶׁאִם יְסַפֵּר דָּבָר זֶה בִּפְנִי אֶחָד אוֹ שְׁנַיִם, יִתְרָאֶה, שֶׁהוּא מִתְכַּוֵּן, שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעוּ הַדְּבָרִים לְאָזְנָיו, וְרוֹצֶה לְהַחֲנִיפוֹ וְלִגְנֹב דַּעְתּוֹ, וּבַסֵתֶר הוּא מְגַנֵּהוּ, וְנִרְאֶה כְּנֶהֱנְה בְּסִפּוּר לָשׁוֹן הָרָע עַל חֲבֵרוֹ. וְעוֹד טַעַם אַחֵר, שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ לְחָשְׁדוֹ וְיֹאמְרוּ, שֶׁבְּוַדַּאי אֵין הַדָּבָר אֱמֶת, וּמִלִּבּוֹ הוּא בּוֹדְאָם, דְּאִם לֹא, מַדּוּעַ לֹא גִּלָּה אֶת עֲוֹנוֹ בְּפָנָיו רִאשׁוֹנָה, וְאִם כֵּן לֹא יָבוֹא מִסִפּוּרוֹ שׁוּם תּוֹעֶלֶת, הַמְבֹאֶרֶת לְעֵיל בְּסָעִיף ד'. עַל כֵּן צָרִיךְ לְסַפֵּר הַדָּבָר בְּפִרְסוּם, דְּהַיְנוּ בִּפְנִי שְׁלֹשָה, דְּזֶה הֱוֵי, כְּאִלּוּ אָמַר הַדְּבָרִים בְּפָנָיו, וְתוּ לֹא אָתֵי לְמִיחְשְׁדֵה {ויותר לא יבואו לחשוד בו}, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצּוּי הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם כָּשֵׁר יְסַפֵּר דְּבַר שֶׁקֶּר בְּעִקָּרוֹ בָּרַבִּים. (כד) וְאַף שֶׁגּם עַתָּה אֲסוּרִים הַשּׁוֹמְעִים לְקַּבֵּל דָּבָר זֶה בְּהַחְלָטָה, שֶׁיִּתְגַּנֶּה עַל יְדֵי זֶה הַנִּדּוֹן בְּלִבָּם, וְכַמְבֹאָר לְעֵיל בִּכְלָל ו' סָעִיף א', הַיְנוּ טַעְמָא, שֶׁאַף שֶׁאֵין הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה שֶׁקֶר מֵעִקָּרוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי כֵן אוּלַי חָסֵר עוֹד פְּרָט אֶחָד לְזֶה הַמַּעֲשֶׂה, אֲשֶׁר עַל יָדוֹ יִשְׁתַּנְּה זֶה הָעִנְיָן מִסוֹפוֹ לִתְחִלָּתוֹ, עַל כֵּן אָסוּר לָהֶם לְעֵת עַתָּה לְהַחְלִיטוֹ לִגְנַאי עֲבוּר זֶה הַסִפּוּר, אֲבָל עַל כָּל פָּנִים יִכָּנִס הַדָּבָר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם לְעִנְיָן זֶה, שֶׁיִּרְאוּ לַחֲקֹר אַחַר הַדָּבָר אִם אֱמֶת הוּא וּלְהוֹכִיחַ אֶת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא, שֶׁמְּסַפְּרִים עָלָיו הַדְּבָרִים הָרָעִים, וְאוּלַי יִשְׁמַע לְדִבְרֵיהֶם, וְעוֹד שְׁאָר תּוֹעֲלִיּוֹת, כַּמְבֹאָר לְעֵיל בְּסָעִיף ד', עַיֵּן שָׁם.
And now we shall explain the third detail that we mentioned above (2b), that he must reprove him first. This applies in general; but if he knows him to be one who will not be chastened by his words and will not accept his reproof, he need not reprove him. But he must take care to relate this thing [i.e., what he saw] in the presence of three. The rationale: If he relates it in the presence of one or two, it would seem as if his intent were that his relating it to them not reach the ears of the accused and that he wanted to flatter him or to deceive him, wherefore he demeans him in secret; and it seems as if he enjoys speaking lashon hara against his friend. Another reason: They will come to suspect him and say that the thing [i.e., his accusation] is certainly not true and that he is inventing the whole thing. For, otherwise, why did he not say it to his face first? And if so, his telling them would not achieve any of the benefits described above in section 4. Therefore, the thing must be said in public; that is, before three. For this is as if he were to say it to his face, and he will no longer be suspected. For it is rare to find a man who is kasher, saying something completely false in public. And though, even now, the hearers are forbidden to believe what he says implicitly, so that the accused is demeaned in their heart, as explained above (Principle VII, section 1), for it may be that even though the story is not completely false, it may be lacking a single detail which may change the picture from beginning to end (wherefore they are forbidden to believe the story implicitly, to his discredit), still, it [the story] should enter their ears for this purpose: that they undertake to investigate whether it is true and reprove that man of whom such evil things are spoken. Perhaps he will heed their words (along with other "benefits" mentioned in section 4).