But this entire heter of two witnesses in the case of a man who is likely "to rule for himself" is of avail only to rescue them from the issur of forbidden speech; but, in any case they do not thereby leave the class of "abettors to the committers of transgression." For through them the hearer will [most likely] do something forbidden. For according to the din it is forbidden for him to accept their words and do something himself to cause loss to his friend so long as they have not testified in beth-din and beth-din have allowed him to do this, as explained above in Principle VI, sections 9 and 10. Aside from this, it is very difficult to conceive of this din arising in reality, to permit it in this case (aside from the fact that it is very rare for all of the [necessary] conditions to coincide). For it is hardly to be found that those who speak by themselves [and not in beth-din] know in the beginning all the aspects of the dinim in such an instance so as to assess that what Ploni will do to him because of their speaking will accord with the din of the Torah. Therefore, care must be taken not to reveal anything to a man whose nature is to "rule for himself" without the permission of beth-din, so that they not be entrapped through him in the snare of "the men of the tongue." And "He who guards his mouth and his tongue guards his soul from distress" (Proverbs 21:23).
אַךְ כָּל זֶה הַהֶתֵּר דְּעַל יְדֵי שְׁנַיִם, לְאִישׁ שֶׁטִּבְעוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת מַעֲשֶׂה בְּעַצְמוֹ, אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל, רַק שֶׁיִּנָּצְלוּ עַל יְדֵי זֶה מֵעֶצֶם הָאִסוּר שֶׁל דִּבּוּרִים הָאֲסוּרִים, אֲבָל עַל כָּל פָּנִים (כב) מִמְּסַיֵּעַ יְדֵי עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה לֹא נָפְקָּי {לא יצאו}, שֶׁעַל יָדָם יַעֲשֶׂה הָאִישׁ, שֶׁמְסַפְּרִין לוֹ, דְּבַר אִסוּר. כִּי עַל פִּי דִּין אָסוּר לוֹ לְקָּבֵּל דִּבְרֵיהֶן וְלַעַשׂוֹת מַעֲשֶׂה בְּעַצְמוֹ לְהַפְסִיד לַחבֵרוֹ, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁלֹּא הֵעִידוּ עָלָיו בְּבֵית דִּין וְהִרְשׁוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן, כַּמְבֹאָר לְעֵיל בִּכְלָל ו' סָעִיף ט' וְסָעִיף י'. וּלְבַד זֶה קָשֶׁה מְאֹד, שֶׁיְּצִיַּר דִּין זֶה לְמַעֲשֶׂה לְהַתִּיר בְּעִנְיָן זֶה, (מִלְּבַד דְּלֹא שָׁכִיחַ, שֶׁיִּתְקַבְּצוּ כָּל הַפְּרָטִים), דְּאֵין מָצוּי כְּלָל שֶׁיֵּדְעוּ הַמְסַפְּרִין מֵעַצְמָן מִתְּחִלָּה כָּל חֶלְקֵי הַדִּינִין, שֶׁשַּׁיָּךְ בְּעִנְיָן זֶה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּשַׁעֲרוּ עַל יְדֵי זֶה, שֶׁמַּה שֶּׁיַּעֲשֶׂה עִמּוֹ פְּלוֹנִי עַל יְדֵי דִּבּוּרָן, יַעֲשֶׂה עִמּוֹ כְּדִין תּוֹרָה, עַל כֵּן יֵשׁ לִזָּהֵר, שֶׁלֹּא לְגַלּוֹת שׁוּם עִנְיָן לְאִישׁ, שֶׁטִּבְעוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת מַעֲשֶׂה בְּעַצְמוֹ, בְּלִי רְשׁוּת מִבֵּית דִּין, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִלָּכְדוּ עַל יָדוֹ בְּרֶשֶׁת שֶׁל בַּעַלֵי הַלָּשׁוֹן, וְשׁוֹמֵר פִּיו וּלְשׁוֹנוֹ שׁוֹמֵר מִצָּרוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ.
But this entire heter of two witnesses in the case of a man who is likely "to rule for himself" is of avail only to rescue them from the issur of forbidden speech; but, in any case they do not thereby leave the class of "abettors to the committers of transgression." For through them the hearer will [most likely] do something forbidden. For according to the din it is forbidden for him to accept their words and do something himself to cause loss to his friend so long as they have not testified in beth-din and beth-din have allowed him to do this, as explained above in Principle VI, sections 9 and 10. Aside from this, it is very difficult to conceive of this din arising in reality, to permit it in this case (aside from the fact that it is very rare for all of the [necessary] conditions to coincide). For it is hardly to be found that those who speak by themselves [and not in beth-din] know in the beginning all the aspects of the dinim in such an instance so as to assess that what Ploni will do to him because of their speaking will accord with the din of the Torah. Therefore, care must be taken not to reveal anything to a man whose nature is to "rule for himself" without the permission of beth-din, so that they not be entrapped through him in the snare of "the men of the tongue." And "He who guards his mouth and his tongue guards his soul from distress" (Proverbs 21:23).