Mr. Lazer ran a successful restaurant and employed close to twenty people. At the end-of-year accounting, there was a small, but noticeable, discrepancy in the cash receipts of his enterprise. In the following semi-annual account, a similar discrepancy was noted.
“What explanation can there be?” Mr. Lazer asked his accountant.
“Perhaps one of your workers is ‘taking home’ a little bit?” suggested the accountant. “You might want to keep a tighter tab on the money.”
Mr. Lazer implemented certain security measures and began watching his workers more carefully. He came to suspect one particular employee, Mr. Shuker, and finally caught him pocketing some money!
Mr. Lazer informed Mr. Shuker that he was releasing him, on account of his theft.
Mr. Shuker protested slightly. “It was just this one time, and only a small amount,” he argued.
“Money has been missing for two years now,” Mr. Lazer said to him bluntly. “I suspect that’s also linked to you.”
Mr. Shuker remained silent. He packed up and left.
Shortly afterwards, Mr. Lazer was talking with a neighbor, who ran a catering business.
“I interviewed someone today for a position at my company,” the neighbor said. “Apparently, he worked with you for a number of years, and recently left.”
“Who is that?” asked Mr. Lazer.
“Mr. Shuker,” said the neighbor. “He said that he wasn’t earning enough with you, and was looking for a higher paying position.”
“I see,” said Mr. Lazer, as thoughts raced through his head.
“What should I say?” he wondered. “Should I protect Mr. Shuker? My neighbor? Play dumb? Spill the beans? I need to buy some time!”
“I need to run now,” Mr. Lazer said to his neighbor. “We’ll talk tomorrow.”
Mr. Lazer pondered the sticky situation. “Perhaps Rabbi Dayan can give me some guidance on this issue?” he said to himself.
Mr. Lazer called Rabbi Dayan and explained the uncomfortable circumstances. “What are my responsibilities here?” he asked. “What sort of reference should I provide?”
“The issue of references is a very delicate one,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “On one side stands the prohibition of lashon hara, negative talk that can harm the prospective employee. On the other side stands the requirement to protect the prospective employer from harm or loss.”
“Is there really such a requirement?” asked Mr. Lazer.
“Yes, based on the mitzvah of hashavas aveidah,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “Just as there is a mitzvah to return lost items to a fellow Jew, there is a mitzvah to protect him from potentially harmful situations. There is also a prohibition, lo ta’amod al dam reiecha – ‘Do not stand aside when your fellow’s blood is shed’ – if you see him facing danger (C.M. 426:1; SM”A 426:1). The Chofetz Chaim explains at length that this also includes a requirement to protect him from financial loss or a potentially harmful partnership (Be’er Mayim Chaim, Rechilus 9:1).”
“How do we balance this requirement with the prohibition of lashon hara?” asked Mr. Lazer.
“The Chofetz Chaim (Hil. Rechilus 9:1-2) stipulates five conditions,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “First, you must not assume in haste that the potential worker or partnership is bad, but must consider carefully that it is, in fact, bad. Second, you must not inflate the situation more than it actually is. For example, you cannot say that he has been stealing for two years, but rather that you caught him stealing once, but suspect that he might have been doing so for a while.
“Third, you must intend only for your neighbor’s benefit, to spare him from loss; not out of hatred for your former worker,” continued Rabbi Dayan. “Fourth, if it is possible to bring about the benefit without revealing the bad – such as by simply saying, “I have reservations about recommending him” – you should do so.”
“Finally,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “if actual damage will come to the worker, e.g. he has already entered an agreement and signed a contract, and the employer will break it off unilaterally, there are further restrictions (see Hil. Rechilus 9:5-6).”