Page 110 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Alef - Halachah 3 ב הכלה - א ללכ

(RK1/2/5)-(6).. or because: A proof to this concept comes from Doeg’s המ אוּה ,וּנבַתכֶּשׁ הז ואלו .םינהֹכּה ריִע בֹנ לכּ הז ידֵי לע
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ִ
informing on AchiMelech, as I wrote above.
ַ
ָ
ֲ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ֻ
ַ
יִכה ואלבּ לבא ,הז רוּסִּאל דחיְמ שׁוּרפבּ הרָוֹתּה וּתּבָתכֶּשּׁ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ֲ
ֵ
ליֵעל ראֹבְמכּ ,םירִחא ןיִשֲׂעו ןיואל הבּרְה דוֹע שׁי )ךְָכּ אלְֹבּ(
Daily Halacha: Leap Year- 30 Kislev, 10 Nissan, 20 Av
ֵ
ָ
ַ
.םָשׁ ןיּע ,החיִתְפּבּ
ַ
Mekor Hachayim
RK /3. Understand clearly that Rechilut is forbidden even if the
speaker has no intent (7) to cause the listener (the “victim”) to hate םייח םימ ראב
“Plony,” even if the speaker believes that “Plony” was correct in
what he said about the victim or what he did to him. For example, ,תועד תוכלהמ 'ז קרפב ם"במרה ןושל .לגרמה )א(
Shimon is reprimanding Reuven because of something he said about תוכלהב ליעל יתבתכש המב ןייעו .'ט ןיואל ג"מסהו
him or did to him and Reuven is defending himself by saying that he
did nothing wrong and the proof is that Yehudah also said the same בשיל 'ג ןטק ףיעס םייח םימ ראבב 'א ללכ ערה ןושל
thing about Shimon. Even so, if Reuven evaluates the conversation .ש"יע )א"ע ו"מ( תובותכמ םהילע השקי אלד
and decides that saying to Shimon that “Yehudah sides with me”
(sides with Reuven against Shimon) will provoke Shimon to dislike
Yehudah (and Reuven still goes ahead and makes that disclosure to םייחה רוקמ
Shimon), by making that disclosure Reuven becomes a “rachil,” a ךְלוֹהו הזל הזִּמ םירִבדּ ןֵעוֹטֶּשׁ )ב( הז ?ליִכרָ וּהזיא .ב
gossip. ֵ ְ ֶ ָ ֶ ָ ְ ֶ ֶ ֵ
ָ
ִ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ִ
ךְכּ ,ינוֹלְפּ ךָל הָשׂע ךְכּ ,ךָילע )ג( ינוֹלְפּ רמא ךְכּ :רֵמוֹאו
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
Be’er Mayim Chayim ףא .ךָל תוֹשֲׂעל הצוֹר וֹא ,ךָל הָשׂעֶשׁ וילע יִתְּעמָשׁ ךְכו
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
(RK1/3/1)-(7)..even if the speaker had no intention: A proof יִפל ףא ,רפּסְמֶּשׁ יִמ לע תוּנגּ ןיא רבדּ וֹתוֹאֶשׁ יִפּ לע
to this concept comes from Rabbeinu Yonah’s Shaare Teshuvah (3
rd
ָ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֲ
ַ
ְ
ָ
sha’ar, section #74), that we punish someone for speaking Lashon Hara היה אלֹ ,וֹמצעבּ וֹל ןיִלאוֹשׁ וּיה וּלִּאו )ד( ,לֵכוֹרָה ירְֵבִדּ
even if it was only through negligence with no intent to humiliate the םוּשִּׁמ וֹא )ו( ,וֹתִּא קדֶֶצַּהְו תֶמֱאָהֶשׁ םוּשִּׁמ וֹא )ה( ,שׁיִחְכַמ
“victim.” Chazal have also taught this same concept in the Sifri (perashat
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ֲ
ָ
ְ
ֻ
ַ
ַ
ִ
Beha’alautcha, #99) “and just as Miryam had no intent to….” This is also יִכה וּלִּפא ,תרֶחא הנוּכּ םירִוּבּדּהו תוֹלּעְפּה וּלּאבּ ןוּכְּתִהֶשׁ
the Ramban’s opinion in his commentary on the Torah, perashat Teh’tzeh
(Devarim 24:9), that the laws of esurei Lashon Hara are applicable even if .)ארָקְִנ( ירְֵקִּמ ליִכרָ )ןֵכ יִפּ לַע ףַא(
there is no intent to hurt the “victim” at all. It seems to me that this also
applies to Rechilut (and even without intent, the laws forbidding gossip
are applicable). םייח םימ ראב
A clear proof to this concept can be found in Gemara Sanhedrin (30a) םישודק 'פ ארפסה ןושל הז םג .ןעוטש )ב(
“What is the text of a written verdict? Rebbe Yochanan holds (a one-word
verdict): “Zakai” \ winner (and not more than that one word) in order not .םש ם"במרהו
105 100
volume 4 volume 4