Page 130 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Gimal - Halachah 1 ח הכלה - א ללכ

who spoke Lashon Hara and Rechilut) pointed to Doeg the Edomite as the ןיִביִשְׁמ םניאו ןָתפּרְח ןיִעְמוֹשׁ ,ןיִבלוֹע םניאו ןיִבלענּה
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ֱ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
model \ the example of a “speaker” and Shaul HaMelech as the model of
ָ
ְ
ֲ
ְ
ֵ
a “listener.” Thus from that illustration we learn that gossip is also called תאצכּ ויבהֹאו" :)א"ל 'ה םיִטְפוֹשׁ( רֵמוֹא בוּתָכַּה ןֶהיֵלֲע ,'וּכְו
Lashon Hara. (Please see the immediately following Hagahah after which
ְ
ֶ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ֻ
nd
this 2 notation in this Be’er Mayim Chayim will continue). תוצִמ רוּבֲע ןוֹיזִּבּ לבוֹסֶּשׁ הזבּ ןכֶּשׁ לכו ,"וֹתרָבגִבּ שׁמֶשּׁה
ְ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֱ
ַ
ֶ
ֶ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ַ
'א ללכּ ערָה ןוֹשׁל תוֹכלִהבּ ליֵעל וּנכרַאהֶשׁ המּבּ ןיּעו .'ה
ֵ
ַ
ָ
Hagahah .םָשׁ ןיּע ,'ו ףיִעס
The commentary of the Kesef Mishneh at the end of the second halacha
in this Rambam requires more study and analysis as it is inconsistent with .בא ג"כ ,ןסינ ג"י ,תבט 'ג - תרבועמ הנש .בא ו"כ ,ןסינ ו"כ ,ולסכ ו"כ - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
the Yerushalmi. The implication of the Kesef Mishneh there is that the
ֲ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ִ
Rambam’s statement “three people are killed by Lashon Hara” applies ,יַתוֹדוֹא ינוֹלְפּ רבּדּ המ :וֹלאוֹשׁ םִא ,ביִשׁהלּ המ ןינִעלוּ .ח
only to Lashon Hara (and not to Rechilut). However, one can reconcile the היהי אלֶֹּשׁ ןפֹאבּ ,וֹביִשׁהל הצֵע וֹל שׁי םִא )די( ,הזבּ יוּלָתּ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ִ
ֲ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ֶ
Kesef Mishneh with the Yerushalmi by deflecting the implication of the
Kesef Mishneh and arguing that the Kesef Mishneh was only explaining אלֹו ,הז ןפֹאבּ וּהביִשׁי ,תוּליִכרְ היהי אלֹ םגו רוּמגּ רקֶֶשׁ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ִ
ְ
the Rambam in the context of his disagreement with the Ra’avad who held
ֶ
ְ
ֲ
ֵ
ֵ
ְ
the Yerushalmi (“Three people are killed by Lashon Hara”) was speaking הז לבּקַי אלֹ וֹרבחֶשׁ ,ןיִבֵמ אוּה םִאו .ויִפִּמ רקֶֶשׁ איִצוֹי
only in the context of Rechilut but that the Rambam holds the Yerushalmi
ֲ
ָ
was also speaking in the context of Lashon Hara. For it is not likely that לבא )וט( ,םוֹלָשַּׁה יֵנְפִּמ רוּמָגּ רקֶֶשׁ רַמוֹל רָתֻּמ ,הָבוּשְׁתִל
Chazal would use the expression Lashon Hara and mean only Rechilut םימ ראבִבּ ןיּעו ,הז ליִבְשִׁבּ רקֶֶשּׁל ,םוֹלָשׁו סח ,עבָשּׁי אלֹ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ִ
ֵ
ֶ
(therefore the statement was expressed both in the sense of Lashon Hara
ַ
ִ
and gossip). Regarding our law as it is being stated here (RK3/1) the .םייּח
commentary of the Kesef Mishneh is not relevant because even he would
agree that it also applies to Rechilut, just as I proved above in the first
half of this sefer from the words of the Kesef Mishneh himself, that the
th
Rambam’s expression of law (Hilchot De’Aut, 7 perek) applies equally םייח םימ ראב
to Lashon Hara and Rechilut.
ארמגב ).'ל( ןירדהנסמ ורוקמ .הצע ול שי םא )די(
רתב וכלהו ןיניידה וקלחנשכ 'יפ( יבתכ יכיה בתכמ
Be’er Mayim Chayim, (RK3/ /2) continued:
רמא ןנחוי 'ר )ןיד קספה ןושל ובתכי ךיאה אבור
Moreover, I have already brought proof above (that the law applies equally ינולפ רמא שיקל שיר ,ליכר ךלת אל םושמ יאכז
nd
to Lashon Hara and Rechilut) in the first half of this sefer, the 2 Kelal, in
nd
the 2 notation of the Be’er Mayim Chayim, from the Tosafot that forbids ,ארקישכ יזחמד םושמ בייחמ ינולפו ןיכזמ ינולפו
gossip in all circumstances, even “in the presence of three people” and תיאד םושמ ,ינולפ הכדזנ ןהירבדמ רמא רזעלא 'רו
even in the presence of “Plony.” (Please see that reference). Why should
we suggest (needlessly) that the Rambam disagrees with the Tosafot. םהירבדמ יבתכ ךכלה רמד היל תיאו רמד היל
Furthermore, it is obvious according to all Authorities that Rechilut is רמול שיד ירה ,רזעלא 'רכ םיקסופה וקספו ,'וכ
forbidden even if Plony (the person who originated the remarks) is standing
there while his remarks were being repeated to the victim. It is well known .ארקישכ יזחמ היהי אלש ןושלב הלחתכל
149 120
volume 4 volume 4