Page 132 - V4

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

Be’er Mayim Chayim יאדובד םושמ אוה ,'וכו ןיבמ אוה םאד םינפב ש"מו
(RK3/1/1)-(1)..knows he would (not hesitate to) make this קר ,ובר ןנחוי 'רל םיכסמ כ"ג הוה היפוג רזעלא 'ר
comment: Because why would it be any better (why should it be any ,רקשה ןמ טלמהל ךיאה תרחא הצע ול שיד םושמ
less sinful) if the speaker knows he would make the comment to the victim
with “Plony” being present since Rechilut is forbidden whether or not שיר דגנ ןנחוי 'רכ הכלה יאדוב יכה ואלב לבא
Plony is present, as I will explain right now.
ףד( תומביב ארמגה הקספ רבכ אלהד דועו .שיקל
(RK3/1/2)-(2)..tells Plony directly: In order that you, the reader, not םש וקספו םולשה ינפמ תונשל הוצמד )ב"ע ה"ס
misunderstand the statement of Rebbe Yossi (Gemara Shabbat 118b and
Gemara Arachin 15b) “never once in my life did I ever say something that ,טושפ ל"נ דועו .מ"בד ב"פבו ש"ארהו ף"ירה ןכ
I had to retract (any statement he made he would also have said in front יאנתד ארמימד אניד יאה היל תיא שיקל שיר םגד
of the person who was the subject of his remarks and thus he did not have
to retract any remarks he made),” I am obliged to elaborate somewhat in תובותכב יכה והל תיא ללה תיב םגו ,תומביב אוה
order to demonstrate that among all of Early Authorities and in the entire םש שריפד ןידקרמ דציכד אתעמשב )א"ע ז"י(
Talmud there is no uncertainty \ dispute in this law.
קר ,םולשה ינפמ אוה ה"בד אריתיהד א"בטירה
th
The Rambam expresses this law in the 7 perek of Hilchot De’Aut in
th
the 5 halacha as follows: Lashon Hara is forbidden both if the victim ויפב רמואשכ אקודד אוה שיקל שירד אמעט
is present to hear it or if the victim is not present. The Rambam holds עמשמ 'וכו השעא המ לבא ,'וכו הכזמ ינא ןושלב
this opinion even if the remarks are perfectly truthful, as he wrote at the
nd
beginning of that section (2 halacha). Most certainly this opinion of the ז"יעו ,בייחה הז םע ןידהש ותעדב דמוע ןידעש
Rambam includes Rechilut, that gossip conveyed directly to the “victim” לבא ,םינידה וירבח לע בייחה הז בלב האנש סנכת
is forbidden even if Plony is present to hear it (and even though he did
not write this explicitly here), since the Rambam prefaced this chapter by תוקלחתה םהיניב היה הלחתמד בתכב ןכ בתוכשכ
defining both Lashon Hara and Rechilut and then grouped together the האנש ז"יע היהי אל ,ובייחל הז ןידב וושוה כ"חאו
two terms under a common umbrella and called it Lashon Hara because
they both are in fact Lashon Hara – (as Rabbeinu Yonah writes in Shaare המב תופסותה תנוכ אוה הזו םירחאה לע ובלב
rd
Teshuvah, the 3 sha’ar, section #222). All of the laws that the Rambam הז ןיעכו .ןאכ ןיא ליכר ךלת אל םושמו ובתכש
wrote subsequently in this cited perek revolve around and deal with both
of these topics (both Lashon Hara and Rechilut) as I demonstrated to you ילוכ וננינעב לבא ,ימלשוריב השמ ינפב יתיאר
above with specific proof in (the first section of this sefer, in) the 2 Kelal .םולשה ינפמ תונשל רתומד םידומ אמלע
nd
of the Laws of Esurei Lashon Hara, in the 3 notation of the Be’er Mayim
rd
Chayim.
In order to satisfy the eye of the reader, I will show you yet another clear
rd
proof based on what the Rambam wrote at the end of the 3 halacha in
this perek (that the law he expressed in this perek applies equally to both
Lashon Hara and Rechilut): Lashon Hara “kills” three people (the speaker,
the listener and the victim). This exact same statement is brought down in
st
the context of Rechilut in the Yerushalmi, the first perek in Peh’ah, the 1
halacha (page 4b). There, the Yerushalmi (in listing examples of people

147 122
volume 4 VOL-4 5 volume 4