Page 142 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Beit - Halachah 2 ב-א הכלה - ב ללכ

Hagahah
If the speaker conveys Plony’s remarks in a way that both interpretations
can be equally understood, that the way in which the remarks were
conveyed is neutral and does not specifically lean to either interpretation, 'ב ללכּ
ְ
ָ
then this situation requires more study to determine if conveying those
remarks is permitted or forbidden. Because it is possible that the listener
(i.e., this person who is the subject of the gossip) will judge the remarks
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ִ
ִ
ִ
ָ
ָ
ְ
as being degrading and he will think that Plony’s intent was most certainly ,תוּליכרְ ןינִעל אתלתּ יֵפַּאדּ ןידַּה רַאֹבי הז ללכבּ
to degrade him.
ִ
ְ
.םיפיִעס 'ד וֹבוּ ,םיִטרָפּ רָאְשׁ דוֹעו
ְ
ְ
Ostensibly, there is a proof in Gemara Babba Kamma (99b) to support
the approach that these kinds of remarks can be repeated to the “victim”
(i.e., to the listener). The gemara there discusses an incident involving
a butcher who slaughtered an animal whose kashrut was questionable. .בא ה"כ ,ןסינ ו"ט ,תבט 'ה - תרבועמ הנש .בא ח"כ ,ןסינ ח"כ ,ולסכ ח"כ - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
Rav held the meat was Treif and yet exonerated the butcher from paying
any fine and that the butcher did not have to compensate the animal’s
owner at all. Sometime later on Rav Kahanah and Rav Assi met up with םייחה רוקמ
the owner of this animal and told him that Rav did two things to him ןכֶּשׁ לכו )א( ,דיִחי ינְפִבּ וּלִּפא ,תוּליִכרְ רפּסל רוּסא .א
(presumably that Rav invalidated the slaughtered meat and deprived the ֵ ָ ְ ָ ֵ ֲ ֵ ַ ְ ָ
owner of compensation). The gemara asks, “What two things?” If you .םיִבּרַ ינְפִבּ
ֵ
had presumed the two things were losses to the owner etc., but we have
a Beraitah that says - What is the source that teaches that when a judge
leaves the court following a verdict he may not say to the loser “I held
you were right but my colleagues held you were liable and (since they םייח םימ ראב
were a majority) what could I have done?” (Then if Rav Kahana and Rav
Assi could not report the losses, what two things did they convey to the רפיסד ןויכ ןנירמא אלו .םיבר ינפב ש"כו )א(
animal’s owner?). Therefore they must have conveyed remarks that were
superlatives, namely, that Rav judged a questionable case and decided ינזאל רבדה אוביש יאדוב עדי כ"א ,םיבר ינפב
the meat could not be eaten in order that you would not eat questionably ול רמא ולאכ יוהו ,תוליכרה וילע רפיסש שיאה
unkosher meat. Then necessarily, neither Rav Kahana nor Rav Assi
elaborated on their remarks to the animal’s owner, because if so, what was םושמ .ךכו ךכ הזה שיאה לע תרביד התא וינפב
the gemaras initial question? Even so, neither of these two rabbis ever ןמקל ראובמש ומכ ,איה הרומג תוליכר הז םגד
suspected (they did not even entertain the thought that) the owner would
interpret their remarks negatively. However, one can deflect this entire תלחתב ר"השל תוכלהב ליעל ןייעו .א"ס 'ג ללכב
approach and argue that when the gemara asked “What two things?” it .םיקסופה לכ תמכסה אוה הז ןידש ח"מבב 'ב ללכ
meant- How did Rav Kahana and Rav Assi conclude their remarks? “If
you were to say that...etc.”
Alternatively, Amora’im in general and Rav in particular had very well םייחה רוקמ
respected public reputations (please see Gemara Yevamot 37b) and the
ַ
ֲ
ֲ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ַ
animal’s owner would most certainly have judged the comment made to ארָקְנּ המ 'ח ללכִבּ ןמּקַל ראבנֶּשּׁ המ יִפכּ( תוּליִכרְ קבא וּלִּפא .ב
ִ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
137 132
volume 4 volume 4