Page 150 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Alef - Halachah 11 ד הכלה - ב ללכ

(to camouflage the speaker’s real intent), that the speaker knows םייח םימ ראב
that once “Plony” did something inappropriate to this listener or
demeaned him and there was conflict between them and now this ללכ ר"השל תוכלהב ליעל ןייע .'וכו רפיס )ד(
speaker wants to re-ignite this old conflict between “Plony” and the
listener, but the speaker does not want the “listener” to be aware of ם"בשרש ףאש ונארה םש 'ו ק"סב ח"מבב 'ב
what he is actually doing. And so this speaker begins smooth-talking שוריפה הזל כ"ג וזמרו )ט"ל ףד( ב"בב ןכ שריפ
the listener and seemingly, casually mentions the bad episode that םינורחאה לודג ל"שרהמה אלה ,םינושארהמ הברה
the listener experienced as though the remark was totally innocent
and that he was not even aware of it. And because the speaker made תופסותהו ג"מסהו מ"רהד םושמ רוסיאל הזב םיכסה
those remarks, the listener recalls the episode and the “bad” that כ"ע אוה אתיירואד רוסיאד טרפבו ,הז לע ןיקלוח
“Plony” had done to him. These remarks and everything else like ה"הגהב םש ונבתכש המב ןייעו .הזב לקהל רוסא
them are absolutely forbidden.
.ח"מבב

בלב האנש תולעהל םורגיש רבד לכ ה"ה .תונג )ה(

.ל"נכו ורבח לע דחא
Be’er Mayim Chayim
(RK1/10/1)-(19) .. using a trick: This law originates with the תולגל ןיוכתמ וניא םאו .ותולגל ןיוכתמ םא )ו(
th
th
Rambam in Hilchot De’Aut, the 7 perek, the 4 halacha, in his discussion ףיעסמ 'ב ללכב 'א קלחב ליעל וניד ונראיב רבכ
of someone speaking Lashon Hara surreptitiously etc, or that “these are
the doings of so-and-so.” Here I expressed that same idea in the context .ש"יע הלעמו 'ג
of Rechilut. I have already written several times, that which the Rambam
expressed in the context of Lashon Hara also applies to Rechilut.
םייחה רוקמ

קסֵעה ןוֹדּנבּ קלַּתּסִהל הצרָ דחא ףָתּשׁ םִא ,הז יִפלוּ .ד
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ִ
ְ
ֶ
ֻ
Mekor Hachayim
ֵ
ַ
ֻ
ְ
ִ
ףוֹסּבלוּ ,וֹמִּע וּפְתַּתְּשׁי םירִחאֶשׁ ,בַשׁח יִכּ ,וֹפָתּשִּׁמ וֹלֶּשׁ
ָ
ֲ
RK / . Furthermore understand, that there is no distinction in
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ַ
the esur of Rechilut if the speaker conveys what “Plony” said or ,)וֹלֶּשׁ ךְוּדִּשּׁהֵמ ןָתחה אנוגּ יאהכִבּ ןכו( וֹדיבּ הָתלע אלֹ
did to the listener verbally or in written form (20). It is also one רבכדּ ףא ,וֹלֶּשׁ ןוֹשׁארִה ףָתּשּׁהל הז רבדּ תוֹלּגל רוּסא )ז(
ֻ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ִ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
and the same (it is Rechilut) if the speaker tells the listener that
ָ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ִ
ָ
“Plony” degraded him or that “Plony” degraded his merchandise וּנבַתכֶּשׁ וֹמכוּ ,רֵתוֹי וֹא אָתלְתּ יפּאבּ הז רבדּ עמְשׁנ
st
(as I explained above in the context of Lashon Hara in the 1 Kelal, רבדּ לע וֹפָתּשׁ לע וֹבִּלבּ הּל טקֹני יאדּובדּ ,'ג ףיִעסבּ
ַ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ֻ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ִ
ְ
the 8 halacha, and the 5 Kelal, the 7 halacha) since in either
th
th
th
ָ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ִ
event it would result in the listener hating “Plony.” םיִטְפוֹשׁ( חָתְּפיבּ בוּתכֶּשׁ וֹמכוּ ,וֹתִּאֵמ קלַּתּסִהל הצרֶָשׁ ,הז
ַ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ןפוּ ,"םכל רצ רֶשׁאכּ הָתּע ילא םֶתאבּ עוּדּמוּ" :)'ז א"י
129 140
volume 4 volume 4