Page 161 - V4

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

that the leniency of allowing the remarks \ Rechilut to be repeated to the םייח םימ ראב
victim evolves from the fact that the speaker’s would have made those
same remarks even if Plony was standing there together with the victim. :ח"כ רמאמב חקורה ןושל הזש .הנקת ול ןיא )ד(
But that is based solely on the remarks being truthful. But we have proven
st
th
above in the 1 Kelal (in the 8 notation of the Be’er Mayim Chayim) that סייפיו הליחמ שקבי אל םא האופר ול ןיא ליכרה
Rechilut is forbidden even if the remarks are true based on the gemara, the ליעל םיראובמ םירבדה רתיו .םהילע לבק רשא לכל
Rambam, the Se’Mag, the Chinuch and Rabbeinu Yonah, that even if the
remarks are true the Torah forbids Rechilut in order to prevent a sense of .ערה ןושל ןינעל ב"י ףיעס 'ד ללכ 'א קלחב
hatred from developing between man and his fellow Jew. So the fact that
Plony is standing there together with the victim is irrelevant (and in either ל"נ ,םייח םימ ראבב םש יתבתכש ע"צה ןינעל ךא
event the remarks are forbidden). לע ליגרהש ףכיתד אוה אניד תוליכר ןינעל ןאכבד

Another proof comes from Gemara Babba Kamma (99b) in the gemara’s וילע רבידש המ ול רפיסש ,ןועמש ינפל ןבואר
questioning of the behavior of Rav Kahana and Rav Assi – “How could ףא ,הזב ןימאמ ןועמשש האורו ,ודגנ השע וא
they have done that?” (Meaning, that they both encountered the animal’s
owner and told him- Rav did two things to you: He declared the animal כ"פעא ,הז רובע ןבואר םע טטוקתנ אל ןיידעש
Treif and he exonerated the butcher from compensating the animal’s owner ידיל ז"יע ףוסבל אובי אמתסמד ,ותוא סייפל ךירצ
for his loss and these two decisions of Rav are paradoxical). But we have
an explicit Beraitah that teaches- What is the source from which we learn חקורה הל םתסד אחינ הזבו .הבירמ וא קזיה םוש
that when a judge comes out of court after rendering a decision, he may הזיא השעיש וא .הינימ אקפנ םוש בתכ אלו ל"נה
not say (to the losing party)- “I favored your side but my colleagues who
were in a majority voted against you, so what could I do?” Regarding .ןועמש בלבש האנשה הזב איצוהל תומכחתה
this, the Torah teaches “Do not peddle gossip in society!” Why doesn’t
the gemara defend them by saying that they knew they would have made
the same remark even if Rav was present to hear them say it and therefore VOL-4
conveying the remark would be permissible even if he was not standing
there. (From here we see that this is no basis for permitting Rechilut). And
even if you wanted to deflect this answer by arguing since they were Rav’s
students, it is unlikely they would make those remarks in his presence (but
truthfully that deflection is not a conclusive argument- because if not for
the esur of gossip they could have reported back to the animal’s owner and
told him, even in front of Rav, that they too were surprised by his ruling-
why did Rav exonerate the butcher since Rav himself held the butcher, in
slaughtering the animal, rendered it unkosher, as the Gemara Sanhedrin
(6b) teaches- What is the source that teaches that a student sitting in his
rebbe’s presence and sees a way to defend an indigent defendant may not 6
remain silent…the Torah teaches (Devarim 1:17) “Do not be afraid of any
man”) I will bring you two more proofs that they have no argument:

st
(1) That which I brought above in the 1 half of this sefer, a proof from
Gemara Sanhedrin (30a) “What is the text of the written verdict? Rebbe

151 182
volume 4 volume 4