Page 164 - V4

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

and the Rashbah, since the second speaker alone in conveying gossip to :ה"הגה
Shimon would have been the cause for Shimon to hate Reuven, just as the
first person (the first gossip) alone, the law of Rechilut applies equally to לע לכה ,יסוי 'רכ ם"ארהל םיארי רפסב קספש המו *
this second person.
ונרריב כ"ג ר"השלבד ףאו ,תוליכר לע אלו רמאנ ר"השל
However it is possible to refute this conclusion by arguing the two cases ןמד ינווגב ירייא אוה ,ינווג לכב רוסאד 'א קלחב ליעל
are not similar. There, we are talking about a case where at the moment
the second person set down his bundle of dry wood in the path of the fire, ת"עשב י"ר ריתמש המ ןוגכ ר"השל םושמ וב ןיא הרותה
the stack of grain had not yet burned because of the actions of the first 'ג ללכב 'א קלחב ליעל ונראיבש המ יפכו א"כר רמאמב
person (the initial arsonist), and we are just assuming that the grain stack
would have burned because of him. But when the stack finally did burn, יל השק וירבד ףוס םלואו .וירבד תא א"קס ףוס ח"מבב
both bundles of wood caused it to burn, and therefore the second arsonist ,אביצ לש תוליכרמ וירבד דמול יסוי 'רו בתכש דואמ
is just as culpable as the first arsonist because we can argue why hold the ינפב אלש םתהו ךלמה ינודא תא ךדבעב לגריו ביתכד
first arsonist completely responsible for the burning of the grain stack to
the exclusion of the second arsonist since the second arsonist just as easily עמשיש ןכ רמאש העשב אביצ הצור היה אלו הוה תשוביפמ
could have burned down the grain stack. Therefore the second arsonist תמא היה םאד ל"כע שרופמה ןמ םותס דומליו ,תשוביפמ
is as much responsible as the first arsonist. But here in our case when
the second speaker conveyed the gossip to Shimon, Shimon already knew היה אל וליפא רתומ היה יאדוב ,וילע רביד אביצש המ
about Reuven’s degrading comments from the first speaker and that first ןמקל ה"יא ראבנש ומכו ,וירבד תשוביפמ עמשיש הצור
speaker alone was responsible for provoking Shimon to hate Reuven. The .'ט ללכב
second speaker in conveying the same gossip as the first speaker did not
cause Shimon to increase his hatred of Reuven any more than what had
already existed. Ostensibly this would be comparable to the first arsonist לבא ךמעב ליכר ךלת אל םנמא רמאל לכונ הז לעו
burning down the grain stack completely before the second arsonist even ידכ דודל רמול איה הבר הוצמו ,ךער םד לע דמעת אל
set down his bundle in the path of the fire. Therefore according to all ןינעב םימעפ המכ כ"חא ושע ןכו ,הזב ומצע תא רומשיש
opinions, the second person did not do an esur \ did not violate the Lav of
Rechilut. .ג"הכו 'וכו לפותיחא תצע תא יל תרפהו ביתכד ומכו הז
ליכרו רוסא אנווג לכב יאדוב ,אביצ וילע רבד רקש םאו
However, when one carefully examines that case (the grain stack) he will
realize it is not at all comparable to our case and all Authorities are in ח"מבב 'ב ללכב 'א קלחב ליעל ונחכוהש ומכ ,ירקמ
agreement that the second speaker is doing an esur (and is violating the יסוי 'ר ףילי יצמ יכיה כ"או ,)א"ע ו"מ( תובותכמ א"קסב
Torah’s Lav of gossip). There, in that “grain stack” case, the gemara’s
framework is something that has already happened in the past, that the ןיחרכומ ךחרכ לעד ןויכ ,תמא רבדל אמלעל אביצ ןינעמ
second person had already set down his bundle of wood, and we see that .רוסא ינוג לכב אביצ ןינעבד רמול ונא
the grain stack did not burn any more completely as a result of what the
second arsonist did than it would have burned as a result of the fire set by
the first arsonist alone. But most certainly it would have been forbidden
for the second arsonist to set down his bundle since he might cause more
damage than the damage caused by the first arsonist. There the second
arsonist is obviously culpable as Maran brings down in Shulchan Aruch
Choshen Mishpat section #418, paragraph #10. (Please see that reference).

179 154
volume 4 VOL-4 6 volume 4