Page 167 - V4

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

since necessarily we are forced to say that statements similar to Tzevah’s ןייעו ,הזב תועד יתש שיש םש ראובמו ]ז"ס[ ו"צש
remarks are forbidden in all circumstances? (That being so, please see
what Maran Chafetz Chayim wrote above in reconciling the discussion א"בשרהו ם"במרהו 'סותהש םש א"רגה רואיבב
st
rd
st
in the 1 half of this sefer, in the 3 Kelal, in the 1 notation of the Be’er 'סותה תישוקו ,ןיבייח ןלוכד תחא העדל םימיכסמ
Mayim Chayim.)
ורמא אלד א"בשרה ץרית 'וכו קדקדל שי והימ
ומכ ,קיזהלו ךליל הב שיש אלא הליבחב הברמ
Be’er Mayim Chayim, (RK3/ /2) continued:
ומכ ינשה בייח ךכלו ,םירשעו רשע רוב רפוחב
What results from this entire discussion is that Rechilut is forbidden in all כ"ג אב היה דבל ותליבח י"עד ןויכ ,ןושארה
circumstances even if the remark being conveyed is truthful and even if
Plony is present to hear it repeated, as we explained this, based on several ש"ארהו ,א"יל םילשהל המוד יכה ואל אה ,קזיהה
sources in Shas and the Rambam. The Se’Mag also quoted the Rambam אוהו .ירמגל רוטפ ינשהד והל אריבס ףסוי יקומנהו
(and agreed with him). So too did the Tosafot also agree that Rechilut is
forbidden even if the remarks conveyed are true and even if those remarks א"בשרהו ם"במרהו תופסותה תעדל ,וננינעב ןידה
would have been repeated with Plony being present to hear them, as I תסנכנ התיה כ"ג דבל ינשה לש ורופיס י"עש ןויכ
nd
st
nd
wrote above in the 1 half of the sefer in the cited 2 Kelal (in the 2
notation cited above). The subject is obvious to anyone who studies their
words carefully that there is no difference whether the remark is repeated
without Plony being there and the speaker knows he would not hesitate
to repeat them even if Plony was standing there, or if Plony is literally 13 The Gemara Babba Kamma (10a) poses a question as part of an ongoing
discussion: Someone who placed bundles of dried twigs in the path of
standing right there hearing what he is saying; either way Rechilut is an oncoming fire in order to add to the fire already heading towards his
forbidden. This is also clearly seen in Rabbeinu Yonah’s Shaare Teshuvah neighbor’s stack of grain and causes the grain to ignite and burn and
in the 3 sha’ar, section #228, that in all circumstances it is forbidden to destroys the grain. If we say that without his intervention the fire would not
rd
speak either Lashon Hara or Rechilut. Therefore, he was forced to place have traveled and destroyed the neighbor’s stack of grain, it is obvious that
Rebbe Yossi’s statement in the context that he did and based on this I wrote he is entirely liable and not the fire’s owner (i.e., the person who started
st
this entire law as it appears in the 1 halacha of this Kelal. the fire). [Rashi: That had he not added the bundles of dried wood to the
fire, the fire would have died out by itself]. So this cannot be the case.
Instead say the case is that even without his intervention the fire would
have traveled and destroyed the neighboring stack of grain. If so, then
Daily Halacha: 1 Tevet, 1 Eyar, 1 Elul; Leap Year- 8 Tevet, 18 Nissan, 28 Av what damage did he actually cause? In this issue, the gemara’s analysis
in Babba Kamma is comparable to our discussion relative to the second
Mekor Hachayim gossip conveying the same information to the “victim” as the first gossip.
What damage did he actually cause?
6
RK3/2. If Reuven talked about Shimon in front of Levi and 4 Someone dug a pit in a public thoroughfare nine Tefachim deep and another
8
7
Levi then went back to Shimon and told him what Reuven said, it person came along and deepened the pit one additional Tefach to a total
is forbidden for Shimon to go back to Reuven and say to him-“Why depth of ten Tefachim. Rebbe says the second man is fully responsible if
did you say those things about me to Levi?” Because in doing that, an animal falls into the pit and dies and both men are jointly responsible
if it did not die but suffered injury. The Tanna Kamma holds the second
person fully responsible for both injuries sustained by the animal or for its
death since a pit nine tefachim deep would not be deep enough to cause an
6 i.e., Reuven (“Plony,”) the person who initiated the gossip. animal to die.

157 176
volume 4 volume 4