Page 170 - V4

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

to convey that gossip and he validated what Reuven said about him םייחה רוקמ
more than would have been the case if only one person conveyed
ִ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
ִ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ָ
the gossip. There is also the possibility that Shimon will come to עגוֹנּה ינְפִבּ רמא אלֹ וּלִּפא )ה( ארָקְנ תוּליִכרְדּ ,דוֹע עדַו .ג
the point of fighting (with Reuven) because this second person re-
ָ
ֲ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ignited the gossip all over again. ,ןבוּארְ לע יִתְּעמָשׁ ךְכו ךְכּ :וֹרבח ינְפִבּ רֵמוֹאה ,ןוֹגכּ ,וֹל
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
םִא ,םיִמרְוֹגּ וּלּאכּ םירִבדּ יִכּ ,ןוֹעְמִשׁ לע רֵמוֹא היהֶשׁ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ִ
ֵ
ֵ
ְ
Be’er Mayim Chayim רֵמוֹאה ןבוּארְ ןיבּ םינדְמ ררֵוֹעל ,שׁיִא יִפִּמ שׁיִא וּעְמְשׁנ
ָ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ֱ
ֵ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ְ
(RK4/2/1)-(3)..the second of these two men should be careful המ ,וֹל רפּסל רוּסאדּ ןכֶּשׁ לכו .וילע רמאנּה ינוֹלְפּ ןיבוּ
not to convey: I am going to quote here all of the opinions I had in order תוֹיהִל םדאה עבֶטדּ ,ויבוֹרקְוּ וינבּ לע )ז( רבּדּ ינוֹלְפֶּשּׁ
ַ
ֵ
ִ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ִ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ְ
to explain this subject clearly. Seemingly, the comment conveyed (by the
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ֶ
second speaker) should be permitted based on the gemara’s relating (the .ירְֵקִּמ ליִכרָו ,הזבּ רצֵמ
statement of Rabbah Bar Rav Hunah) that “anything said in the presence
of three people is immune from the esur of Lashon Hara.” The Rashbam
explains the underlying rationale in Gemara Babba Batra (39a), that any
comments that will inevitably become public knowledge are immune from ה"הגה
the esur of Lashon Hara and all the more so these comments, since they
ְ
ֵ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ִ
ְ
were already conveyed to this “victim.” However, it is possible to refute ריִהזהל הצרְי םִא וּלִּפא ,הזכּ ןינִע רפּסלִּמ רהזִּל ךְירִָצו[
ֲ
ֵ
ָ
this argument by arguing that this case is different. There, in that case, at םִא וּלִּפאו ,םדא םוּשׁל הזּה רוּפִּסּה תוֹלּגל אלֶֹּשׁ ,וֹרבחל
ַ
ֵ
ֲ
ַ
ֲ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
the moment the first speaker made his comments, they were made in front
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ִ
ָ
ַ
of three people standing there listening to him and most certainly word of עמְשׁנ ברֹ יִפּ לע )ו( יִכּ ,וֹרבדּ תא םיּקַיֶּשׁ ,רוּרבבּ עדֵוֹי אוּה
those comments would inevitably become public knowledge. Therefore, ללכִּמוּ ,ןוֹעְמִשׁ לע וֹא ןבוּארְ לע תוּנגּ רוּפִּסּה תֵעבּ אליֵמִּמ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ְ
the comment could be conveyed later on by one of those three people
ָ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
because the speaker obviously wanted his comments to become public .])תאצוֹי הּניא( אקְָפנ אל ערָה ןוֹשׁל
(i.e. the speaker wanted his comments to reach the victim because why
else would he address his remarks to three people if not for his intent that
they should become public knowledge), as the Yad HaKetana writes in
his commentary. Or the comment may be conveyed for the reason we םייח םימ ראב
wrote above in the first part of this sefer, in the 2 Kelal, the 4 notation,
nd
th
namely, that the characterization (the label) “Rauchel” \ gossipmonger קרפב ם"במרהמ ורוקמ .'וכו רמא אל וליפא )ה(
is not applied to someone who comments on something that would םימרוגש םירבד רפסמהו ש"מב 'ה הכלה ל"נה 'ז
have inevitably become public knowledge without his having made
those remarks. (Please see that reference). (Please also refer above in הנטקה די רפסה בתכ ןכו .'וכו ול רצהל וא 'וכו
rd
nd
the first part of this sefer, the 2 Kelal, the 3 halacha, that cites several כ"ג הזל היאר שיו .ולש תועד תוכלהמ 'ט קרפב
Authorities who view this law strictly and would not permit the remarks
to be conveyed even if their public knowledge was inevitable). But that םירג ןב הדוהי יברד השעמב )ב"ע ג"ל( תבשמ
is not the case here. Here, when Plony made his comments, it was not רפסש םש י"שריפו 'וכו ועמשנו םירבדה רפסש
inevitable that they would become public knowledge since the comments
were only made to two people (and not to three people, which is the ,ז"יע םירבדה ולגלגתנ ףוסבלו ותיבב םירבדה
173 160
volume 4 volume 4