Page 185 - V4

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

halachically minimum criterion for public dissemination). The Gemara יִמ ,ןבוּארְ ןיִבי אליֵמִּמ )ד( הז ידֵי לע םִא ,ךְכו ךְכּ ילע
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
Babba Batra (39b) concludes that all Authorities unanimously hold of the
ָ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ֲ
ֵ
statement of Rabbah Bar Rav Hunah and therefore the law of Rechilut םיִשׁנא הבּרְה ,םיִבּרַה וּניֵתוֹנוֲֹעבוּ .רוּסא ,וֹל הלּגְמה היה
does apply to those comments. (Yet here in our case, do you think that)
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ִ
since one of these two people violated the Torah’s law of Rechilut, “Do .הזבּ ןיִלָשׁכנ
not peddle gossip,” and conveyed Plony’s comments to the “victim,” the
second speaker now has the license to spread this same gossip? However
(it is possible to argue just the opposite, and say that) it is not clear that the
comments conveyed by the second speaker are forbidden. It is possible to םייח םימ ראב
say that since the comments were already made known to the victim and
this second speaker is not adding anything new in conveying those same םירבד ןעוטש לכורכ אוה םג יכ .רבוע אוה םג )ג(
comments, then passing along those same comments to the victim is not
forbidden. רובע יול לע ןבואר היל טוקני יאדובו ,הזל הזמ
תוליכר רוסא לע יול רבעקד ןויכ רמול ןיאו .הז
And do not bring proof that the comments of the second speaker are forbidden
st
from the Yerushalmi, the 1 perek in Peh’ah (4b), that it is permitted to ןושארה ןבואר כ"א ,וילע ליגרהל רתומ אהי
speak Lashon Hara against someone who provokes contention, as the לע םירבדה רפסש המב ערה ןושל רוסא לע רבעד
Torah relates (Melachim I, 1:14) “I will follow after you and complete
2
your words.” From the fact that the Yerushalmi did not relate (to us) the תוליכרמ ערג ערה ןושל רוסאו יול ינפב ןועמש
initial advice that (the prophet) Natan gave (to Bat Sheva) to go (to David יולל הרותה הרסא יכה וליפאו ,ם"במרה שוריפל
HaMelech and) tell him what Adoniyahu was doing as a proof that Lashon
Hara is permitted against someone who provokes controversy, we see that .היתווכד ימנ יכהו ,ןועמשל םירבדה רפסלו ךליל
it is not proof that he could have conveyed Adoniyahu’s doings himself. קיפנ אל אמלעב רובד םושמד ,טושפ אוה םעטהו
And if that is so, what is the proof from the pasuk “and I will follow after
you.” Say instead that because of that (because Adoniyahu’s doing would השע תוצמב ג"מסה בתכש ומכו ,ךתימעמ לארשי VOL-4
inevitably have become known to his father David HaMelech) it would .בא דובכ לש
have been permitted later on for Natan to convey word of Adoniyahu’s
conspiracy against David because Bat Sheva actually was the first to ליעל ונבתכש ומכ .'וכו ןבואר ןיבי אליממ )ד(
convey word of that conspiracy to David. This argument can be refuted by
arguing that Natan elaborated more on the conspiracy and that he also told אוה רומג רוסיאד ,'ט ףיעס 'א ללכב הז קלחב
David about the involvement of Evyatar (the High Priest), something Bat וילע רבדש שיאה םש ול ריכזמ וניא םא וליפא
Sheva did not discuss at all. From all of this the Yerushalmi proves it is
permitted to speak Lashon Hara against anyone who provokes controversy ןיאו .ומש תא ןיבי אליממו ןינעה תא ול רפסמ קר
and contention.
םש תא תולגל רקעב ןיוכתנ אלד ןויכ אכהד רמול
Apparently this law is comparable to the law discussed in Gemara Babba ומכו רוסא ינוג לכבד ,וניא הז ,רתומ אהי יול 6
ש"יע 'ג ףיעס 'א ללכב ליעל הז קלחב ונבתכש
The prophet Natan said this to Bat Sheva, in planning their meeting with ובלב האנש הלעמ ורובד י"עש רבדה ףוסד ןויכ
David HaMelech to inform him of his son Adoniyahu’s attempt to usurp his
monarchy and eliminate Shelomo. .וילע
175 158
volume 4 volume 4