Page 190 - V4

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

4
Yochanan holds “Zakai \ Winner” for the reason of “Do not peddle יפ לע יכ ינולפ ותוא לע ןועמש לש ובלב האנש
gossip in society” even though they signed the verdict in the presence of
the litigants - as is seen in the Yerushalmi commenting on this Mishnah. ורפיסש םינש ידי לע רבדה ול עדונשכש יוצמ בורה
Therefore this is a proof that even in front of them (repeating the remarks) י"עש אוה יוצמ םגו ,*וינזאב רתוי רבדה סנכנ ול
is forbidden because those remarks are “Rechilut \ gossip.”
היהי אוה רפסיש י"עו וישעמ ינהא היה אל ןושארה
(2) Another clear proof comes from Gemara Moed Kattan (16a)- Rava said-
If the person summoned by the Beit Din insults \ curses the court’s agent רומח הז רבדו ,וילע הבירמל ואוביש וישעמ ינהא
and the agent reported that back to the court’s judges, the agent’s report ש"יעו )ז"ט( ןיכרעב אתיאדכ תוליכר םתסמ רתוי
is immune from the esur of Lashon Hara. And based on what I explained
st
th
above (in the 1 Kelal, the 8 notation of the Be’er Mayim Chayim), based הלא ונירבד לכ יפ לעו .ינהאד אה ה"ד י"שרב
on the opinions of the Rosh, (and the Ran) [and the Nemukei Yosef] the .םינפבש ףיעסה יתבתכ
5
context was “gossip,” that the court’s agent told Moshe Rabbeinu A”H,
what Datan and Aviram said about him. And if you hold that the statement
of Rebbe Yossi who said “never once in my life did I say something that
I had to retract” also applies to Rechilut, then what proof has the gemara
brought? Why can’t we say that the court’s agent knew he was reporting
the truth and that he knew he would have made that report even in front of :ה"הגה
Datan and Aviram. Rava himself holds the same opinion as Rebbe Yossi
there in Gemara Arachin (15b) and that it was permitted. אוה הליבחב הברממ וננינעל ונאבהש המש אמית אלו *

And do not say that nevertheless it would have been forbidden for Moshe ה"גהב ז"ס ח"פש ןמיסב מ"חב ןייע ,אמלעב אלופלפל
Rabbeinu A”H to listen to the agent’s report and to write their words אלש ןמז לכד רוטפ ןורחאה הז רחא הזב םאו 'וכו םינש
(Datan and Aviram’s reply) in the Holy Torah and that when the gemara
said “anything said in the presence of the “victim” (Arachin 15a) is exempt רואיבב םש ןייעו ,ןושארה םרגמ אב קזנה 'וכו רטפנ
from the laws of Lashon Hara” applies only to the initial speaker, because .אכהד ךהמ אוה ורוקמש חכומו ]ד"מקס[ א"רגה
if that were so (that the leniency only extended to the initial speaker- the
court’s agent, but not to the listener- Moshe Rabbeinu A”H)- (Do not say
this!), how could Rebbe Yossi have said “never once in my life did I say
something I had to retract” since he would have caused the people listening
to him to commit a sin (as they spread his remarks to others). Moreover, םייחה רוקמ
this was also expressed by the Rambam, as we have written above in the
nd
ְ
ְ
ָ
ִ
ַ
ַ
ַ
first part of this sefer (in the 2 Kelal of the laws of Lashon Hara in the לע הבוּשְׁתּ תוֹשֲׂעל אבוּ וֹרבח לע ליגּרְִהו רבע םִאו .ג
ֲ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ָ
rd
3 notation of the Be’er Mayim Chayim), that the Rambam understands
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ֵ
ַ
ֵ
the statement of the Gemara Moed Kattan that the immunity from the esur סיּפיו וּנּמִּמ הליִחְמ שֵׁקּביֶּשׁ דע הנקַּתּ וֹל ןיא )ד( ,וֹנוֲֹע
of Lashon Hara applies equally to the agent of the Beit Din (and to the ואלּה לע רבע רֶשׁא לע ,םוֹקמּל הבוּשְׁתּ הֶשֲׂעי םגו ,וֹתוֹא
ָ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
judges themselves). Therefore, with certainty, there is no difference (i.e.,
whether or not Plony is present to hear his remarks repeated in front of the ןוֹשׁלבּ וֹמכּ אוּה וינידּ יֵטרְָפּ לכו "ךָימּעבּ ליִכרָ ךְלֵת אלֹ"דּ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ָ
ְ
victim), and gossip is forbidden by the Torah in all circumstances, even
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
if the remarks are true and even if they are repeated in Plony’s presence. ןיּעו םָשׁ ןיּע ,ב"י ףיִעס 'ד ללכִבּ 'א קלחבּ ליֵעל ערָה
(Please see the following Hagahah after which this 2 notation of the
nd
ִ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ַ
Be’er Mayim Chayim will continue). .םייּח םימ ראבִבּ
153 180
volume 4 volume 4