Page 277 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס 9 VOL-4
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Het - Halachah 4 ה הכלה - ז ללכ

a comment made by Plony that was not defamatory (5) but still is .הזבּ רהזִּל ןיִביּח םיִשׁוֹדקְ לארְָשׂיו ,"ףֹדּרְִתּ קדֶצ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ִ
ָ
something that people are somewhat sensitive about (6) if it is told
ַ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ֶ
ֲ
to them directly. .)הרָוּזנצּה תמחֵמ ,הארְנּכּ ,וֹז ההגּה(
.לולא ג"י ,רייא 'ג ,תבט ג"כ - תרבועמ הנש .לולא ד"י ,רייא ד"י ,תבט ד"י - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
Be’er Mayim Chayim
םייחה רוקמ
(RK8/4/1)-(5) ..that was not defamatory: And of course (it is
ָ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ִ
ְ
ָ
ַ
forbidden) if it was defamatory, even if the comment is not literally ןוֹשׁלבּ וֹמכּ אוּה וֹנידּ ,תוּליִכרְ תלבּקַ רוּסִּא ןינִעלוּ .ה
defamatory yet is something that people consider to be inappropriate. For ןכּ לע .םָשׁ ןיּע ,ד"י ג"י ףיִעסבּ 'ח ללכִבּ 'א קלחבּ ,ערָה
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ֵ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
example, they told him that Plony said about him that nobody else is always
cooking meat and fish as they do in his house, or something comparable, וּלִּפאו ,םדא םוּשִּׁמ תוּליִכרְ לבּקַל אלֶֹּשׁ ,דֹאְמ רהזִּל שׁי
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ֵ
ֵ
ֲ
ְ
that most certainly this alludes to gossip (Avak Rechilut). And of course
ֶ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ֲ
ָ
ֵ
ִ
ִ
ֵ
th
based on what we wrote in the first part of this sefer in the 9 Kelal (in the לבּקְַמ אוּהֶשׁ המּבֶּשׁ ,אצְמנ ,בֵטיה ןנוֹבְּתנ רֶשׁאכו .וֹתְּשִׁאֵמ
notation attached to the 3 halacha) quoting the Se’Mag and the Hagahot
rd
ָ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ִ
ֵ
ִ
Maymoniyot, that this statement is absolutely Lashon Hara. And then ךְכּ וילע רבּדּ ינוֹלְפֶּשׁ ,וֹל הרְָפִּסֶּשׁ המּבּ ,וֹתְּשִׁאֵמ תוּליִכרְ
necessarily if the speaker tells this to the victim, the comment made by איִבֵמ אוּה ,תוּליִכרְ תלבּקַ לֶשׁ יִמצעה ןוֹעה דבל ,ךְכו
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
Plony, it is gossip.
ְ
ְ
ָ
לבּקְַמ הּלֲעבֶּשׁ הָּתוֹארְִבּ יִכּ ,תוֹבּרַ תוֹרצ הז ידֵי לע וֹמצעל
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
(RK8/4/2)-(6).. people are somewhat sensitive about: This is the
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ֵ
ָ
ִ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ָ
st
language used by the Yerushalmi to express this concept (Peh’ah, the 1 ,וּלּאכּ םינינִעֵמ דיִמָתּ וֹל רפּסְתּ ,תוֹפי םינפּ רבסבּ הירֶבדּ
perek, the 1 halacha) “Come and see how oppressive are allusions to .שׁפנ ןוֹבאדַו הבירְִמוּ הצּמוּ סעכּ ידֵיִל הז ידֵי לע וּתּאיִבְמוּ
st
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
Lashon Hara, that the Torah chose to use fictitious language in order to
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
promote peace between Abraham and Sarah (Beresheet 18:12) “Sarah תרֶפּסְמֶּשׁכּ ,וֹתְּשִׁאבּ רֹעגִל שׁפנ לעבל דֹאְמ ןוֹכנּה ןכּ לע
ֶ
ֶ
laughed …etc…” and the commentary of the Pnei Moshe explains that the
ֵ
ְ
ִ
ָ
ָ
Yerushalmi identified that as an allusion to Lashon Hara since it would not .וּלּאכּ םינינִעֵמ וֹל
be categorized as literal Lashon Hara even by saying “my master is old”
because what degradation was contained in those words. But rather it was
an intimation of Lashon Hara. And even so (even though it was “only”
Avak Lashon Hara) still the Torah created a fiction and did not quote her
as saying “my master is old” (but instead quoted her as saying “and I
am old”). And that which the Yerushalmi said- Avak Lashon Hara and
not Avak Rechilut was because the subject was Sarah’s comment (there
the context was Lashon Hara and not Rechilut) just as the P’nei Moshe
explained there (in commenting on the Yerushalmi). Also it is common
to find Rechilut expressed under the title of Lashon Hara and that is why
Chazal used the expression Avak Lashon Hara (because it is inclusive of
Avak Rechilut).
267 258
volume 4 volume 4