Page 153 - V3
P. 153
Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Zayin - Halachah 9 ה הכלה - ז ללכ
see that in making his remarks his intent is not to denigrate this person םיברהש לוקב םא יכ קיספ אלד אלק ארקנ אלד דוע עדו
or to incite a fight against a fellow Jew, just incidentally he happened to
describe some incident that occurred (this is called “incidental”). But if תא איצוה דחא קרש ונל עודי םא לבא ,וילע םימיכסמ
he (the gentile) was asked outright (about the husband’s whereabouts) and חנומ ןיא ריעב לוקה הז בברתשנ ודי לעו הלחתמ לוקה
he answered the husband died, that is not categorized as an “incidental” לוקה לע ךומסל רוסא יאדוובו ,קיספ אלד אלק םֵשׁ וילע
remark. (Please see the Hagahah in paragraph #15 of that reference).
Moreover, even if he was not directly asked, just that two men were ורבושו לוק ארקנ הז יכ ,הז תמחמ ותוזבלו םולשו סח הזה
talking about another Jew and this gentile (Kuthie) came along and asked תא ןמקל יתקתעהו ד"פק שרושב ק"ירהמ בתכ ןכו ,ומע
what they were talking about and they answered – We were discussing if a
certain Jew is alive or dead, whereupon the gentile told them that he died, .הבושתה לכ
this too is not called “an incidental comment.” This is the explanation
brought down in section #15 in the Hagahah. Similarly, here too regarding דחאה םא וליפא ותוא אונשל וא ילובקל ןינעל ה"הו
Lashon Hara, a comment is not called “incidental” unless the people were םא ןכש לכו רשכ דע אוה וילע לוקה איצוהש ןושארה
not discussing this man as the topic of their conversation, and were neither התע רד אוה וליפאו ,וביר ישנאמ אוה לוקה איצומה
praising him nor vilifying him.
עמשנ וז ריעב םגו ,ביוא םוש ול ןיא םשו תרחא ריעב
Understand more! That there in paragraph #14 (yet another condition is רבד םושל הז לוקב שממ םוש ןיא יכה וליפא ,וילע לוקה
imposed on the definition of “incidental”) something is called “incidental”
only if there was no possible motivation driving the statement. But if הנושארבש ונל עודיד ןויכ קיספ אלד אלק התע אוה וליפא
there was some possible motivation that provoked the comment, then the .ןאכל לוקה בברתשנ םשמו םיביוא והוקפא
statement cannot be categorized as “incidental”; for example, the speaker
wanted to intimidate his audience (the listeners) or enhance and strengthen ודיספהל אלש וליפא אוה ונכראהש םירבדה ולא לכד עדו
his image by lying. Here too regarding Lashon Hara the same exclusion
applies, because very often the speaker’s intent is to enhance his self אטישפ ןוממ ןינעב עגונ היהיש המ לבא ,ןוממ ןינעב
prestige by saying things that disgrace a fellow Jew, especially if we know םינש יפ לע אל םא הזל ליעומ לוק םוש ןיאד אטישפו VOL-3
the speaker already hated the victim, then the concept of an “incidental” הלע קפנד ארמגב )ב"ע ו"ל ףד( תובותכב חכומדכו םידע
remark definitely has no relevance because the speaker’s remarks are
insidious. This is clearly explained in the Ehven HaEzer section #17 ז"עק ןמיס רזעה ןבא רוטב קספנ ןכו 'וכו יאנזד אלק
paragraph #4 in the Beit Shemuel sub-paragraph #13, as follows: There .)ד ףיעס(
are five categories of women with presumptions of hatred for each other
9
who are not believed to “testify” that the husband died even if the
statement was made “incidentally.” (Please see that reference). And so
much more certainly here we do not believe the speaker. There (when one רפסה ףוסמ הטמשה
of these women “testified” someone’s husband died) eventually the truth 5
will become known anyway since this is something that is very difficult to 'יס ,"םהרבא ןגמ"ב עמשמ ,רוביצ חילש ןינעלד ,עדו[
lie about, as Chazal teach in Gemara Yevamot (93b), and even so, because "םידגמ ירפ"בו ,"לקשה תיצחמ"ב ןייע( 'ז ןטק ףיעס ,גנ
of the great enmity she feels for this other woman, we do suspect that
אלד אלק רובע ןניקלסמד )טכ ק"ס ,]"םהרבא לשא"[
םתחב ןייעו .רוביצה דובכ םושמ אוהד רשפאו ,קיספ
9 Any one of these five women is not believed to “testify” that the husband of
one of these other four women died. .]אי 'יס ,ח"וא קלח ,רפוס
143 126
volume 3 volume 3
