Page 196 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Het - Halachah 8 א הכלה - ח ללכ

Lashon Hara directed against someone who incites controversy – reference לע ,וילע תוּנגּה רמאנֶּשׁ ,שׁיִאה דיִפּקְי אלֶֹּשׁ )ב( ,םיִמעְפּ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֱ
ֶ
ַ
the Magen Avraham section #156; the reason for this is to quiet down
ַ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ֻ
ָ
ֲ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ֲ
ֵ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
the controversy, just as the Lashon Hara reported to David HaMelech בוֹרקָ ךְרֶדֶ םגו ,םהיניבּ רֶשׁא הברְקּה תבהא דצִּמ רפּסְמה
regarding his son Adoniyahu who was inciting controversy in attempting
ָ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ֵ
ַ
to usurp his father as the king instead of David’s designated successor, his וֹתוֹנּגל ןוּכְמ וּנּניא ,וֹבוֹרקְ לע דחאל רפּסְמֶּשׁכּ ,אוּה
brother Shelomo. When the matter was made known to David, (he saw to ןגֹהכּ אלֶֹּשׁ ,וֹתְּעדּ יִפלֶּשׁ ,תמאה תאנקִ ינְפִּמ קרַ ,םצעבּ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ֶ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ֱ
ֵ
ֶ
ְ
it that) the controversy was quashed (Melachim I 1:14).
ָ
ָ
העט םִא )ג( ןֵכ יִפּ לַע ףַא ,יִנוֹלְפּ ןָיְנִעְבּ יִנוֹלְפּ שׁיִאְל הָשָׂע
Using this approach we can resolve the question I heard asked based on
the Gemara Moed Katan (16a) which is the law brought down in Shulchan יִפּ לעו ,בוֹח ףכל וֹטיִלחהל רהִמֶּשׁ ,וּניהדּ ,הזבּ וֹנוֹיְמדִבּ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
Aruch Choshen Mishpat (at the end of section #8 and the beginning of
ָ
ֱ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ֵ
ְ
section #11), that an agent of the Beit Din can report back to the court all ערָה ןוֹשׁל ללכִּמ אצוֹי הז רבדּ ןיא ,הזבּ ביּח היה אלֹ תמא
of the insults and humiliating remarks which the party to a dispute said
ְ
to him when summoned to appear before that Beit Din and his report is .הרָוּמגּ
immune from the esur of Lashon Hara. The Shas deduces this law from
the text in the Torah (Bamidbar 16:14) “The eyes of those men should be
gouged out.” Regarding that pasuk, Rashi comments that if not for the םייח םימ ראב
court‑agent’s report, how could Moshe Rabbeinu have known about the
insults made (made by Datan and Aviram)? The question arises, how is ףסויד השעממ דמלנ הז לכ .'וכו בורק 'וכו השא )א(
30
it evident from there, since the case of Datan and Aviram was different
because they were the instigators of the controversy against Moshe ותעד יפלד ש"מו .ותוחא התיהש םירמד השעממו
Rabbeinu? ו"ק םירבד ירהו ה"רע אקסיפ ירפסה ל"ז יכ ,'וכו
But based on what I wrote, this reasoning is consistent. There it is obvious השמ לש וינפב אלש אלא הרביד אלש םירמ המו
that the report should not have been made because it inflamed the level
of the controversy. Therefore we are forced to say that an agent of the ירפסה תנווכ המ הרואכלו 'וכו השמ לש ותיינהלו
Beit Din is unique and has immunity from the esur of Lashon Hara when םרובידב םתנוכש עודיד תוטישפב רמול לכונו הזב
reporting back to the Beit Din. (Quoted up until this point).
םתעד יפלש קר ה"ע ונבר השמל ותונגל ו"ח היה אל
(K8/8/3)-(18)..unless he verifies: Meaning, subject to the conditions ירפסה תרבסו ,הרופצמ שריפש המב ןידכ אלש השע
that were explained above in the 7 Kelal, when it is permitted to believe
th
Lashon Hara – Please see that reference, in the 12 halacha of the Mekor םהיניעב טלחנד םושמ אוה הזב םהיניב ורבידש המד
th
th
th
th
Chayim, in the 28 , 29 and 30 notation of the Be’er Mayim Chayim. הלודג ותאובנ תשודק ןיאד ובשחש השע ןידכ אלשד
Please review that reference carefully because all of the laws mentioned
there are relevant here as well. ומכ הנממ שורפל ז"יע ךרטציש םיאיבנ ראשמ
םהיניב םכסוה ןכ לע 'וכו השמב ךא קרה רמאנש
(K8/8/4)-(19)..achieve a beneficial outcome: The source of this
th
th
law is found further on in the 10 Kelal, 10 halacha, in the Be’er Mayim ,הז רובע וחיכוהל ואריש
Chayim.
םימש םשל השמ לש ותיינהל היה רובידה הז לכד ףאו
(K8/8/5)-(20)..in some other way: Please see further on the 10
th
Kelal, the 11 notation of the Be’er Mayim Chayim. ןמקל ראובמו ,הנממ שריפש המב הז רחא וחיכוהל ידכ
th
211 186
volume 3 VOL-3 7 volume 3