Page 220 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Het - Halachah 1 ח הכלה - ח ללכ

he believes the victim did something improper to someone else and לש ותוכלמ לע תקולחמ בביסש והינודא ןינע דודל
only wants to strive to reach the truth (and help the person who was
wronged). Nevertheless, if he made a mistake in his perception (3) .'וכו בירה טקשנ דודל עדונשכו המלש
of the incident, namely that he jumped too quickly to a conclusion
that judged the victim unfavorably and in reality the victim was not ןנירמאד אהמ םישקמ יתעמשש המ בשייתנ הזבו
at all culpable, the remarks still remain Lashon Hara. ד"ב חילשד מ"וח ע"ושב ןכ ל"ייקו )ז"ט ףד( ק"מב
ול רמאש תונויזבו ןיפוריחה לכ ד"בל דיגהל לוכי

ףילי ס"שהו ,ערה ןושל םושמ הזב ןיאו ןיד לעבה
Be’er Mayim Chayim
י"שריפו רקנת םהה םישנאה יניעה ביתכדמ הל
(K8/1/1)-(1)…a woman or a close or distant relative: All this is
learned from the episode of Yosef and from the episode of Miryam, the ךיאו ,עדי יוה אנמ השמל ורמא חילשד ואל יאד
sister of Moshe Rabbeinu. And what I wrote “rather he believes the victim תקולחמ ילעב ויהש םריבאו ןתד ינאשד םשמ חכומ
did something improper…etc,” this is how the Sifri expresses it in chapter
# 275: (commenting on Devarim 24:9 “Remember what Hashem your G-d ,השמ לש
did to Miryam”) “This is an obvious, logical deduction – Miryam spoke
privately, not in the presence of her brother Moshe, she spoke with only ול היה אלש אטישפ םשד ריפש יתא ש"מפלו
his best interests in mind, etc.” What was the ostensible intention of the תיב חילשד ךחרכ לעו הרודמה לידגמ ירהד דיגהל
Sifri in this commentary? We could answer simply that it is commonly
known that their motivation in speaking about their brother was not, G‑d .ל"כע רתומ ןיד
forbid, for the purpose of demeaning Moshe Rabbeinu, A”H, but only
because of their perception that he acted improperly in separating from his ליעל ראבתנש ןפואב ונייה .'וכ ול ררבתנש )חי(
wife, Tziporah. The Sifri held that their conversation resulted from their רוקמב ש"יעו ערה ןושל לבקל רתומש 'ז ללכב
conclusion that Moshe’s behavior was contrary to law, as they believed his
level of holy prophesy was no greater than that of any other prophet and ט"כ ח"כ ק"ס םייח םימ ראבבו ב"י ףיעס םייחה
that it would not have served as justification for separating from his wife, םיכייש םש םירכזנה םינידה לכ יכ בטיה ש"יעו 'ל
as the pasuk states (Devarim 12:2) (Miryam said) “Was Moshe the only
one to whom prophesy was given?” (We are also prophets and we did not .ןאכ ןכ םג
separate from our spouses). Therefore they agreed among themselves to
rebuke him because of his actions. ןמקל ןייע הז ןידל רוקמ .תלעותל ןיוכיש )טי(
Even though their conversation was purely altruistic, for Moshe’s benefit, .םייח םימ ראבב 'י ק"ס 'י ללכב
to rebuke him for separating from his wife, and as I will explain further on
th
in the 10 Kelal, if it becomes apparent that someone committed a crime .א"י ק"ס 'י ללכ ןמקל ןייע .רחא ןפואב )כ(
against his fellow Jew it is permitted to relate the incident to others if his
motivation is to create a beneficial outcome (please review that reference
carefully) and therefore it was permitted for them (Aharon and Miryam)
to speak privately about this matter, and still they were punished because
they spoke Lashon Hara, since they decided his behavior was contrary to 30 i.e., the rule that a court agent’s report to the Beit Din is immune from the
the law when they said “Was Moshe the only one?” They should not have laws of Lashon Hara and Rechilut.

187 210
volume 3 volume 3

7

VOL-3