Page 245 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס 8 VOL-3
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Tet - Halachah 1 די הכלה - ח ללכ

Therefore, we are forced to say that when the Rambam concluded with לע ערָה ןוֹשׁל לבּקַל אלֶֹּשׁ ,הוּצְמ לארְָשׂי שׁיִא לכּ ,ךְכּ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ָ
ֻ
ִ
ֶ
the words “because he provokes the listener to denigrate the victim,” he
ָ
ִ
ַ
ִ
ֵ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ָ
was referring to the first two cases as well, and he was actually providing םיניִשׁלמוּ םיִסרְוֹקיִפּא לעֵמ ץוּח ,לארְָשׂיִּמ םדא םוּשׁ )וכ(
the source and the reason for that speech being forbidden, because if one
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
should not even praise his friend in front of his friend’s enemy because ."ךֶָתיִמֲע" ללכִּמ וּאציֶּשׁ ,םָתוֹא ,וּלּאבּ אצוֹיּכו
inevitably it will lead this enemy to respond by degrading the friend, how
much more so when the speaker begins with remarks that heap degradation
upon a fellow Jew, that those remarks are forbidden even if they are made
in front of people who are not the victim’s enemies. This is as Rabbeinu םייח םימ ראב
rd
Yonah writes in the 3 sha’ar of Shaare Teshuvah, section #226, quoted
as follows: “The subject of Avak Lashon Hara involves any language ילעב לע וליפאד רשפאו .לארשימ םדא םוש )וכ(
that encourages other people to speak Lashon Hara. (Please see the 2 nd
following extensive Hagahah). ןושל וילע רפסל רתומש םירמוא שיש תקולחמה
אלהד ,ערה ןושל לבקל ןיא כ"ג ,ח"סב ל"נכו ערה
רוסיא אוהד ףא ,הז ליבשב ךתימע ללכמ אצוי ןיא
nd
2 Hagahah ומכו ,הזב תועטל םוקמ ול שי אלה ,דואמ דע לודג
I have a question regarding the statements of both Rabbeinu Yonah and ןינעל אמלשבו .הזב אצויכב םימעפ המכ ונראיבש
the Rambam. ,ל"נכו הבירמה הזב טיקשהל ידכ ,וריתה רופיס
Why did both of them call this type of language Avak Lashon Hara עמשנש ערה ןושלהש אל םא .הלבק ןינעל כ"אשמ
(signifying a lesser transgression) when the remarks would have actually רכינ ולש תקולחמהמו ,תקולחמה ןיעמ אוה וילע
been forbidden by the Torah because the speaker would be causing the
listener to blindly stumble into committing a sin (the Torah’s Lav [Vayikrah ףיעס 'ז ללכב ליעל ןייעו ,תמא איה וזה ר"השלש
19:14] of “placing a stumbling block before the blind”). This case is very .םירכינ םירבד ןינעב ונכראהש 'י
similar to the case of a father hitting his adult son (and provoking the son
to hit him back). In this case the Gemara Moed Katan (17a) categorizes
the father as one who violates the Lav of “placing a stumbling block in
front of a blind person” since this father provoked his son to commit a םייחה רוקמ
sin against him. It is similarly comparable to the case in Gemara Babba
Metziah (75b), that someone who lends money without witnesses (or אוּה םִא ןיבּ ,ערָה ןוֹשׁל תלבּקַ רוּסִּאבּ קוּלִּח ןיא םגּ .די
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
documentation) violates the Torah’s Lav of “placing a stumbling block
ַ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ֵ
ֲ
ֲ
ְ
ְ
ָ
in front of a blind person,” as Rashi explains, because he gives an easy רֵתוֹיו .וֹתיבּ יֵשׁנאו וֹמִּאו ויִבאֵמ וֹא םירִחא םיִשׁנאֵמ עֵמוֹשׁ
opening for the borrower to deny that the loan ever took place even though
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ֶ
most certainly this was not the intention of either the father or the lender. האוֹר םִאֶשׁ ,א"כ קרֶפּ וּהיִּלא יבדּ אנָתבּ וּניִצמ )זכ( הֶזִּמ
Yet because they presented the opportunity for someone to commit a sin, ןוֹשׁל ,ןוֹגכּ ,םירִֵתי םירִבדּ םירִבּדְַמֶּשׁ ,וֹמִּאלוּ ויִבאל םדא
ְ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ְ
they themselves are in violation of the Lav of “Do not place an obstacle in
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ִ
the path of a blind person” as the Rambam writes in his Sefer HaMitzvot, אוּה אלּא ,םהירֵבדּ לבּקַל אלֶֹּשׁ רהזמֶּשׁ דבל ,המוֹדּכו ערָה
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ֻ
ְ
ַ
mitzvah (Lav) #299. That being the case, then here too in our discussion
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ֶ
the speaker presented an opening for the listener to commit a sin (and so וֹמכוּ ,דוֹבכּ ךְרֶדֶבּ הז היהיֶּשׁ רהזּיו( הזִּמ םָתוֹא עֹנְמִל ןכּ םגּ ךְירִצ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ְ
ִ
ֵ
235 226
volume 3 volume 3