Page 247 - V3

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

why is it only called Avak Lashon Hara without any mention of the sin of תא איִצוֹהל םכּחְתי םִא יִכּ ,םיִעְמוֹשּׁה יניֵעבּ םכחל הז רוּבֲע בָשׁחנ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
“stumbling block”?).
ְ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ידֵכּ ,תוּננוֹבְּתִה רחא קרַ ,וֹתנוּכּ ןבוּתּ אלֶֹּשׁ ,המרְע ןוֹשׁלִבּ םירִבדּה
ְ
ַ
Now, regarding the statement in the Gemara that “one should never ,ףכֵתּ הזִּמ רזעהל לכוּי אלֹ יִכּ ,המִּלכוּ ןוֹיזִּבבּ ראְשׁנ היהי וֹרבחֶשׁ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ֶ
ִ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ֶ
ִ
ָ
ֲ
(excessively) praise the goodness of his friend because he will come to
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ֶ
ֻ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ָ
demean him,” that both the Rambam and Rabbeinu Yonah understood to .לֹכּה יניֵעבּ םכחל הז ידֵי לע םכּסי רבדּה םסרְפְּתי רֶשׁאכּ םגו
mean only Avak Lashon Hara and not (a violation of the Torah’s Lav of)
“Do not place a stumbling block,” there does not seem to me to be a strong וּבּרַ ,הזּה גיִעלמּה לֶשׁ תוֹנוֲֹעה ןוֹבְּשׁח תא בֹשׁחל אוֹבנ םִא הֵנִּהְו
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
question. Because it is possible that in all the cases of “placing a stumbling
ְ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
block in the path of a blind person” the context was one of placing an ראֹבְמֶּשׁ וֹמכּ ,םירִבדּ תאנוֹא לֶשׁ ןוֹע )ב .תוּנציל ןוֲֹע )א .רֹפסִּמ
obstacle in front of someone in a manner that would most probably cause םיִמעְפּ המּכּ אוּה יוּצמ םגו .א"נר הוצִמ ם"בְּמרַל תוֹצִמּה רפסבּ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ָ
him to sin, such as, for example, handing a glass of wine to a Nazir, as
ֵ
ֵ
ִ
ָ
ֲ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ְ
is illustrated in Gemara Avodah Zara (6b) (even though Rashi qualifies רוּבֲע ארָקְנ םיִבּרַבּ וֹרבח ינְפּ ןיִבּלמוּ ,םיִבּרַבּ הז רבדּ וֹל רֵמוֹאֶשׁ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ַ
the action (in the citation beginning with the words “Do not hand a cup לכוּנ הזּה גיִעלמּה לעו .החיִתְפּבּ ליֵעל ןיּע ,תוֹנוֲֹע המּכּ דוֹעו .הז ֶ
ֵ
ְ
of wine to a Nazir”) saying that maybe the Nazir will drink the wine). ."ברֶח תוֹרקְדְמכּ הֶטוֹבּ שׁי" :)ח"י ב"י ילְשִׁמ( קוּספּה תא ארֹקְִל
ֶ
ֵ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
Similarly in Gemara Kedushin (32a) regarding an incident where Rav
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ָ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ֶ
ֶ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
Hunah tore silk fabrics in the presence of his son Rabbah (to teach him to .'ה תא ץאנ ,הזבּ הָשׂע המכח רבדּ יִכּ ,הזּה הֶטוֹבּה תא ללּהְמה םגו ְ
be patient in the mitzvah of honoring one’s father), the Gemara asks “but וֹתמרְע לע וֹחיִכוֹהל החכוֹה תוצִמ םיּקְַמ וֹניאֶשׁ ,וּנּמִּמ טעְמּה יִכּ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
perhaps he (Rabbah) would have gotten angry and Rav Hunah is therefore
ְ
ֵ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֱ
ֶ
culpable for violating the Lav of “Do not place a stumbling block in front ד"כ( ילְשִׁמבּ רמאנ הזכּ לעו ?הז רוּבֲע וּנּחבַּשׁי םגּ ףא ,וֹזּה הערָה
of a blind person.” And similarly, if a father hits his adult son, the Gemara עָשׁרָל ףינחמ ללכִבּ אוּהו ,'וֹגו "הָתּא קידּצ עָשׁרָל רֵמֹאְ" :)ד"כ
ִ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ְ
Moed Katan (17a) says the father violates the Lav of “placing a stumbling
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ֵ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֲ
ֲ
ֲ
ָ
ֱ
ַ
block in front of a blind person.” Even though Rashi explains there as המּה םיִמכח" :רמאנ וּלּאכּ םיִשׁנא לעו ,הרָבֲע ירֵבוֹע ידֵי קיזחמוּ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ְ
well (citation beginning with “He transgressed”) that the father causes the ."וּעדי אלֹ ביִטיהלוּ ערַהל
son to possibly commit a sin against him, implying that although it is not
a certainty that the son will sin against his father, it is considered to be a
near certainty. But here in our case, when the speaker praises his fellow
Jew, even though the Gemara (Rav Dimi) says that “in praising one’s
friend one will come to degrade him,” still our case is nowhere close to the .בא 'ד ,'ב רדא ג"כ ,ולסכ ד"י - תרבועמ הנש .בא 'י ,ןסינ 'י ,ולסכ 'י - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
characteristic circumstances described in the other cited references.
I do, however, have a question regarding the straightforward (unqualified) םייחה רוקמ
statement of Rabbeinu Yonah that Avak Lashon Hara is defined as
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ַ
whenever someone’s remarks will cause another person to speak Lashon ןוֹשׁל תלבּקַ ןינִע .*ערָה ןוֹשׁל תלבּקַ ןידּ ראבנ הָתּעו .גי
Hara. So too the language of the Rambam who wrote regarding Avak
ַ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ֲ
ְ
ְ
Lashon Hara “someone remarked…causing someone else to respond with ןיִמאהל אלֶֹּשׁ ,וּניהדּ ,הזִּמ הרָוֹתּה וּנל הרָיִהזִהֶשׁ ,ערָה
language that denigrated the victim,” the implication being that in any and תא ראבלוּ ךְירִאהל וּנל ךְרֶֹצ ןיא .תמא רבדּהֶשׁ ,בלּבּ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
ֵ
ֲ
ֱ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
all circumstances whenever those remarks cause someone else to denigrate
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
a fellow Jew the remarks are only characterized as Avak Lashon Hara (and יִכּ ,וילע לבּקְַמ אוּהֶשׁ שׁיִאה תאו לבּקְַמה לֶשׁ וֹתוּהמ
ָ
ֵ
not as placing a stumbling block before the blind). And it is would be a
ַ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ָ
forced answer to say that (Rambam and Rabbeinu Yonah) meant that the אוּה רוּצּקִבּ םירִבדּה ללכּ אלּא .קוּלִּח וֹבּ אצְמנ אלֹ טעְמִכּ
237 224
volume 3 volume 3