Page 249 - V3

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

speech is Avak Lashon Hara in addition to a violation of the Torah’s Lav of :ה"הגה
“Do not place a stumbling block in front of a blind person.”
ןהירֵבח לע ןיִליִלֲעמוּ םידִֵע ןירִכוֹשׂ םיִשׁנא שׁיֶּשׁ ,עוּדיֶּשׁ וֹמכּ *
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ֲ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ַ
A possible answer to the question of why the Lav of “stumbling block”
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ֱ
ַ
ָ
was not mentioned together with the esur of Avak Lashon Hara is because ההגּה( .תוּכלמּה יֵטְפוֹשׁ ינְפִבּ רֶשֹיבוּ תמאבּ אלֶֹּשׁ םנוֹממ איִצוֹהל
ֲ
ִ
ֶ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ַ
Chazal wanted to broaden the subject and include a situation where even .)הרָוּזנצּה תמחֵמ ,הארְנּכּ ,וֹז
without the speaker’s direct remarks the listener would have come to
speak Lashon Hara and the speaker in this case would not be culpable for
violating the esur of “stumbling block” but would be culpable for speaking :ה"הגה
Avak Lashon Hara. As Chazal teach in Gemara Avodah Zara (6b), that the ,וֹז הכלהֵמ םינינִע המּכו המּכּ הזּה ללכּבּ ראבל 'ה ינרַזֲעֶשׁ ירֲֵחַאו
ְ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֲ
ִ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ִ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ָ
Lav of “stumbling block” is present only in a circumstance where they are
ֵ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ֻ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ֶ
“standing on opposite banks of a river” (meaning that this person could לע דחיְמֶּשׁ רפסּה ןינִעֵמ הז ןיאֶשׁ ףא ,דחא רבדּ דוֹע ראבל יִתּרְמא
not have committed a sin without the active help of someone else, as in the אוּהֶשׁ ינְפִּמ ,הזִּמ יִתְּענְמנ אלֹ ןכ יִפּ לע ףא ,ערָה ןוֹשׁל רוּסִּא יֵטרְָפּ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
case of someone handing a glass of wine to a Nazir, that he is only guilty
ִ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ְ
if they are on opposite sides of a river and the Nazir cannot reach the wine גיִעלהל וּהֵתיִסְמ רציּהֶשׁכּ :אוּהו .םדא ינבּ הבּרְה וֹבּ ןיִלָשׁכנֶּשׁ רבדּ
ְ
ֵ
ֵ
ֵ
ַ
on his own). However in a case where had the speaker not remarked שׁוּרפבּ וֹל רמאֹי אלֶֹּשׁ ןכּ םגּ וּהֵתּפְמ אוּה ,וֹרבחֵמ ץצוֹלְתִהלוּ
ְ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
(not praised his friend) the listener would not have come to the point of היהי אלֹ םגו ,םילְפִכבּ וֹדּגנ ביִשׁי וֹרבח יִכּ ,אוּהה לוּתִּההו געלּה
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ֲ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ֶ
ִ
speaking Lashon Hara, (egs., if the two of them had not been speaking
about the “victim” at all) and it is only now that the speaker made his
remarks that he provoked the listener to speak Lashon Hara and denigrate the road belonging to a gentile. From a distance away the gentile saw
his friend, then in this case we would definitely say that the speaker is also what happened and ran towards the wagon to beat-up its passenger, the
culpable for violating the Lav of “stumbling block.” Gaon. The Gaon intended to tell this gentile that it was not his fault at
all, that he was not negligent and that it was the fault of the wagon driver
And do not try to resolve the question by arguing that (the reason why the who was not careful and did not properly control his horse. But instead,
esur of “stumbling block” was not mentioned is because that esur applies) the Gaon strengthened himself and did not answer the gentile. Later, the VOL-3
Gaon remarked that had he answered the gentile he would have stepped
only in a situation where “they are standing on two opposite banks of a over the line of halacha and would have become an informer (because
river” where it is absolutely impossible for the Nazir to violate the esur truthfully the wagon driver was also legally innocent as this law is well
of drinking wine without this other person’s active help, but our case is known). But even if the wagon driver was guilty of negligence, the most he
not comparable (because it was physically possible for the listener to would be liable for would be the compensation owed to the gentile for his
transgress the esur of Lashon Hara without the speaker’s provocation). loss but certainly not to be beaten up. Had he spoken up, the Gaon would
Do not say this! For from the gemara’s case of a father hitting his adult son have been liable for causing an undeserved loss to a fellow Jew since the
we see that this argument has no basis (because it was physically possible driver was not legally responsible. (Had the Gaon informed on the wagon
for the son to have hit the father without the father’s provocation and this drive) Necessarily he would have had to be reincarnated as a mad dog and
case is nevertheless considered to be an example of “placing a stumbling neither his Torah learning nor his mitzvot would have been enough to save
him.
block before the blind”). Similarly, from the gemara’s case in Masechet
Kedushin (33a) regarding the incident when Rav Hunah tore up bolts of (All this was told to me by the great righteous sage, our teacher, Rabbeinu
Yehoshua, of blessed memory, the author of Sefer Chosen Yehoshuah and
silk in front of his son, and the gemara asks perhaps he (Rav Hunah) would Sefer Maoz HaDat, who heard it from the pure righteous sage, our teacher,
have provoked his son to become angry and in so doing become liable Rabbeinu David Taybeel, of blessed memory, who was the presiding judge
for violating the esur of “stumbling block.” Now, it is physically possible of the city of Minsk, who in turn heard it from the Maor HaGolah, our 8
that the son (Rabbah) could have become angry even without Rav Hunah teacher Rabbeinu Chayim, of blessed memory, who was the senior-most
having torn his silk, but as long as the circumstances were that had Rav student of the Vilna Gaon, his memory is a legacy for peace).
239 222
volume 3 volume 3