Page 251 - V3

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

Hunah not antagonized his son, most probably Rabbah would not have וֹנוֲֹעדּ ,םירִכנ ינְפִבּ וּהנּגְמ םִא ןכֶּשׁ לכו ,לארְָשׂי ינְפִבּ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
ֵ
ֵ
ֵ
ְ
ִ
ָ
ַ
spoken out against him, the understanding of the gemara is that this is
ִ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
a case of “standing on two opposites banks of a river” and the father is לארְָשׂי דוֹבכּ הזּבְמ אוּהֶשׁ דבלִּמ יִכּ ,רֵתוֹי הבּרְה לוֹדגּ
therefore culpable for violating the Lav of “stumbling block.”
הערָ הזבּ םרֵוֹגּ אוּה דוֹע ,הז ידֵי לע םימָשׁ דוֹבכּ ללּחְמוּ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ֶ
ַ
ִ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
Given that this is so, then the same argument applies in our case even
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ֲ
ֵ
ֵ
ַ
ֵ
ִ
ֵ
ֲ
ַ
ְ
though without the speaker’s remarks the listener would have the choice, ןינִע לארְָשׂי ינְפִבּ וֹרבח לע רפּסי םִא יִכּ ,וֹרבחל הּבּרַ
the free will to speak Lashon Hara (had he so decided). But even so, since לארְָשׂי לע רפּסי םִא לבא ,וירָבדְִל ףכֵתּ טיִלחי אלֹ ,תוּנגּ
ְ
ִ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ֲ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
this listener did not initially say anything at all about the character of the
“victim” and then the speaker did begin to praise the victim’s “goodness” תוֹיּרִבּל הנּאְמוּ יאמּרַ אוּה הזּה לארְָשׂיּהֶשׁ ,ירִכנ ינְפִבּ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ָ
and because of his remarks the listener responded with comments that were
ַ
ָ
ִ
ֶ
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ֵ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
Lashon Hara (against the victim), the speaker, therefore, is considered to לֹכ ינְפִבּ הז רבדּ םסרְפיו הזל ףכֵתּ טיִלחי ,הזבּ אצוֹיּכו
have prepared the opportunity for the listener to commit a sin and this is
ְ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ֶ
comparable to “two opposite banks of a river.” אקְָפנּה וּשׁרְפֶּשׁ המּבּ ):ט"ל ףדּ( ארְָתבּ אבבבּ תוֹפסוֹתּבּ אָתיִא הז ןיֵעכוּ(
ַ
ִ
ֻ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ֶ
ֵ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
Therefore our answer is correct and it must be that they (Rabbeinu Yonah .הזִּמ רעצו קזּה וֹל בבּסיו ,)םָשׁ ןיּע ,האחמל ערָה ןוֹשׁל ןיבּ הּנִּמ
and the Rambam) omitted mention of the Lav of “stumbling block” only
ָ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ֵ
ֵ
ַ
ִ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
because they wanted to include all possibilities (namely both cases; the ,םירִכנ ינְפִבּ לארְָשׂי לע ןיִשׁלמוּ ךְלוֹה אוּה םִא ןכֶּשׁ לכו
case where the speaker did not precipitate the listener to speak Lashon
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
Hara and the case where the speaker did provoke the listener to speak ללכִבּ הז ידֵי לע סנכנ אוּה יִכּ ,אשׂנִּמ לוֹדגּ וֹנוֲֹע יאדּובּ
Lashon Hara for which the speaker is then liable both for Avak Lashon הרָוֹתּבּ םירְִפוֹכּהו סרֵוֹקיִפּאל הוָשׁ וֹנידּו ,םיניִשׁלמּה
ִ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ֶ
Hara and for violating the Lav of “stumbling block”).
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
וֹמכּ ,םיִלכּ םניא םהו ,הלכּ םֹנִּהיגֶּשׁ ,םיִתֵמּה תיִּחְתִבוּ
ֵ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
,).ז"י ףַדּ( הָנָשַּׁה שׁארֹ תֶכֶסַּמְבּ וּניִנָשֶּׁשׁ
Be’er Mayim Chayim
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
ִ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ָ
(K9/1/2)-(2)… I don’t want to say: This does not contradict what we דע הזִּמ וֹמצע תא רֹמְשִׁל לארְָשׂי שׁיִא לכּ ךְירִצ ןכּ לַע
wrote above in the 1 Kelal, 8 halacha, that Lashon Hara told in the form לארְָשׂי לע *ןיִשׁלמוּ ךְלוֹהו הז לע רבוֹעֶשׁ יִמוּ .דֹאְמ
th
st
ַ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ֵ
of a hint is actual Lashon Hara (and not merely Avak Lashon Hara). Please
th
see the Be’er Mayim Chayim in that reference (13 notation) where we הֶשֹׁמ תרַוֹתבּ די םירִהו ףדּגו ףרֵח וּלִּאכּ אוּה ירֵה ,םהינְפִבּ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ֲ
ֵ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ִ
ֵ
mentioned that this was also Rashi’s opinion. (There is no contradiction
because) it is possible to say that there he was relating the story as it .)ו"כ ןָמיִס( טָפְּשִׁמ ןֶשֹחְבּ קָסְפִנֶּשׁ וֹמְכוּ ,םוֹלָשַּׁה ויָלָע וּנֵבּרַ
happened except that he was relating the story in the form of a hint, just
obscuring what actually happened so that only the intended listener would
understand but not anyone else. But that is not so in our case (where he did
not relate the story at all), and therefore the only esur is Avak Lashon Hara. Chayim’s Sefer Shemirat HaLashon, in the postscript at the end of Book
Nevertheless, that too (Avak Lashon Hara) is forbidden. And all the more 1. (Mazal Press, 2006, distributed by Feldheim Publishers, New york and
so (it would be forbidden) if they asked him about a person (the “victim”) Israel, 2006):
and the speaker answered (I would tell you, except that) “I don’t want to The following postscript is relevant to the 8 perek of Shaar HaZechirah
th
say any Lashon Hara about that person,” since this remark most certainly where the subject of that chapter is – “Informing” on a fellow Jew to
reflects disparagingly upon the victim. governmental authorities. It is quoted from his Sefer ‘Shem Olam.’
241 220
volume 3 volume 3