Page 362 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Yud - Halachah 12 אי הכלה - י ללכ

Rebbe Yossi should reprimand Rebbe Chanina Ben Antignos and teach ואישהל רוסאש ומכו אוש עמש עמושהל אישהל
him not to behave in that way when Torah Scholars came to him, that in
suspecting them of not observing Taharot he was belittling \ humiliating .ינולפל השע ינולפש המ
them. An even better answer would be to see this incident in the context that
each of these two scholars were indignant because their colleague’s honor יאו ז"ט ק"ומב ןנירמאד הממ ונירבדל היאר דועו
was questioned (and each one spoke out in defense of his companion). יזחתמ אל רמאו יתאו אניד יבד אחילשב רקפתא
th
Please reference above what I wrote in the14 notation in the Be’er Mayim
Chayim of this Kelal. רקנת םהה םישנאה יניעה ביתכד אשיב אנשילכ
Similarly one may not question Rebbe Yehudah, how could he believe חילשו ןיד תיב חילש ףריחש י"שריפו הלענ אל
what they reported back to him to the point where he (seemingly) lost his םהה םישנאה יניעה י"שר שוריפלד( ינפרח רמא
temper and said “His father held scholars,” since the most he could have
done was only suspect what they said might be true. (And don’t answer he ואל יאד ירה )םריבאו ןתד ורמא חילשה לע רקנת
could conclude an opinion because two men reported back and they had the לש וחולשל ירש יוה אל אניד יבד אחולשד הלעמה
presumption of two witnesses – Don’t say this! Because the law forbids
accepting Lashon Hara even if two people report it, as I wrote above in the םריבאו ןתד והופריחש המ רפסל ה"ע ונבר השמ
rd
th
7 Kelal, the 3 halacha. Besides this, these two men had a self‑interest אלא ,תמא אוה רופיסהש ומצעב עדוי היהד ףא
in what they were reporting [and could not qualify as witnesses]). But one
can answer that since they were Torah Scholars they had the authority of הזב רפסמה תנוכ ןיאד םינפב ונבתכש ומכ יאדו
th
th
two witnesses. Please see above the 7 Kelal, the 7 halacha in a related .תלעותל
Be’er Mayim Chayim, the 20 notation. Or alternatively, the basis for
th
reacting as they did is the Gemara Yevamot (77a) “However, Shemuel and ןמיסב מ"חב אתיאד הממ ונירבד לע השקת אלו
his court were still in existence” (meaning, that if you are in doubt about
the law as expressed by one of his students, that the law was decided after םאד ושוריפו 'וכו ומצע תא הנאמ אוה םאד ח"כר
the fact, then you can go to his rabbi, Shemuel, and ask him to validate the לע האילפו( ואנוהל רתומ התא םירבדב ךתוא הנוה
decision since he is still alive). Please see that reference.
אידהל ןכ ראובמ ירהד הז שוריפ החדש ע"מסה לעב
ןיבל וניב ונייה )'סותה לעב ם"ארהל םיארי רפסב
Mekor Hachayim
ךניב היהש הז רבד תולגל אל לבא דבלב ומצע
K10/12. It is an obvious logical deduction that if this person did .םירחאל וניבל
no harm to the speaker but merely did not agree to extend to him
a requested favor, and this person has the resources to extend the ףד( תוכרבב ןנירמאד הממ ונירבד לע השקת אלו
favor, for example, to extend a loan or to extend some charity or ארמחד ינד האמ עברא היל ופיקת אנוה בר ):'ה
to extend his home in hospitality or something comparable. If the
speaker then goes and discloses this refusal to other people in order עימשד ןאמ אכיא יא ל"א 'וכו אדוהי בר היבגל לע
to demean this person, from the perspective of law the disclosure רמ ביהי אלד ןל עימש יכה ל"א אמיל אתלימ ילע
th
is absolute Lashon Hara, as I wrote above in the 5 Kelal, the
1 halacha. In so doing, the speaker also violates several other אק ימ ל"א אסיראל )ןפגה תורומז 'יפ( אשיבש
st
Laveen besides the esur of Lashon Hara, as I wrote above in that ףא אלהו ,הילוכ יל בינג אק אה ידימ יל קיבש

365 352
volume 3 volume 3