Page 125 - VOL-2

Sefer Chafetz Chayim
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara

Kelal Gimal - Halachah 6

Be’er Mayim Chayim

(3/6/1)-(6) that even if nothing harmful happens: Referencing

the Gemara Arachin (16a) “That is not a question! Here, there was a
consequence of his actions.” If there is a consequence to the speaker’s
remarks (Lashon Hara), the speaker will be punished with Nega’im. If
there is no consequence to his remarks, the “Meh’eel” of the Kohein Gadol
will bring a Kapparah. Please reference Rashi’s comments there, that
the word “consequence” refers to a confrontation that was an outcome
of his (Lashon Hara) remarks. Although Rashi explained this concept
(i.e., “where there is a consequence to his actions”) in the framework of
Rechilut, there are other ramifications as well in the framework of Lashon
Hara. Or even if we did not see that this victim was publicly humiliated by
the remarks but the denigrating remarks were accepted by these listeners
and they began to discuss the victim, saying the victim was not right in
a certain matter just as the speaker had said about him,” this discussion
itself demonstrates the remarks did have an impact on the listeners (and
the remarks are Lashon Hara).

And with this we can resolve the question posed by the Gaon Rabbi
Yeshaya Pic in his commentary on Sheh’el’taut (Sheh’elat Shalom,
Meh’tzaurah, 105th notation) regarding the answer posed by the gemara
(that one is punished with Tzara’at if his remarks cause an impact). (He
asked) “What was the reason Miryam was punished with Tzara’at since
there was no argument or dispute that ensued from her remark?” This
approach cannot be because “dispute” is not a basis for culpability except
in matters of Rechilut since the intent of the speaker is to provoke a dispute
and argument between two people. But that is not the case in matters of
Lashon Hara, since the speaker’s intent is to convince the listener to agree
to what he had said and lead the listener to also speak out against the
victim, most assuredly as long as we see the speaker’s remarks made an
impression on his listeners and convinced them to also speak out against
the “victim,” the remarks are characterized by Chazal as “where there is
a consequence to his actions” (and the remarks are Lashon Hara). Thus
we find regarding Miryam (Bamidbar 12:1) “and Miryam and Aharon
spoke about Moshe” the Sifri (commenting on that pasuk) explains that

Please see Book 2 of Sefer Shemirat HaLashon, perashat Teh’tza’veh,
which contains a discussion explaining the atonement brought about by the
“Meh’eel” (the tunic) worn by the Kohein Gadol.

115

volume 2