Page 95 - VOL-2

Sefer Chafetz Chayim
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara

Kelal Gimal - Halachah 1

This is the language of the Rambam in Hilchot De’Aut chapter 7, 5th
halacha: “One who speaks Lashon Hara whether in the presence of his
fellow Jew (i.e., the “victim”) or not in his presence.” It is clear that
the Rambam is talking about remarks that are truthful (and are therefore
categorized as Lashon Hara and not “slander” \ “motzie shem ra”), just as
the Rambam himself wrote at the beginning of this perek in the second
halacha. Please reference the question posed there by the Kesef Mishneh
(at the end of the 4th halacha) as to why in the gemara’s discussion of
this subject did the Rambam decide the law was not like the opinion of
Rabbah, who follows the opinion of Rebbe Yossi. This is the language of
the gemara in Arachin (15b): Rabbah said “Remarks made directly to the
victim do not have the status of Lashon Hara.” Abaye answered Rabbah,
“All the more so here (are the remarks forbidden since) the remarks are
certainly arrogant and Lashon Hara.” Rabbah answered, “I hold like Rebbe
Yossi who said ‘Never once in my life did I have to retract something that
I said’.”

It is appropriate now, with the help of Hashem Yitbarach, to carefully
explain Rebbe Yossi’s words. Do not explain the “words” referred to
by Rebbe Yossi as meaning “words” that if they were spoken in private
(between the speaker and the “victim”) would be forbidden because they
were oppressive. For example, if the victim was a Ba’al Teshuvah, and
the speaker reminded him of what he had done in the past, or if he was an
ordinary Jew and the speaker reminded him what his father or relatives
had done (in the past) or made some other slanderous remarks to degrade
the “victim.” It would have been unequivocally forbidden to make those
remarks to him in front of his friends, and the fact that he was willing to
make those remarks directly to the “victim” does not give them any status
of permissibility, as discussed in the Sifri that was cited above (in the
2nd Kelal, the 1st notation) as follows (Devarim 24:9), “Remember what
Hashem your G‑d did to Miryam etc.,” that the punishment of nega’im
(lesions \ Tzara’at) comes only as a result of the sin of speaking Lashon
Hara. The obvious inference (from this Sifri) regarding Miryam who only
spoke out (for the benefit of her brother and sister-in-law) when she was
not in the presence of her brother Moshe, etc. (was that her remarks were
Lashon Hara and she was punished with nega’im), and all the more so
if the remarks are arrogant or contain Lashon Hara (will this speaker be
punished)! This is consistent with (Abaye’s statement that) “the remarks
are certainly arrogant and Lashon Hara. In this context the remarks are
absolute Lashon Hara as defined by the Torah and they are forbidden in all

85

volume 2