Page 140 - V1

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס 5 VOL-1
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Beit 'ב ללכ - םייחה רוקמ

ֵ
no circumstances should this critic make a public mockery of the לע )כ( םסרְפְמ םִא וּלִּפא ,דֹאְמ רהזִּל ךְירִצ ןכּ לַעו
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ֻ
ָ
ֲ
ַ
lecturer. The leniency of “in the presence of three people” does
ְ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ַ
not apply in this circumstance (25), as I explained in detail in Be’er הָתּע דעו זאֵמ ךְא ,וֹתוּרֲענבּ הָשׂעֶשׁ ערַל דחא ןינִע םדא
Mayim Chayim. (Please see the following 2 Hagahah).
nd
וּיה אלֶֹּשׁ ,ויָתוֹבא לע םסרְפְמֶּשׁ וֹא ,הרָוּשּׁכּ גהנְתִמ אוּה
ָ
ֲ
ָ
ַ
ֻ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֲ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ֵ
ֶ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
יאהכּ לכו ,םהיכרְדַבּ זחוֹא וֹניא אוּהו ,ללכּ הרָוּשּׁכּ םיגהוֹנ
nd
2 Hagahah
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
,וילע הלוע ןיא תמא יִפּ לעֶשׁ רבדבּ )הזבּ אצוֹיּכּ לכו( אנוגּ
ֵ
ֱ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
Unless the lecture contains heresy, G-d forbid, and we are not talking about
ֵ
ֵ
ֲ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
this kind of (heretical) speaker here. Please see what I wrote further on in רבוֹע אוּהֶשׁ יִמוּ ,הזבּ וירָבח לצא וֹתוֹזּבלוּ וֹתוֹנּגל רוּסא
th
th
the 8 Kelal, 5 halacha.
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ֵ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ֲ
אלֶֹּשׁ וּלִּפא ,םדא ינבּ ינְפִבּ וּלּא םירִבדְִבּ רפּסְמוּ הז לע
ַ
ֲ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
רבדּ םוּשׁ ףיִסוֹי אלֹ וּלִּפא ,וֹמּע יניֵעבּ וֹתוֹזּבל ידֵכּ ,וינפבּ
st
1 Hagahah
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
םניאֶשׁ ,ערָה ןוֹשׁל ירְֵפּסְמ תכּ ללכִּמ אוּה ,תמאה לע
ָ
ֱ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ָ
My brother, understand that all this is relevant even if the critic’s ridiculing
ַ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ֲ
remarks were true. Nevertheless it is forbidden to emphasize these remarks רמאמבּ הבוּשְׁתּ ירֲֵעַשׁבּ בַתכֶּשׁ וֹמכּ ,הניִכְשׁ ינְפּ םיִלבּקְַמ
for the purpose of demeaning the lecturer. If one gives some careful
ֵ
ֶ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ַ
thought to this, they will discover that the critic adds many lies to his לֶשׁ רֵתּהה( אָתלְתּ יפּאדּ ארֵָתּה ללכּ הז לע ךְיַּשׁ אלֹו ,ד"יר
mockery. Often one will find that when one comes to criticize a lecturer יִפּ לעֶשׁ ירֵחא ,לֹכ יִפבּ םסרְפְמ הז רבדֶּשׁ ףא ,)הָשלְֹשׁ ינְפִבּ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ֻ
ַ
ֶ
ֲ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
he will say that the lecturer himself does not know what he is talking about
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ֱ
and will ridicule the lecturer with such mockery and sarcasm as to frighten :ח"י לאקֵזחיִבּ בַתכֶּשׁ וֹמכּ ,הזבּ יאנגּ םוּשׁ וילע ןיא תמא
the hearts of the people who are listening to this lecturer’s message. אלֹ הָשׂע רֶשׁא ויעָשְׁפּ לכּ 'וֹגו באה ןוֲֹעבּ אָשּׂי אלֹ ןבּ"
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ֲ
ִ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ַ
Mekor Hachayim But, truthfully, that just is not so! Because even if it were true that if he
Worse than this, the critic slanders the lecturer saying that his only motive
ְ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ִ
ְ
.תוֹיּרִבּה יִפבּ געלל הז רוּבֲע וּהֵשׂוֹע אוּהו ,'וֹגו "וּרכזּי
ְ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ַ
for speaking is to satisfy a personal need (egs., to collect a speaker’s fee).
was not in need to support his household he would not have left his home
to encourage people to improve their ways, how could this critic \ scoffer
claim that the lecturer’s motivation was just for the money? Maybe the
lecturer’s primary intention while speaking was to lecture the people so
that they would hear some words of mussar and Yir’at Shamayim, only
that he also would like the support of his audience, as we find among the
teachings of Chazal, that we are obligated to support the teachers of Torah
with all of our resources.
9
Even if the lecturer wanted to collect a fee but he also wanted to increase
the level of Torah observance of his audience, the lecturer is still called a
Please reference the Chafetz Chayim’s Sefer Shemirat HaLashon, 5 perek for
th
an extensive discussion of this topic.
119 110
volume 1 volume 1