Page 147 - V1

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

this too would be absolutely forbidden. (According to the opinion ,רֵמוֹאה דצִּמ אוּה אָתלְתּ יפּאדּ רֵתּהה לכדּ דוֹע עדַו .י
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ָ
of the Yad HaKetana (24) even if this administrator only said that
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ָ
his opinion from the very beginning favored dealing leniently with ,עֵמוֹשּׁה עבֶט תא עדֵוֹי אוּה םִא ,וּניהדּ ,עֵמוֹשּׁה דצִּמ לבא
the person concerned, but a vote was taken and the decision was לכוּיו ןוֹעְמִשׁ לע תמאל הז רבדּ לבּקַי עמְשׁיֶּשׁכּ ףכֵתֶּשׁ
ַ
ֶ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ֶ
ֱ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ֵ
made based on the majority’s opinion, this too would be absolutely
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ָ
forbidden). And it makes no difference in the conclusion of this רוּסא הזכּ םדאל ,וילע יאנגִל םירִבדּ דוֹע ףיִסוֹיֶּשׁ ,תוֹיהִל
law (that the remarks are forbidden) if the administrator himself
ַ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ֲ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ֶ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ְ
voluntarily disclosed the deliberation proceedings or if a fellow Jew רפּסְמהו ,ינוגּ לכבּ וֹרבח לע יאנגּ לֶשׁ זמרֶ םוּשׁ רמוֹל
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ֱ
ֵ
ֶ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
insulted him because of a decision they reached regarding so and so. וּנכרַאהֶשׁ וֹמכוּ ,"לוֹשׁכִמ ןֵתִּת אלֹ רוִּע ינְפִלּ"א רבוֹע וֹל
In all circumstances it is forbidden to blame the other administrators
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
for the negative decision and exempt himself from being a party to .םָשׁ ןיּע ,הז ואלבּ החיִתְפּבּ ליֵעל
that decision even though it is the truth.
ריִכּזי אלֹ םִא וּלִּפא אוּה ,רוּסִּאל הז ללכִבּ וּנבַתכֶּשׁ הז לכו
ָ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ֲ
ַ
ְ
Be'er Mayim Chayim on page 457
ֵ
ְ
ָ
קרַ ,אָתלְתּ יפּאבּ רפִּסֶּשׁ ןוֹשׁארִה רפּסְמה םֵשׁ הזּה רפּסְמה
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
ֵ
K2/12. I have found it necessary to explicitly write down the
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ֲ
ִ
ָ
ְ
following law because I have seen that many people have become לע ףא( יִכה וּלִּפא ,ינוֹלְפּ לע עמְשׁנ ךְכו ךְכֶּשׁ ,םָתס רפּסי
ַ
ַ
used to the idea of criticizing someone who lectures in the Beit ָ
ֵ
Midrash. The law forbids this. .רוּסא )ןכ יִפּ
The law forbids anyone from ridiculing the lecturer and saying that
ְ
his words are meaningless and not worth listening to. Because of המּכּ ,יִחא הארְ ,וּנרְאבֶּשׁ הלּאה תמאהו םירִבדּה לכּ ירֲֵחַאו
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ֶ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ֱ
ַ
Mekor Hachayim wrong with making critical remarks. The law is that remarks such ןוּיִּע ךְירִצ ןכּ םגּ ,םיִטרְָפּה לכּ וּפרְטצי םִא ףאֶשׁ טרְָפִבוּ
the very many sins of society, it has become a familiar occurrence
ָ
ֻ
ָ
ֵ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
,תוּאיִצְמּבּ םוֹקמ הּל ןיא טעְמִכֶּשׁ ,וֹז אלּקִּמ קחרְַתִהל שׁי
ַ
ֵ
ָ
that many people do criticize the lecturer and think there is nothing
ָ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ִ
ֵ
as these are absolute Lashon Hara since they often cause the lecturer
ַ
ְ
םוּשׁ ןיא םיקִסוֹפּ הבּרְה תעדַלֶּשׁ ירֵחא ,וֹז העדֵכּ הכלה םִא
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ֲ
ֲ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
monetary damages and occasionally lead to anguish and humiliation.
Even if the remarks were truthful, (it makes no difference) Lashon
ְ
ָ
ראבִבּ 'ד ןטקָ ףיִעס ףוֹסבּ וּנבַתכֶּשׁ וֹמכוּ( ס"ַשּׁהֵמ וֹז אלּקֻל רוֹקמ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ְ
Hara is forbidden even if it is the truth .
ַ
ִ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
ִ
ַ
ִ
ַ
What useful outcome did this critic have in mind when he ridiculed
st
the lecturer? (Please see the 1 following Hagahah). If the critic
himself was a principled person he would have done just the .הזִּמ קחרְי וֹשְׁפנ רֵמוֹשּׁה ןכל ,)םייּח םימ
opposite. He should have approached the lecturer privately and
explained to him how his lecture material should be changed since
the way it is now being presented is having no effect. By so doing
this “critic” would also fulfill the mitzvah of expressing a love for
his fellow Jew just as he loves himself (Vayikrah 19:18). But under
117 112
volume 1 volume 1