Page 355 - V1

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Beit ‑ Halachah 1 ב הכלה - ב ללכ

Please see in the referenced page of gemara (39b) the commentary of the עמשימל אכיאד םירבד וילע רמאש ול רפיס םא ךא
Tosafot, the citation beginning with the words “does not contain any” where
they explain that this rule of Rabbah Bar Rav Hunah permits one to speak הזב ןכ םג יולת אשיב אנשיל םושמ הרמא אלד
Lashon Hara to a group of three people because inevitably “word will get רמול שייבתמ היהש ןפואב הרמוא םא ,ןורחאה
out” and it is as if the remarks were made directly to the person who is
the subject of those remarks which is permissible following the opinion ואל םאו ,רוסא ל"נה יול ונייהד ןושארה ינפב הז
of Rebbe Yossi (Gemara Arachin 15b). However, the Tosafot’s position .רתומ הז ןפואב אתלת יפאב ןידה אוהו .רתומ
is very problematic! For if the person is lying there is no question that he
is considered to be a “rachil,” a gossip, even if the remarks are verbalized םא ,הזב ןכ םג יולת תוליכרה לבקל ןידה אוהו
to three people and even if they are spoken directly to the “victim” of the
st
Lashon Hara (please see the following 1 Hagahah). We see this from הז רמול שייבתמ היה אלו יאנג לש וניאש רבד אוה
the Gemara Ketubot (46a) where the gemara asks “Where do we find in יכה ואלב לבא ,לבקל ןכ םג רתומ ןושארה ינפב
the Torah a forewarning to a person who defames his wife? (Answer)
30
(Vayikrah 19:16) “Do not go out peddling gossip in society” and in the ומכו אתלת יפאב רפיסש ףא לבקל ןכ םג רוסא
case described in the Torah where a man defamed his wife his remarks רוסא ינווג לכבד םיבותכהמ היאר הלעמל ונבתכש
were made in front of a Beit Din, as the gemara describes (there on pages
46a and 11b) “He came to the court.” Also, the remarks were made in the .תוליכרו ערה ןושל לבקל
presence of the “victim” as is explained by the Sifri in paragraph #235 in
the commentary on the pasuk (Devarim 22:14) “and he said, I married this ךכ רחא רתומ אהיש 'סותה ירבד יפל וניצמ אל הנהו
woman and she etc.” From this we learn that his testimony can only be ףא ךכו ךכ ךילע רביד ינולפ וריבחל רפסלו ךליל
given in her presence. This concept is also stated by Rashi in Chumash
nd
(Devarim 22:14). (Please see the following 2 Hagahah). Nevertheless .ם"בשר שוריפל ומכ אתלת יפאב רבדה עמש םא
this speaker is called a “gossip.” But even if what he said was truthful, we ג"מסה לע וירואיבב אידהב ל"שרהמב יתאצמ ןכו
st
have already explained in the 1 Kelal (in the first notation of the Be’er
Mayim Chayim) that all Authorities agree that Lashon Hara and Rechilut
are forbidden even if the remarks are true.
50 Translator’s note following from the commentary of Rabbi Binyamin
Given that this is so, Tosafot’s understanding is very difficult, for why Cohen in his Sefer Chelkat Binyamin on Sefer Chafetz Chayim (5764,
would it be permissible to degrade “someone” in front of three people, Brooklyn, NY): The Yerushalmi seems to hold (Sanhedrin 3rd perek, the
especially since the Torah is so strict about the degradation of anyone? gemara on the 10th halacha) that each judge signs his individual opinion
Why would you think to allow this degradation if it was in front of three on the verdict, and here in this case there is a two-to-one majority verdict.
The minority judge, in signing his dissenting opinion, is in fact speaking
people? In fact it is the exact opposite that is true! The larger the audience Rechilut against the majority judges in disclosing his opinion to the loser
who hears these degrading remarks, the greater is the speaker’s sin. This of this case, as this loser will now bear complaints against the two majority
is explicit in the Sifri in perashat Devarim (Devarim 1:1) “and what of judges. According to Rebbe Yochanan, since it is forbidden for this minority
Miryam who only made her remarks privately and they were “heard” only judge to sign his dissenting opinion against the majority judges even
though it is in front of them, so too there is no leniency of speaking Rechilut
in front of three people. Meaning, the leniency of “in the presence of three
0 The Torah (Devarim 22:13-19) speaks about a man who defames his newly people” evolves from the presumption that it is equivalent to making those
wedded wife, saying that he did not find signs of virginity in her. If he is remarks directly to the victim. But since we see here that it is forbidden to
found to be a liar he will receive lashes from the Beit Din and he must pay a make those remarks directly to the victim, then there is no leniency here of
monetary penalty of 00 Shekalim to her father. “in the presence of three people.”

325 352
volume 1 volume 1