Page 356 - V1

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Beit ‑ Halachah 2 א הכלה - ב ללכ

you,” is also dependent on the same factors: To tell the “victim” that so- ןועה ערה ןושלה תרימא תעב םיעמושה וברתיש
and-so said something degrading about “you” would certainly be forbidden
even if the speaker knows that he would say this in front of so and so who .לודג רתוי אוה
had made those degrading remarks, or in a case where he is speaking in the
42
presence of three people; the “victim” and two other people. (A proof המכ וילע ורבד ןידכ אלש ינפמ םתהד רמול ןיאו
to this is that if it was not so, then the Tosafot should have established the יעבימ אלד וניא הזד ,אוה ךורב שודקה בישהש
context of the statement of Rebbe Yossi and Rabbah Bar Rav Hunah as
being a case of language that was actually degrading, such as Rechilut, וילע רמול ןוגכ וריבחל תונגל אמלעב יאנגב
which is also called Lashon Hara, as the Rashbam explains there in Babba וריבח חיר תא שיאבמ הזב רשא הטושו יתפ אוהש
Batra (39a, citation beginning with the words “was spoken to”), that
Rabbah Bar Rav Hunah was talking about a case of Rechilut. םיברה וניתונועב דואמ יוצמ הז רבדו( לכ ןיעל
Another proof to this comes from a statement made by Rava in Gemara ויתולועפל םיכסיו וריבחל ףינחי אל דחא םא רשא
Moed Katan (16a) according to the text version of the Rosh (Gemara Moed ןיעל ותוא םסרפיו וילע זוב ךופשי ףכית תוערה
rd
th
Katan, 3 perek, 5 notation) and the [Ran] (the Nemukei Yosef on the Rif,
Gemara Moed Katan, 8a, citation beginning with the word “trivialized”). בטומ ל"זח ורמא הזב אצויכ לעו יתפלו הטושל לכ
Their text version states that if the Beit Din was trivialized in front of a העש עשר היהי לאו וימי לכ הטוש ארקיש םדאל
prestigious person, meaning that he cursed the Beit Din in the presence of
the Beit Din’s agent, and the agent went back and reported the incident to ,אתלת יפאב וליפא רוסא יאדוב )םוקמה ינפל תחא
the court, that report is exempt from the esur of Lashon Hara, as the pasuk םינושארה לכ םשב 'א ללכב ליעל ונחכוהש ומכ
relates, “even if you gouged out the eyes of those men,” and Datan and
Aviram were referring to the eyes of Moshe Rabbeinu of blessed memory. םג הז רבדו ,תמא לע וליפא אוה ערה ןושל רוסיאד
Datan and Aviram degraded Moshe Rabbeinu yet the agent reported it back ןמקל ראוביש ומכו ןידה ןמ אוה ערה ןושל ללכב ןכ
to Moshe Rabbeinu, so we see that such a report (by the court’s agent) is
permissible. Based on this commentary, Rava’s statement was addressing םיעמושה וברתיש לכד יאדוב ןכ-םאו ,'ה ללכב
an issue of Rechilut. The court’s agent was reporting truthfully and he ,רפסמה ןוע הברתי
was probably reporting to three people, yet even so the gemara implies
that had he not been an agent of the court it would have been forbidden to אישק אל ארמגב )א"ע ז"ט( ןיכרעב ורמא שוריפבו
report back what Datan and Aviram said even in the presence of a group
of three people. אעניצ לעד שוריפ ,איסהרפב אה אעניצב אה
And do not say that the essential lesson Rava comes to teach is that the לש םינומעפה ךירצ איסהרפ לעו תרפכמ תרטקה
judge is permitted to receive (to accept) this report and he brings a proof איסהרפ לע ףאד אמלא ,ש"יע רפכל לודג ןהכ
from the pasuk that states Moshe Rabbeinu became angry, implying that
Moshe Rabbeinu accepted that agent’s report and because of that he יוה אל ות אתלת יפאבד תרמא יאו .הרפכ ךירצ
became angry. Please see the Maharsha’s commentary there (Chidushei יאדוובו היל תיא ארבח ךרבחד םושמ ערה ןושל
Agadot, citation beginning with the words “Does not have the appearance
וינפב םירבדה רמא וליאכ יוהו וינזאל רבדה אובי
ירהו ,ערה ןושל יוה אל הרשעבד ןכש-לכ ןכ םא
4 The example here is that Reuven tells Shimon that Levi said such-and-such
about him. Reuven is called the speaker and Shimon, who is the subject of ףד( ןירדהנסב אתיאדכ הרשעמ התוחפ איסהרפ ןיא
those remarks, is the “victim.”
.אנש אלד יאדו אלא )ב"ע ד"ע

351 326
volume 1 VOL-1 12 volume 1