Page 360 - V1

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

where the speaker’s remarks can be understood as not containing any איבא ןייעמה יניעב אלפל הז רבד היהי אלש ידכו
Lashon Hara. But under any other circumstance his remarks would be
forbidden. רפסל רוסא הזכ ןינע וליפאד תשרופמ ארמג הז לע
I found this same opinion of the Tosafot expressed by the Shetah לכמב ןידת הנממו אתלת יפאב וליפא וריבח לע
Mekubetzet (Gemara Babba Batra 39b) quoting the commentary of the יאדובד תמא םהש ףא ערה ןושל יקלח ראשל ןכש
Aliyot of Rabbeinu Yonah of blessed memory in his first commentary.
(Please see that reference and please see the Hagahah below). Similarly דעומב ןניסרגד אוהו .אתלת יפאב וליפא םירוסא
(even) in private conversation between the listener and the speaker אחולש ןירדשמד ןלנמ אבר רמא )א"ע ז"ט( ןטק
regarding another person (the “victim”), Chazal have taught that how
one categorizes the speaker’s remarks depends of several factors: If the השמ חלשיו ביתכד ,אנידל היל ןנינמזמו אניד יבד
speaker’s remarks are such that he would not be embarrassed to say them ןנינמזמד ןלנמו ,באילא ינב םריבאלו ןתדל אורקל
directly to the “victim” then they can be spoken forthright. But that is only
if the remarks are not derogatory, but rather remarks that can be interpreted ךתדע לכו התא חרק לא השמ רמאיו ביתכד אנידל
in different ways depending on the speaker’s intonation and presentation, יתאו אניד יבד אחילשב רקפתמ יאד ןלנמו 'וגו
as I explained above.
יניעה ביתכד ,אשיב אנשילכ יזחתימ אל רמאו
What follows from this is that in this circumstance the listener is not at
all culpable for violating any esur, because the leniency in allowing the .רקנת םהה םישנאה
remarks to be repeated is based on the fact that we assume the speaker
will say them in a neutral manner with no degrading language. Therefore
it is permissible for someone to listen to those remarks without violating
nd
the esur of listening to Lashon Hara, as I will explain further on in the 2
th
halacha of the 6 Kelal. Similarly, if these types of remarks were spoken VOL-1
in the presence of three people, which is tantamount to speaking directly
to the “victim,” there would be no violations of the esur of listening to
Lashon Hara.

But anything that is degrading would be forbidden in any circumstance,
even if the speaker knows the remarks are true and that he would have
made those same remarks directly to the “victim.” And most certainly receives compensation from his opponent equivalent to the difference
what follows is that the listener has no exemption and would be culpable between his injuries and the injuries sustained by that other party. But that
for listening to Lashon Hara and definitely it would be forbidden for the is only in a case where the fight started simultaneously or the injured party
listener to accept the remarks and to assume the remarks are true even fought back but only after first waiting and allowing some time to elapse.
if the speaker made his remarks directly to the “victim,” because when But if the injured party fought back right away, he would not be culpable
saying those words in the presence of a group of three people it would at all and the attacker would have to compensate him for his entire injury.
have been forbidden for any of them to accept the speaker’s remarks as The Ramah comments on this, that this same law applies to someone who
is insulted or embarrassed; the one who started first is entirely responsible
truth, as I will prove shortly, even though speaking to this group of three as long as the victim responded immediately. This understanding follows
is like speaking directly to the “victim.” So too is this the law when the the Meirat Enayim who is of the opinion that if a victim retaliates at the
degrading comment was made directly in front of the victim. It is all one moment of attack (either physical or verbal), he is not responsible for any
th
nd
and the same law (please see further on in the 7 Kelal [the 2 notation damages he inflicts on the provoker and that is how the Chafetz Chayim
of the Be’er Mayim Chayim], and with G‑d’s help I will bring conclusive upholds the law in our discussion.
proofs to this concept).
12
347 330
volume 1 volume 1