Page 363 - V1

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

and insulted and he reported this back to the rabbis. (And how do we ארמגה ילעב והוחבשש המב אחינ התע ונירבד יפלו
know that the report of the agent of the Beit Din is exempt from the esur
of Lashon Hara?) Regarding this, the gemara cites the pasuk “even if םג ריתה הז ןפוא לעו )ב"ע ח"יק( תבשב וז הדמב
their eyes were gouged” and Rashi explains as follows: “If not for the fact אתלת יפאב רמול אנוה בר רב הבר הז רחא ןכ
that the agent told him, Moshe would never have known (what Datan and
Aviram said).” Rashi’s understanding is that “even if you gouged out” ומצע תא רמוש אמתסמו ,היל תיא ארבח ךרבחד
refers to the agent gouging out the eyes of Datan and Aviram (and even המ ול אהי אל וינזאל עיגי םא וליפאש ןפואב רמול
that extreme measure would not make them appear before the court of
Moshe Rabbeinu). Yet the agent told this to Moshe Rabbeinu of blessed אוה םא לבא ,ילע תרביד התא רמול וילע סופתל
memory, that Datan and Aviram humiliated him. The clear implication is אריתה ךייש אל יאדוב וריבח לע הרומג ערה ןושל
that an agent of the Beit Din is exempt from Lashon Hara when reporting
back to the court what happened. The (further) implication of the gemara .אתלת יפאב וליפא רוסאו אנוה בר רב הברד
is that if he was not acting in the agency of the court, if he was an ordinary
person and someone humiliated \ insulted him, it would be forbidden for יכה ואל יאד ,תמא לע וליפא אוה תופסותה תנווכו
him to tell this to the court where nothing beneficial could result from it
and the remarks would have the status of Torah-forbidden Lashon Hara; ואלבו ,תמא אוהו רוטניק רבדב תופסותה ימקול
the proof coming from the fact that the gemara had to bring a proof from ערה ןושלד םיקסופה לכמ רבכ ונרריב אלה יכה
a pasuk that a court appointed agent is allowed to report back to the Beit
Din. אתלת יפאב הזל ליעוי המו .תמא לע וליפא אוה
.ונירבד תלחתב ונבתכש ומכו
Rava himself (according to the text version of the Rif in Gemara Shabbat
14a) decided the law in Gemara Arachin (15b) like the opinion of Rebbe
Yossi when he said “I hold like Rebbe Yossi” who in turn said “I never הליחתמ ונשריפש המ ארוקה יניעב רזומ היהי לאו
once had to retract anything that I said.” That being so, then according לכ ול השקה ןכ לע אבר ירבדב העוט היה ייבאד
to the Tosafot cited in Babba Batra, based on Rava’s opinion, it would be
permitted to make those remarks in the presence of three people because אריבס יסוי 'רכ אנא היל ינשמקד אברו 'וכו ןכש
it would be as if he made the remarks directly to the “victim,” per the -םג רמול חרכומ התא הזד ,אנירחא אנווגב אוה יל
comment of Rebbe Yossi.
,וז ארמימ לע ושריפש םינושארה ישוריפ ראשל ןכ
Notwithstanding this, the Gemara Babba Batra (39b) concludes that all
Authorities concur with the opinion of Rabbah Bar Rav Huna regarding ט"ל( ארתב אבב תצבוקמ הטישה אידהב בתכ ןכו
the law when remarks are made in front of three people. But if that is so, ףוסב וירבד ה"יא קיתעאו י"רה תוילע םשב )א"ע
then why was it necessary for the gemara to bring a proof regarding an
agent of the court from the incident described in the Torah regarding the .ש"יע רפסה
agent of Moshe Rabbeinu of blessed memory. Even if he was not an agent
of the court, but merely an ordinary person who was humiliated \ insulted
by someone else, it should also have been permitted to say what happened
in front of three people. Why should reporting those remarks to a Beit Din
be any worse? “victim” are exempt from the laws of esur Lashon Hara [and that is how
the subject matter is explained in Gemara Arachin (15b)].
It would be very difficult and contrived to say that the gemara is coming to 46 Rabbah understood Rebbe Yossi’s statement in the context of Avak Lashon
teach that even an agent is allowed to report back to Beit Din, for we might Hara.

333 344
volume 1 volume 1