Page 371 - V1

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

Be'er Mayim Chayim :ה"הגה
(K2/2/1)-(2).. limited only to those statements which are not וריבח ינפ ןיבלמו םירבד תאנוא לש רוסיאה ץוח *
entirely shameful or harmful: With G‑d’s help I located in Gemara
Arachin (15a) in the Tosafot’s commentary (citation found on page אעיצמ אבבב אתיאדכ ב"הועל קלח ול ןיאד םיברב
15b beginning with “Any remarks made”) an explanation of Tosafot's ו"מ( ןיטיגב אתיאדכ השלש םיבר םתסו )א"ע ט"נ(
understanding of the gemara, that the speaker’s remarks were not
necessarily derogatory. For example, the speaker said (in a neutral tone) י"ר םש גילפ אל ןאכ דעו )ה"ע( תובותכבו )א"ע
“The flame (cooking) is coming from that house.” But if this speaker said
something about his fellow Jew that ridiculed him, even if the speaker הדומ יכה ואלב לבא הדע ןושלב בתכד יכיה אלא
would have been willing to make those same remarks in the presence of וקספ יכה ואלבו השלש םיבר םתסד נ"רל ןכ םג
this fellow Jew, the remarks are Lashon Hara (Tosafot quoted up until this
point). From the concluding remarks of the Tosafot it is obvious from .כ"ע .נ"רכ םיקסופה לכ
their commentary that the basis of the rule of Rabbah Bar Rav Hunah, that
one is allowed to speak in front of three people, is derived from the rule
that one would have made those same remarks directly to the “victim,” :ה"הגה
as the Tosafot explained in the referenced Gemara Babba Batra. But the
Tosafot’s conclusion is that this is not an unconditional statement (meaning, 'ז קרפב ןושלה ביתנב םלוע תוביתנב ןייעו **
that anything can be said – No!) The Tosafot conclude that the statement רוסיאב קלחל ןיאש עודי הזו הז ירפסמ וילע ג"עצו
at most can only be ambiguous. It can never be directly denigrating, and
if it was denigrating then it would be forbidden to speak it even if it was הנעי המ טרפבו תמאל רקש ןיב תוליכרו ערה ןושל
spoken directly to the victim or in the presence of three people. This is also השמ ינפב םירמד השעמד רמאד ירפסב נ"ר תעדל
the implication of the Magen Avraham (in section #156) in the mussar that
he writes there, that Tosafot’s understanding in Babba Batra is the same as הז ארקנש הרותה לכב םסרופמ ןכ יפ לע ףאו הוה
their understanding in Arachin.
.כ"ע .ערה ןושל השעמה
My brother, please see that in their abbreviated concluding words, Tosafot
formulated for us a profound rule and a correct explanation of the words
of Rebbe Yossi regarding statements made in front of the “victim” which
Rava used as the basis for establishing the law. Rebbe Yossi was not םייחה רוקמ
talking about obvious Lashon Hara but only about remarks which may be
ִ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ֲ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
understood in a non-derogatory manner. This rule regarding what can be ,הָשׁלְֹשׁ ינְפִבּ רמוֹל ל"זח ירֵבדִבּ רֵתּה אצְמנֶּשּׁ המוּ .ב
said in front of three people or what can be said directly to the “victim” are
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
two aspects of the same law, as is clearly seen in Tosafot in the cited Gemara ינְשׁ וֹל שׁי וֹלֶּשׁ רוּבּדּהו רוּמגּ יאנגּ וּנּניאֶשׁ רבדבּ )ב( וּניה
Babba Batra which I will explain very shortly with G‑d’s help. Because
in the first analysis of their commentary their words are perplexing, why
in this regard did Chazal differentiate between Lashon Hara and Avak 4 Meaning – One cannot make any distinction regrding Lashon Hara or
Lashon Hara? But when one analyzes this subject more thoroughly it Rechilut, whether it is in the context of truth or a lie and thus attempt to
is apparent that their words are quite correct. This is what they mean. resolve the Maharal’s words by saying Lashon Hara is permitted to be
Truthfully speaking, the implication of certain statements depends on the spoken in front of the victim if it is true, as opposed to when it is a lie.
tone of voice in which the remarks were expressed, the body language and
341 336
volume 1 volume 1