Page 166 - 72193
P. 166

170
 ד"י קרֶֶפּ
 די קרפ
                                              th
 םייח ץפח
 Chafetz Chayim  .דָחֶא דָחֶא םרֲֵאָבְנוּ  הרימשה תבוח סרטנוק   תוֹגָהְנַהְו תוֹכָלֲה ,םיִטרְָפּ   .ל"ַנַּה םירִָבְדּ הרָָשֲׂע ןַיְנִעְבּ   רָכְּמִמ וּרְכְּמִת יִכְו" :)ד"י ה"כ ארָקְִיַּו( רֵמוֹא אוּהֶשְׁכּ ,ןוֹמָמ   תַאָנוֹאְבּ אָלֶּא וֹניֵא וֹא ,םירִָבְדּ תַאָנוֹאְבּ רֵמוֹא הָתַּא .רֵבּדְַמ   בוּתָכַּה  םירִָבְדּ  תַאָנוֹאְבּ  ,
  Kuntres Chovat HaShemirah      הרימשה תבוח סרטנוק
 14  chapter                            אי קרפ
 th
 Hagahah
               אלֹ ךְָתרָוֹתִּמ ,דֹאְמ דַע יִנֻציִלֱה םידִֵז" :)א"נ ט"יק םיִלִּהְתּ(

 The Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat (Section #228) did not    םַעַפּ אלֹ ,רַמוֹל וֹנוֹצרְ ,"דֹאְמ דַע" רַמָאֶשּׁ הַמוּ ."יִתיִטָנ
 cite the opinion of Rebbe Yehudah but only expressed the law
 as the mishnah stated it regarding “(and this customer) had no    אלֹ ךְָתרָוֹתִּמ ןֵכ יִפּ לַע ףַאְו ,דֹאְמ דַע םִא יִכּ ,םִיַתְּשׁוּ תַחַא
 intention to buy it.”  It is possible that the Shulchan Aruch held    וֹתְּעַדּ הֶיְהִתּ םָלוֹעְל :).ז"י תוֹבֻּתְכּ( ל"ַזֲח וּרְמָאֶשּׁ הַמוּ .יִתיִטָנ
 that both are the same; that since ‘the customer does not have
 money’ (Rebbe Yehudah’s case) it is the same as ‘not wanting    םִע אלְֹו ,וּרְמָא תוֹיּרְִבַּה םִע .תוֹיּרְִבַּה םִע תֶברֶֹעְמ םָדָא לֶשׁ
 to buy’ (the case of the Mishnah).  It is also possible that the
 Shulchan Aruch held that Rebbe Yehudah refers to a case where    "יִתיִטָנ אלֹ" רַמָאֶשׁ וּהֶזְו ,םֶהָל הֶנֲעַי אלֶֹּשׁ רָקִּעָהְו .םיִצֵלַּה
 he really does want to buy, but if the merchant knew that he had   .םֶהָל תוֹנֲעַל
 no money he would not have wasted his time talking to him, and
 this circumstance is also an example of “abuse.”  But perhaps the
 rabbis (the Mishnah) disagree with Rebbe Yehudah in this regard    תַצֲעַבּ ,םוֹלָשְׁו סַח ,ךְֵלוֹה םָדָאָה םִאֶשׁ ,בוּתָכַּה רוּאֵבוּ
 and therefore the Shulchan Aruch did not codify this as being the    םִא וּלִּפֲא זָא ,םיִצֵלַּה םִע רֵבַּחְתִמוּ םיִאָטַּח ךְרֶדְֶבוּ םיִעָשׁרְ
 law.  This same conclusion is mildly inferred from the Gemara
 Pesachim (112b) where Rebbe Yishmael commanded \ instructed    ןיֵא ,ןֵכּ םַגּ הרָוֹת ירְֵבִדּ םיִברְָעְתִמ דָמֲעַמ וֹתוֹאְבּ םיקִרְָפִל
 Rebbe in three things,  implying this was only good advice, a
 41
 good ethical teaching (but not the halacha).  However, the Torat    תוֹפִּלְקַּה םִע הֶז רָבָדּ ןֵכּ םַגּ ברֵָעְתִמֶּשׁ .הָשּׁדְֻקַּה ַח ֹּכ םֶהָל
 Kohanim and the Tosefta imply that the Mishnah’s expression    ןֵכּ םַגּ אָבוּהְו ,םיִשׁוֹדְקַּה םירִָפְסַּה וּבְתָכֶּשׁ וֹמְכּ ,הָאְמֻטַּהְו
 of the law and Rebbe Yehudah’s expression of law are one and
 the same since the customer had no money he does not want to    אלֶֹּשׁ ,רָשָׁי םָדָא אוּה םִא לָבֲא .יֵלְשִׁמְבּ א"רְָגַּה רוּאֵבְבּ
 buy it at this time.  That is also implicit in Rashi’s commentary
 on that gemara.  (Please see that reference).  So, based on this,
 regarding one who seriously wants to buy the merchandise but      because he would be ridiculed and so he could not follow this approach,
 has no money at that time, it is possible to say this buyer is not   then at the very least he should psyche himself up and stand up for his
 guilty of “abusive” speech since he will now work out a way to   principals and beliefs and fight a battle against his Yetzer Hara so that he
                  should not come to transgress the esur of the Torah of listening to Lashon
 get money to pay for that merchandise.  Hara and accepting it as truth.  In this context, three conditions must be
                  fulfilled, and in so doing he will be saved from violating a Lav, an esur of
 That  which  the  Baraytah  states  “because  this  is  known  only   the Torah, whose punishment has been previously described:  He should
 to you” is referring to the entire Baraytah (all the cases of the   absolutely resolve not to believe the denigrating language that he hears
 Baraytah concern words which are either permitted or forbidden   about his fellow Jew (the “victim”).  He should not gain any benefit in
 depending on one’s intent) and comes to offer an explanation   listening to this forbidden language, and he should also stand strong in his
                  resolve not to show the members of that group any sense of satisfaction at
 why the text used the word “fear.”  The explanation is: All of   hearing what they said and that he agreed with them.  He should remain
                  unexpressive and passive, and if it’s possible, he should frown his face at
                  what they’re saying so that they would understand he does not agree at
 41.  One of these three things being “Do not eye a purchase if you don’t have   all with their vanity. That would be the best approach in this particular
 the money to pay for it.”  circumstance.





 175  174  ההגה  די קרפ  םייח ץפח  הרימשה תבוח סרטנוק  .י"ִשּׁרַ ,הֶז חָקִּמ תוֹנקְִל ץֵפָח יִתיִיָה וֹא   ."ךָיקֶלֹאֵמ ָתארֵָיְו" :)ז"י ה"כ ארָקְִיַּו( וֹבּ רַמֱאֶנ   ,ר ּ ֹכְמִל הָאוּבְתּ וֹל שֵׁיֶּשׁ רֵבוֹס יִתיִיָה .הָבוֹט םִא יִכּ יִתיִשָׂע   אלֹ ,רַמוֹל אוּה לוֹכָיֶּשׁ ,תוֹלּקְַלקֲַעַל וֹא לֵקַּעְל םִא ַעדֵוֹי   אוּה ,הֶשׂוֹ
   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171