Transcript

Halacha Daled. ויש שם דברים שהן אבק לשון הרע. Keitzad?

מי יאמר לפלוני שיהיה כמות שהוא עתה, או שיאמר שתקו מפלוני איני רוצה להודיע מה אירע ומה היה,

v'chayotze b'devarim ha'eilu.

וכן המספר בטובת חבירו בפני שונאו הרי זה אבק לשון הרע, שזה גורם להם שיספרו בגנותו. ולעניין זה אמר שלמה: מברך רעהו בקול גדול בבוקר השכם קללה תחשב לו, שמתוך טובתו בא לידי רעתו.

So the first half of Halacha Daled is more easily understood that none of these things constitute Lashon Hara d'Oraisa. That Avak Lashon Hara has the sense that it's only d'Rabbanan the same way Avak Ribbis is not Ribbis d'Oraisa but is only what Chazal assur mi'd'Rabbanan but to the issur av of Ribbis d'Oraisa. Either in the first two examples there's no specificity, right? There's sort of some insinuation that there is something negative that could be said, that there's something negative, you know, that there's some skeleton in the closet, but there's no specificity. And the third one is more of a grama, aderaba, the person is mesaper b'tovas chaveiro. The question is what you do with the second half of the halacha here:

וכן המספר בלשון הרע דרך שחוק ודרך קלות ראש כלומר שאינו מדבר בשנאה.

So let's say a person is recounting exploits from his youth, and let's say his youth with his friends was a little bit more colorful than it should have been. So he says, you know, that he says that I and my chaver so-and-so we did ABC and you know he's not saying it in a critical vein, he's saying it דרך שחוק וקלות ראש, but clearly what he's recounting is a davar shel genai. Right? No? That's what we're referring to. Then:

וכן המספר בלשון הרע דרך רמאות. והוא שיספר לתומו כאילו אינו יודע שדבר זה לשון הרע הוא אלא כשממחין בו אומר איני יודע שאלו מעשיו של פלוני או שזה לשון הרע.

So what an example of what the Rambam's talking about derech ramma'us is, let's say he'll tell you, he'll describe how his friend so ingeniously secured a certain grant. And then someone will say, "But what you just described is fraud. He really was defrauding the government in the way." And he'll again, he knew that all along and he sort of reacts as saying, "Oh, I didn't realize that I was, you know, that I was sharing something negative about him." So that's gor pella. So these two examples are so troubling, the Chafetz Chaim initially, again, as dochuk as this pshat is, but just as an indication for how challenging it is to understand here, the Chafetz Chaim originally said that the second half of Halacha Daled is Lashon Hara d'Oraisa. Again, it's dochuk me'od obviously because of the vechen, but then the Chafetz Chaim himself has an asterisk. Once upon a time, once something had been set in print, either Even if it hadn't gone to the printer yet, it was a big, big esek to undo it. And so there are lots of cases where mechabrim chozrim bahem but they had to leave what they originally wrote and then just added hosafos saying that they chozrim bahem. Then the Chofetz Chaim, I think he, I don't know whether he says that he reminded himself of or that someone showed him, the Rambam in the Perush Hamishnayot, the end of Perek Aleph of Avos says meforash what's emes is meforash as well. And so he says, ha-Chofetz Chaim says, ube-chen is that the second half of halacha daled is also only lashon hara derabbanan, is also only avak lashon hara. So why is that only only lashon hara derabbanan if derech ramuyos means he mamash knows that it's lashon hara, but the fact that he's posturing as though it were not lashon hara, so how in the world does that and if a person will intentionally eat chazer and then when you'll tell him he shouldn't be eating chazer, he'll say 'oh my, I thought it was a kosher salami', so that will downgrade it from meizid to shogeg and downgrade it even more to an issur derabbanan? So apparently the peshat is as follows. We commented back in halacha aleph that again, the Rambam's definition here of the issur of לא תלך רכיל בעמיך is hameragel lachaveiro. And we said that meragel means to expose as in מרגלים אתם כי ערות הארץ באתם לראות. It means to expose. And what the Rambam here, the chidush the Rambam is telling us is that derech sechok or derech ramuyos is lacking in that exposure. The fact that the way it's presented is as though it was some, you know, innocent youthful prank in the derech sechok or the way that it's presented as though he's only describing this person's ingenuity in securing a grant when he's really describing a fraud, but that veneer is enough that it's a chisaron in meragel. It's a chisaron in exposing and that's enough that it doesn't qualify for the de'oraisa of lashon hara and it's not hard to understand why Chazal asur that miderabbanan atu the de'oraisa of lashon hara. That apparently is the peshat here. Halacha hei. I once saw an excellent he'arah, unfortunately I forgot the name of the Torah journal in which I saw it. So we generally assume and again, to a degree correctly, that let's say if two people are talking and one of them recounts something but without mentioning the name. And again, in a way that the shomeia will not be able to put two and two together, he's not going to be able to figure out, you know, whose actions are being detailed, so then that's not lashon hara, right? Reuven says to Shimon about Levi, but he doesn't mention Levi's name, so Shimon has no idea who the lashon hara is about. So yeah, so then that's tachles not lashon hara. So that's okay. What the he'arah from this Torah journal is, but then let's say in response, so Reuven will describe how, again, how some unnamed person did such and such, but that's going to commonly, that will elicit a reaction from Shimon. But Reuven knows who Shimon is talking about. Shimon doesn't know who he's talking about, but Reuven knows who Shimon is talking about. So that lichora is lashon hara. You hear the he'arah? Rabbosai, I think it's a correct he'arah. Meaning, if Shimon will then contribute something to this analysis of what happened, so yes, it's true that what Shimon is hearing from Reuven is not lashon hara because Shimon doesn't know who it's about and because of that, it's not lashon hara. But when Shimon will add and say 'you know, and what's more' or maybe even if he just reiterates and reinforces, so Reuven knows who it's about. I don't know if it's theory. It's I don't know let me on one level it's theory but on one level it's practical, in the sense that Shimon has been told that I mean it's in theory I don't know let's say in a psychology course so you're given a scenario to discuss. So that's theory. You know, the professor makes up a scenario and you're analyzing the scenario so that's theory. But if you're being told that this isn't you know just a scenario which was constructed but this is a real-life case and then you're responding, so it's not theory. You're responding albeit that you're in the dark as to the identity of the person, but that's not theory at that point. That's you're saying something about this person, and Reuven knows who you're talking about because he knows who it is.

הרמב"ם בסוף ב' דלשון הרע בפני חברו ושלא בפניו המספר דברים שגורמים אם נשמעו איש מפי איש להזיק חברו בגופו או בממונו ואפילו להצר לו או להפחידו הרי זה לשון הרע.

So the Kesef Mishneh says the makor for this so I'm not so sure I haven't looked into it why the Rambam but the Rambam here is in effect sort of now telling us that there's a new a new application or instance of lashon hara that even though it's not a davar shel genai, it's not something which is injurious or harmful by virtue of being disparaging, but it is harmful by virtue of that if word will get around the person will get in trouble for this, so then that's also lashon hara. The Kesef Mishneh says the makor for that is the famous story, again it's the lead-in story to the whole maaseh with ר' שמעון בר יוחאי and all the years in the cave, is the story with Yehuda ben Gerim how the Tana'im were sitting and they were talking about the Roman Empire and Rabbi Yehuda praised them and ר' שמעון בר יוחאי said no they're corrupt and they're evil and everything they did they only did for their own nefarious purposes. They didn't build bridges to make it easier for people to get around it's because they wanted to collect tolls, etc. So then Yehuda ben Gerim went and I think Rashi said he told it to his parents, however Rashi knows that from the Gemara, and but then it was ultimately word got out and because of that the Roman government were trying to arrest and execute ר' שמעון בר יוחאי. So that's the makor. And then we see that ר' שמעון בר יוחאי held from the end of the story there in the Gemara we see that he held Yehuda ben Gerim accountable for what had happened to him. Again so there it's not intrinsically a davar shel genai to repeat what ר' שמעון בר יוחאי said. It's not a davar shel genai, but ela mai, it's something which is injurious which is harmful to the person because אם נשמעו איש מפי איש it can cause him damage. So someone asks you if you like a certain pizza store and you don't like the pizza store, you can't respond with your opinion on that? No, I think you probably can because that's more like the Chofetz Chaim's examples about a shidduch inquiry. If they're asking again if it's some you know if it's an idle inquiry so then I think you wouldn't answer, but if the person is considering going to the pizza store and wants to know whether you think the pizza's good, so then I think you are allowed then to tell them. It could be if the pizza's no good, the pizza's no good, you just have to be careful not to exaggerate. In this example, meaning to start off derech sipur devarim... So how is this oicheiles zeh? Because you're asking very well because a person is mechuyav to in saying something a person has an achrayus to to see what the consequences to see what the implications are. So the same way again a person doesn't have to say Hineni muchan u'mezuman to be malicious when when he says something which isn't intrinsically gnai so here too Yehuda ben Gerim didn't say Hineni muchan u'mezuman to get Rashbi in trouble but he has an achrayus a person has an achrayus to to be mindful of the consequences or the potential consequences of what he says and if he doesn't so that that is a hefkeirus that that that disregard for for again in that example for Rashbi is that's a bit of a hefkeirus as well.

ואם נאמרו דברים אלו בפני שלושה כבר נשמע הדבר ונודע ואם סיפר הדבר אחד מן השלושה פעם אחרת אין בו משום לשון הרע.

So this is the Gemara's famous din of b'apei tlasa that the Rambam quotes that the Gemara's lashon is what's said b'apei tlasa is לאו משום לישנא בישא. One should wonder what in the world does it mean that the fact that Lashon Hara was said initially b'apei tlasa so that I don't know that kashers it or something and and there's no it's not subsequently Lashon Hara. So okay the Chofetz Chaim is ma'arich on this and and some of the pshatim in the Rishonim let's say the Ba'alei Tosafot I think I think it's the Ba'alei Tosafot have a pshat like this. Let's say a person is saying something which depending upon how you construe it it may be the shvach it may be the gnai. I think the example they give let's say in so and so's house there's always a fire burning. So that can that can be l'gnai sort of talking about how I don't know luxuriously they live and and luxuriously wastefully etc. And that can be l'gnai or it can be l'shvach oh they're such big machnisei orchim and and they extend themselves so much for aniyim that they're cooking around the clock that 24/6 they're they're cooking. So if you have something which contextually could be disparaging or it could be complimentary so Tosafot I think I think it's the Ba'alei Tosafot would say that the fact that a person says it so openly the shiur of openly is b'apei tlasa that's an indication. Usually when people talk Lashon Hara it's more on the it's not done so so openly it's done more clandestinely and the fact that that it's done so openly that implies a favorable context and and interpretation and that's what it means that what's said b'apei tlasa is לאו משום לישנא בישא. But if it were unambiguously a davar shel gnai the fact that the person is saying the fact that it was originally said b'apei tlasa doesn't give any heter to repeat it. I think Rashi in one place understands that lishna bisha here doesn't mean so much Lashon Hara. Let's say someone tells you what his let's say he's he works in investments and and he tells you what his investment strategy is. So the question is should you assume that that was a confidence that you have to keep? He gets paid for for investing and and itachen me'od that he doesn't want to have his investment strategies known maybe it would undercut his business. Well no maybe maybe Maybe it would that isn't the context in which he said it. So Rashi understands that's what the Gemara means; if he said it be'apei telata, so then clearly you don't have to assume that that was that was something that he intended to be in confidence. If something is said to one or two people, so then there's a presumption of confidentiality. But if something is said be'apei telata, so that's already he said it publicly enough that there's no again there's no presumption of confidentiality that you have to worry about breaching a confidence if you repeat it. So lashon hara in this context doesn't mean so much lashon hara, right? It's according to this pshat the term is being used somewhat more loosely. But kimedumeh that in the Rambam you have a new pshat in this Gemara. Kimedumeh that in the Rambam there's a new pshat in this Gemara. If if you see it in again we're so often handicapped by not learning the Rambam the way he intended it. Again the Rambam intended Mishneh Torah to be learned consecutively, right, not the way we do. We look in the Ein Mishpat and we find where the citation is and we parachute in in the middle and and we sort of lack context. And for that matter sometimes we lack context even not only within a perek but even within an individual halacha. If you look here in context mashmaut in the Rambam is like this. The Rambam here in halacha hey was mechadesh another another instance of lashon hara, right, an instance of lashon hara such as the Yehuda ben Gerim story where what's said is not intrinsically davar shel gnai, it's not disparaging to Rashbi to say that Rashbi criticized the Roman Empire but it's something which is potentially dangerous to Rashbi to do that. What makes it dangerous? If it would become דברים שאם נשמעו איש מפי איש, right? So by taking this information and putting it out into the public domain so that is potentially dangerous for Rashbi and by virtue of that that harm you're doing Rashbi is lav davka the harm that you do when you damage his reputation by disparaging him by saying a davar shel gnai. Oh, so says the Rambam that's what the Chazal were talking about. When Chazal said that the fact that something was said once be'apei telata means that subsequently לית ביה משום לשון הרע, it's not that if someone said be'apei telata that Reuven's a corrupt person that he has terrible middot vechulu vechulu. No, there's no hetter for any of those three to go repeat it. There's no it's not it doesn't become non-lashon hara for someone else to say it again. But what happens if what was said be'apei telata again was this something which isn't inherently gnai but it's rather דברים שאם נשמעו איש מפי איש? So here Chazal say but it's already in the public domain because what's said what has been said initially be'apei telata is avida legluya. So someone who's repeating it later he's not going to be he's not responsible for for the fact that this is now in the public domain. So since it's not inherently shel gnai so it's not lashon hara inherently by virtue of the content. It's only lashon hara by virtue of דברים שאם נשמעו איש מפי איש. When you have something which is already milta de'avida legluya so then that's not lashon hara again והוא שלא יתכוון להעביר הקול ולגלותו יותר. He's not looking to give it momentum, he's not looking to accelerate or or contribute to that process. So then what's by virtue of content again without looking at consequences by virtue of content it's innocent. So then that's that doesn't qualify as lashon hara. But but the Rambam would tell us it Chazal never ever said that the type of example of lashon hara that the Rambam had given in halacha beis of hadiber bignusot chavero, the fact that it was initially said be'apei telata that doesn't mean that someone else can then repeat it. Question that the Chofetz Chaim taka talks about this in... I could be wrong but is the case in Shabbos with Rashbi where he says be'apei telata? Because when referring to the Rambam, Rashbi was three? Mean the the there were yes there were at least three Tannaim there plus Yehuda ben Gerim just from what the Gemara tells us. So why would this be why would this be be'apei telata? And I don't know, that's a very good question. Maybe, I'm not sure. I think the Chafetz Chaim writes that the din of be'apei tlosa wouldn't apply if the person saying it, you know, told them, you know, what I'm saying, I want you to hold in the strictest confidence. So now again, that is not explicitly stated in that Gemara, but maybe, maybe there was such a presumption or something? But I'm not sure, that's a very good question. And presumably, I mean that's not, I don't think we would object to that as an okimta, and presumably that is understood that if Rashbi is, if you live in a country where criticizing the government is something that you can get killed for, so presumably when that's said in a somewhat private setting, it's said with an expectation of confidentiality. Question is by devar shel gnai is it ever so mefursam that it doesn't become lashon hara davka because of it? Let's say mamash, I don't know, hundreds of thousands, millions of people know it. I don't know, maybe the person you're talking to, maybe he's such a big masmid that Baruch Hashem he doesn't know, but the rest of the world does know it. I think Chafetz Chaim has in the Yad Ketanah, pshat is that even though we're saying that the din of be'apei tlosa doesn't apply to devar shel gnai, at some point something becomes so, so, so yadua that the question is exactly what that point is, but take a look in Chafetz Chaim. I think he has in a couple of places from the sefer Yad Ketanah about this question. Okay, we'll stop here for zman today, be'ezrat Hashem.