Transcript

Halacha Hey:

כל השונא אחד מישראל בלבו עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך ואין לוקין על לאו זה לפי שאין בו מעשה ולא הזהירה תורה אלא על שנאה שבלב אבל המכה את חברו ומחרף את חברו אף על פי שאינו רשאי אינו עובר משום לא תשנא.

So that Chazal say meforash again, darshening the word bilvavecha in the pasuk, that if a person manifests the sinna, almost inevitably there will be other issurim involved, but there won't be the issur לא תשנא את אחיך. It has to mean that it's bilvavecha. It has to be hidden. The Chofetz Chaim understands based on the Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot, it's not a hundred percent meforash, but this is the way the Chofetz Chaim understands it. What happens if the sinna is takeh displayed but not direct, not in the presence of the sonai? Meaning with other people you see clearly what hatred Reuven feels for Shimon, but when Reuven is with Shimon, so then it's hidden from view. Is that considered לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך? The Chofetz Chaim assumes that that is bilvavecha. As long as it's hidden from the sonai it remains an issur לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך. That's why he counts Lo Tisna as an additional lav which one is prone to violating Rachmana litzlan in talking lashon hara if that lashon hara will be motivated by a sinna, agam that obviously it's not purely bilvavo at that point but it's bilvavo vis-a-vis the sonai and that's how the Chofetz Chaim understands it. The Gemara talks about what the definition of sonai is, the Gemara in Sanhedrin in context of pesulei eidus, and the Rambam doesn't really about כשל לבו עמו שלשה ימים, the Rambam doesn't give here a definition of what sinna is. Okay. Halacha Vav:

שיחטא איש לאיש לא ישטמנו וישתוק כמו שנאמר ברשעים ולא דבר אבשלום עם אמנון למרע ועד טוב כי שנא אבשלום את אמנון אלא מצוה עליו להודיעו ולומר לו למה עשית לי כך וכך ולמה חטאת לי בדבר פלוני שנאמר הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך ואם חזר ובקש ממנו למחול צריך למחול ולא יהיה המוחל אכזרי שנאמר ויתפלל אברהם אל האלקים.

So here the mashma'us is, I didn't really look to see if there's a meforshim comment on this, but the lashon HaRambam seems to suggest something very interesting, right? When you sort of read the Rambam quickly, so it means that if someone asks you for mechila you shouldn't be cruel but you should be forthcoming in being mochel. The emes is if that's what the Rambam meant mistama what he should have said is ולא יהיה אכזרי מלמחול. Right? The achzarius shouldn't cause a person to withhold mechila. The lashon HaRambam is ולא יהיה המוחל אכזרי. Mashma from the Rambam that a person can be mochel, but there are different ways of being mochel. A person can be mochel בעין טובה ובנפש חפצה or a person can be mochel בעין רעה דרך אכזריות. And what the Rambam is proving is not only should there not be a streak of achzarius within one which causes him to not be mochel, but the mechila should be beleiv shaleim. And that's what he's proving from ויתפלל אברהם אל האלקים. Not only do you see Avraham Avinu clearly being mochel to Avimelech but now he is putting himself out that Avimelech and his household should be nirpa'im. As Avraham Avinu, not only is, you see Avram Avinu clearly being מוחל אף עם אבימלך, but now he's putting himself out that Avimelech and his household should be nirpa. I heard recently, I forget whose name, maybe it was the name of Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch, I think so, that the word achzari is derived, related, to the half of the shoresh of zar of stranger. That the shoresh of achzariyut is when a person has a sense of being that the other person's a stranger. If a person feels strange from another person, so then a person can feel the cruelty. But if a person doesn't feel like a stranger, so a person is not, unless it's in a fit of anger or whatever, when a person just כל מיני גיהנם שולטין בו, but leaving that aside, a person is not going to be an achzari on a friend. So that's the shoresh of the achzariyut is the feeling, it begins with a feeling of zarut of, he's a stranger, he's not mishelanu. Halacha Zayin.

הרואה חברו שחטא או שהלך בדרך לא טובה מצוה להחזירו למוטב ולהודיעו שהוא חוטא על עצמו במעשיו הרעים שנאמר הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך.

So the definition of the mitzvat tochacha is lehachziro lemutav. Dehaynu, the mitzvah isn't necessarily to tell someone off. The mitzvah is lehachziro lemutav. So whatever the most effective way of being machziro lemutav is. If just confronting the person and telling him what you're doing is terrible is not going to be likely to be machziro lemutav, so that's not going to be a kiyim of הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך. If sitting down and having a seder with the person and gradually having a hashpa'ah is under the circumstances more likely to be machziro lemutav than just a frontal tochacha, so the mitzvat tochacha is lehachziro lemutav. I forget who it is who comments that הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, so we generally translate it as rebuke, but also just means to clarify, right? Lehochi'ach means to prove, to make something muchach means it's clear and it's evident. הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך means to clarify things for your friend in whatever way that's going to be most effective. Okay, maybe we'll come back to some of the other inyanim in Perek Vav later, and we'll turn a little bit to Perek Zayin.

המרגל בחברו עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תלך רכיל בעמך. ואף על פי שאין לוקין עליו, זה עון גדול הוא וגורם להרוג נפשות רבות מישראל. לכך נסמך לו לא תעמד על דם רעך. צא ולמד מה אירע לדואג האדומי.

Eizehu rachil? The Torah says Lo telech rachil, so eizehu rachil?

זה שטוען דברים והולך מזה לזה ואומר כך וכך אמר פלוני כך וכך שמעתי על פלוני. אף על פי שהוא אמת, הרי זה מחריב את העולם. יש עון גדול מזה עד מאד והוא בכלל לאו זה והוא

vehu lashon hara.

והוא המספר בגנות חברו אף על פי שאומר אמת. אבל האומר שקר מוציא שם רע על חברו נקרא. אבל בעל

lashon hara

זה שיושב ואומר כך וכך עשה פלוני כך וכך היו אבותיו כך וכך שמעתי עליו ואומר דברים של גנאי. על זה הכתוב אומר יכרת ה' כל שפתי חלקות.

Lashon medaberes gedolos. So the simple mashmuos in the Rambam is that rechilus doesn't have to be lashon hara. I mean, it can be lashon hara, but it doesn't have to be lashon hara. That's why when I think we commented on this last time when we were learning Chofetz Chaim a little bit, so when the Chofetz Chaim in the psicha wants to just give us a very quick operating definition of lashon hara and rechilus, so he writes here in the psicha:

לשון הרע הוא היינו המספר בגנות חבירו ורכילות היינו שמספר לאחר מה שחבירו דיבר עליו רע או עשה לו רע.

So emes that definition doesn't really distinguish rechilus from lashon hara in that every rechilus according to that definition really would be lashon hara. If Reuven tells Shimon that you should know that Levi said that you're a terrible person, or that Levi tells customers not to buy in your store, that's avada also begnus chaveiro. So that example of that illustration of rechilus is not distinct from lashon hara. That rechilus would be lashon hara as well. Ella mai the Chofetz Chaim is just being mekatzer here because when you come to what he says in Hilchos Rechilus, so here he says al pi the Kesef Mishneh, here in Perek Zayin, the definition that he gives here bimkomo is more nuanced. Here he says al pi the Kesef Mishneh meforash:

איזהו רכיל זה שטוען דברים מזה לזה והולך ואומר כך אמר פלוני עליך כך עשה לך פלוני כך וכך שמעתי עליו שעשה לך או רוצה לעשות לך אף על פי שאותו דבר אין גנות על מי שמספר אף לדברי הרכיל ואילו היו שואלים לו בעצמו לא היה מכחיש אומר משום שהאמת והצדק אתו או משום שהתכוון באלו הפעולות והדיבורים כוונה אחרת אפילו הכי רכיל מקרי.

So here he says al pi Kesef Mishneh meforash that a rochel doesn't have to be saying devarim shel gnus. Doesn't have to be saying devarim shel gnus. You're not saying devarim shel gnus, so what's rechilus? To say Ploni said that you're a very nice person, that's also rechilus because you're repeating what Ploni said about you. So ella mai in sif gimmel, so the hagdara is even though it's not keshelatzmo gnus, but if the shomeia is likely to feel sina as a result, so then that's a hagdara of rechilus. Ich veis? So let's say in a high school setting, if one classmate will tell another, oh, I saw the teacher talking to the principal about you. So keshelatzmo it's not a davar shel gnus. The teacher is itachen is doing it appropriately and l'shem shamayim, but lav davka that the student is in a position to understand that or appreciate that, and as a result there may be an element of sina which is nichnas belibo, so that would be an example of rechilus which isn't lashon hara. Ha'chidush shebo is, look see that's what the Kesef Mishneh and the Chofetz Chaim following the Kesef Mishneh mean. Ha'chidush shebo is that even though later in Halacha Hei the Rambam says:

אחד המספר בלשון הרע בפני חברו או שלא בפניו והמספר דברים שגורמים אם נשמעו איש מפי איש להזיק חברו בגופו או בממונו ואפילו להצר לו או להפחידו הרי זה לשון הרע.

If a person says things which will cause hezek to another person begufo or bemamono or to cause him distress or that he should be intimidated, so that's lashon hara. But apparently what falls between the cracks is to tell someone something that as a result they'll hate another person, that doesn't fall into, that's not included in this lashon hara definition, which is how the Rambam, which is how and why the Rambam presents that rechilus can, you avoid lashon hara. It can be only an issur rechilus and not necessarily compounded by lashon hara as well. The definition of rechilus then is to repeat to Shimon what Reuven said about him, what Reuven did. to him or did against his interests or did regarding him some kind of you're telling Shimon what Reuven again said or did vis-à-vis Shimon and lav davka that it's a davar shel gnus but it's something that Reuven is likely to resent Shimon's having that. But since it's not really gnus shel atzmo and what's more it's not gonna cause Reuven to go destroy Shimon's property, to go attack him or to take any action against him, so because of that it's not lashon hara but rechilus it is, but an issur rechilus it is. And lashon hara is either a davar which is intrinsically a davar shel gnus or it's a davar shel gnus as dictated by the results, by the fallout from what's being said. Okay. How exactly does the lashon hapassuk of לא תלך רכיל בעמך encompass both of these? What exactly is a good translation here of the words of לא תלך רכיל בעמך? You don't get the impression from the Rambam that it's a ich veiss a type of lav she'b'klalos which is encompassing two different inyanim. No. You get the impression from the Rambam it's sort of two facets of a single lav, two versions or variations of a single lav. So what's the underlying definition? So the peshat is like this. The passuk says הולך רכיל מגלה סוד. That a rachil is someone who's megaleh, someone who reveals, someone who publicizes whatever otherwise wouldn't, isn't known, shouldn't be known. So the emes is both the rachil and the mesaper lashon hara are doing that. When the rachil tells Shimon that this is what Reuven said about you, that's exactly הולך רכיל מגלה סוד. It's megaleh. And certainly anytime you reveal another person's shortcomings, another person's chesronos, a davar shel gnus, that's avada that that's an act of being megaleh. That's why the lashon haRambam is so beautiful here in halacha aleph when presumably in halacha aleph the Rambam is introducing both rechilus and lashon hara. So he's looking for a word that will encompass both rechilus and lashon hara. So the Rambam says hameragel bachaveiro. So meragel means again meraglim, right? Yosef says to the brothers מרגלים אתם לראות את ערות הארץ באתם. That a meragel is takeh someone who's looking to see what's private. He's looking to see what's private and to be megaleh that. לראות את ערות הארץ באתם. So that's what the Rambam says, that's exactly the hagdara here of both lashon hara and rechilus. If the teacher was talking to the principal in confidence, it's a הולך רכיל מגלה סוד for one classmate to tell another. By definition any gnus that a person has is something which is not supposed to be misgaleh. It's lichora against this background that the definition of the issur is again to be megaleh, to be megaleh, that that's the definition of both rechilus and lashon hara, the common denominator of the two, that that what otherwise would be is extremely tamua in halacha daled can be understood. The Rambam introduces halacha daled as follows:

ויש שם דברים שהן אבק לשון הרע. כיצד? מי יאמר לפלוני שיהיה כמו שהוא עתה. או יאמר או שיאמר שסקו מפלוני. איני רוצה להודיע מה אירע ומה היה וכיוצא בדברים האלו. וכן המספר בטובת חבירו בפני שונאו והרי זה אבק לשון הרע שזה גורם להם שיספר בגנותו ועל עניין זה אמר שלמה מברך רעהו בקול גדול בבוקר השכם

klala techashev lo שמתוך טובתו בא לידי רעתו. Okay, so these things we sort of understand why they're avak lashon hara. They're not really lashon hara because you're not really saying... saying anything definite, a little bit of innuendo or there's an opposite reaction to what you're saying, but we understand why these are only avak lashon hara. Rambam continues:

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

just skipping the pasuk,

וכן המספר בלשון הרע דרך רמיות והוא שיספר לתומו כאלו אינו יודע שדבר זה לשון הרע הוא אלא כשממחים בו אומר אני יודע שאלו מעשיו של פלוני או שזה לשון הרע.

So the last two examples are very very difficult to understand. The fact that a person says the lashon hara derech sechok, Ma'aseh b'chol yom people are moshav leitzim, people are sitting around and joking with kalus rosh. So I don't know what we sometimes call teasing or whatever is דרך שחוק ודרך קלות ראש. That's what the Rambam's talking about. Even equally difficult: המספר בלשון הרע דרך רמיות is the person is basically he's faking, right? כאילו אינו יודע שדבר זה לשון הרע הוא but obviously he does. And he's sort of posturing as though he didn't realize that what he was saying was negative. So why in the world should that be downgraded from full-fledged lashon hara to avak lashon hara? So the Emes is the Chofetz Chaim doesn't go with this definition of the Rambam. Chofetz Chaim assumes that this is lashon hara gamur, that this is full-blown lashon hara. Originally he suggests a pshat, a lamdan'ishe pshat in this Rambam, that the v'chein notwithstanding, the first half of the halacha is avak lashon hara, and the second half of the halacha the Rambam has switched back to real lashon hara. But then he himself says that he realized subsequently that that's not true because l'ma'aseh the Rambam writes meforash in Peirush Hamishnayos in Pirkei Avos, the Avodas Hamelech here in Hilchos De'os quotes this Rambam in Peirush Hamishnayos as well. The Rambam in perek aleph is talking about different parts of speech, chelkei hadibur. So in that context he mentioned lashon hara, so he says,

כיון דאתא לידן נזכר בו מלתא. כיון שהזכרנו לשון הרע בחלק הדבור האסור הריני מבאר. ואסקה בו מקצת דברי חכמים.

The next sentence is very fascinating.

לפי שבני אדם בזה בעורון עצום והוא העבירה החמורה ביותר שאדם נכשל בו תמיד ובפרט במה שאמרו חכמים שאבק לשון הרע אין אדם ניצל ממנו בכל יום והלואי לא יהא לשון הרע עצמו.

So what the Chofetz Chaim 700 or 700 plus years later was so concerned about, the Rambam had the same problem. Now comes the Rambam's definition.

לשון הרע הוא ספור מגראות בני אדם ומומם והשפלת אדם מישראל באיזה אופן שיהיה מן ההשפלה אפילו היה שפל כמו שאמר לפי שאין לשון הרע שישקר על האדם כי זה נקרא מוציא שם רע על חבירו לשון הרע הוא גנוי האדם אפילו במעשה שעשה אותן בודאי. ואבק לשון הרע הוא הרמוז במומי האדם מבלי לומר בפירוש.

So l'chorah the pshat here is as follows. Heyos, in light of what we said in halachos aleph and beis that the definition of the איסור לא תלך רכיל בעמיך is to be megaleh. Anytime it's true, the person is it's a facade, but the fact that he's operating with that facade means that what he's doing isn't isn't... As though he’s describing something innocent. And then when you stop and think about it, you realize that what he’s saying is very negative, it’s very, very, very critical. The fact that it’s said derech remez, the fact that that it’s said derech ramuz sufficiently detracts from the gilooy shebo that that it doesn’t meet the standard of Lashon Hara d'Oraisa and is only considered avak Lashon Hara. Same thing with the with the derech sechok. Well, and the Rambam notes here in Halacha Gimmel that

אמרו חכמים שלש עבירות נפרעין מן האדם בעולם הזה ואין לו חלק לעולם הבא ואלו הן עבודה זרה גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים ולשון הרע כנגד כולם. ועוד אמרו חכמים כל המספר בלשון הרע כאילו כפר בעיקר שנאמר אשר אמרו ללשוננו נגביר שפתינו אתנו מי אדון לנו. ועוד אמרו חכמים שלשה לשון הרע הורגת האומרו והמקבלו וזה שאומרים עליו והמקבלו יתר מן האומרו.

So the Chofetz Chaim when he quotes in the beginning of Hilchos Lashon Hara about the שלש עבירות נפרעין מן האדם and the ולשון הרע כנגד כולם, so he distinguishes between someone who as a one-time occurrence or b'akrai Rachmana litzlan talks Lashon Hara and a person who's a Ba'al Lashon Hara, a person who habitually, regularly, his speech just regularly, habitually, involves involves Lashon Hara. So it's hard to imagine that the Rambam disagrees with that, even though he doesn't really spell it out b'feirush. I'm not sure why, but it's hard to imagine that the Rambam doesn't agree with it. And so maybe the Halacha Bifnei Shlosha we're about to get up to in our Seder Halimud in Halacha Heis, maybe we'll leave it for then. So bli neder next Thursday we'll try to finish up with nekama and netira. It could be we'll come back to some other Halachos and vorts that we glossed over, and after that for the Thursdays bli neder we'll go back to Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah.