We'll pick up in the Aggadeta on the bottom of Lamed Gimmel Amud Alef, the bottom line here on Lamed Gimmel Amud Alef. Tanu Rabbanan: אסקרא באה לעולם על המעשר. What's Askara? Rashi says: חולי המסקרא במעיים וגומר בגרון. Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Yosi omer al lashon hara. Rashi al ha'ma'aser: אוכל פירותיו טבלים והוא במיתה בידי שמים וזו היא מיתתו מידה כנגד מידה דדרך גרון נכנס במעיו.
But the mida keneged mida is in the opposite sequence. It's דרך גרון נכנס במעיו and the Askara rachmana litzlan begins in the me'ayim and ends in the garon. So beshum lei it means like this, that when it's nichnas be'me'av, he certainly has hana'as aveira, but the ikkar by issur achila Rabbi Yochanan says, let's say we'll interpret this Gemara hagam it's a Braisa, but we'll interpret al pi Rabbi Yochanan in the sugya in Gid HaNasheh, so the ikkar is the hana'as garon. Hana'as me'ayim is not what's kovei'a in terms of issur achila; it's the hana'as garon. The Gemara says in Chullin, Rabbi Yochanan says if a person would eat chatzi zayis and then it would come back up and it would still be ra'uy l'achila and then he would eat the same chatzi zayis a second time, so then he'd be chayav malkus because even though in terms of hana'as me'ayim there's sach hakol only one chatzi zayis, but in terms of hana'as garon, since it goes down twice, he had the hana'ah of a full-fledged kezayis. So what's kovei'a in terms of issur achila is the hana'as garon. So at least according to Rabbi Yochanan, the pshat here would be that again even though sequentially the hana'as garon comes before the hana'as me'ayim, but the ikkar aveira is certainly the hana'as garon. So that's where the gemar ha'onesh rachmana litzlan would be. Hashta d'asinu l'hacha, even according to Reish Lakish who requires hana'as me'ayim in order to be over the issur achila, but the point at which the person is active in terms of deriving the hana'as garon, so maybe the same pshat would be correct according to Reish Lakish as well. Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Yosi omer al lashon hara. אמר רבא ואיתימא רבי יהושע בן לוי mai kra? והמלך ישמח באלוקים יתהלל כל הנשבע בו כי יסכר פי דוברי שקר.
Right, so the pshuto shel mikra, if you take a look in the Maharsha on the side, they quote the Rashi from Tehillim, so yissacher means it will be closed or by extension obstructed, as in Parshas Noach: ויסכרו כל מעיינות תהום רבה. That when the mabul happens it's נבקעו כל מעיינות תהום רבה and then when Hakadosh Baruch Hu stops the mabul, the mei mabul, so then it's vayissachru, so nistamu. Apparently, the by Askara, so here Rashi says that the Gemara is interpreting the pasuk as a remez to Askara. By Askara rachmana litzlan when it ends in the garon, it means that somehow or other it obstructs the airway or something and prevents breathing, rachmana litzlan. So here there's a question as follows: if you take a look in the Maharsha... On the Maharsha on the Gemara in the Chidushei Aggados here on ל"ג ע"ב. והמלך ישמח כי יסכר פי דוברי שקר. לשון הרע נופל בין אומר אמת ובין אומר שקר אבל האי קרא אדבר לשון הרע שקר קאי. כחדא דאמרינן בפרק הערל בדואג שאמר לו לשאול על דוד עד שאתה שואל עליו אם הגון הוא למלכות שאל עליו אם ראוי לבוא בקהל דמירות קאתי. וזה שבקש דוד על עצמו והמלך ישמח באלוקים שיבואר שהוא כשר וראוי למלכות וישתבח כל הנשבע בו דהיינו מי שנשבע במלך חי אדוני המלך ישתבח בו כי שפיר נשבע וכן היה דרכן להשבע בחיי המלך כמפורש בכמה מקראות ואמר וזה יבואר כי יסכר דהיינו שימות דואג במיתת אסכרה שהיא מיתת בעלי לשון הרע וקל להבין.
So the Maharsha says that this posuk is referring to lashon hora of shaker, but lashon hora can mean either omer emes or omer shaker, so mimaila that's the makor, that's the raya. The question is how do we understand it? Kaidua, Chafetz Chaim writes at the beginning of הלכות איסור לשון הרע אסור לספר בגנות חברו אפילו על אמת גמור וזה נקרא בפי חז"ל בכל מקום לשון הרע.
And then he writes אם יש בסיפור שלו תערובת של שקר ובעבור זה נתגנה חברו יותר הוא בכלל מוציא שם רע ועוונו גדול הרבה יותר.
So how do we sort of put everything together here? That according to what the Chafetz Chaim writes, how can you be bringing a raya that on avon lashon hora the misa rachmana litzlan would be askara if clearly here we're dealing with יסכר פי דוברי שקר and on shaker is not simply lashon hora but it's motzi shem ra which is much more chamur? So how do we sort of figure all this out? Okay, so a few possibilities. The first one, alright, so ayein elav if it's al derech hapeshat, al derech hachidus. If we would just have the Gemara without the Maharsha, so you'll find as follows: let's say the issur for being mikabel lashon hora is from the posuk in Parshas Mishpatim, לא תשא שמע שוא. That's the issur of being mikabel lashon hora. לא תשא שמע שוא, right, not to carry in the sense of if someone is looking to load you up, to make you laden with a shema shav, which means lashon hora, lo tissa, don't carry it, don't take it, don't be mikabel lashon hora. So Onkelos on that posuk says for shema shav, shema d'shkar. He uses the word shaker. So either Onkelos is not going with that derasha of the Mechilta that this is a posuk for issur lashon hora, because lashon hora doesn't have to be shaker, or it could be as follows: in Mishlei in Eishes Chayil on the posuk of שקר החן והבל היופי, so the Metzudos, so in Metzudos Tziyon the lashon is שקר והבל עניינם דבר שאין בו ממש. That sheker doesn't only denote falsehood in the sense that just it's not factual. If you say that right now in New York it's nighttime, so that's sheker mitzad that it's simply not factual. But sheker can also denote something which is ein bo mamash. The Metzudos David writes the lashon אין באלה תועלת רב עד להלל האשה באלה. So there's no, there's no toeles. Ein b'eileh toeles. So again, so sheker here means not, it could be that takeh she's very cheinivdik, but ein b'eileh toeles. There's no, there's no toeles to it. Then he says the nimshal is that העיונים הדקים והתחכמות החקירות הנמצאות בשאר חכמות אין תועלתן רב מול חכמת התורה.
So he clearly isn't saying that it's false again in the usual sense that we use the word, but sheker also means like we just had in our Gemara in Habboneh, it means something which has no kiyum, something which has no toeles, something which has no kiyum. So something can have no kiyum because it's just, it's just false. Because if I say right now that it's nighttime out in New York, so that has no kiyum because it's false. But you can say something, a person says lashon hara l'lo toeles, so that also has no kiyum. So lemaaseh you do find the lashon sheker that it doesn't always mean that it's factually false, but it's false in the sense that it's a דבר שאין בו ממש, a דבר שאין בו תועלת, a דבר שאין בו קיום. Possibly, I don't know, I don't know in Onkelos, I'm not sure whether al derech hapsat or al derech hachiddush, but again, one mahalach, hein in Onkelos, hein in our Gemara, leaving aside the Maharsha for the moment of ישכר פי דוברי שקר, is that if sheker means in the sense of ein bo toeles and mamash, so then it's just talking about it's talking about lashon hara. That would be one teretz on the kasha, again, whether al derech hapsat or whether al derech hachiddush. We see in Masechet Shvuos that the Rishonim go back and forth a lot of times between shvuas shav and then Rashi or one of the other Rishonim will come and say, "Oh, it's supposed to be shvuas sheker," and they use them interchangeably a lot, sort of like Rebbi saying the Onkelos. Other Rishonim come and jump on it and say, "No, it's meant to be exact," but you certainly see Rashi and other Rishonim that they do that same kind of switch. Right, Onkelos does it on the pasuk of לא תשא שמע שוא. One is l'magana and one is lishkar. Okay, so that's one mahalach. Beyond that, lemaaseh where does this come from, the Chofetz Chaim's statement that motzi shem ra is עוונו גדול הרבה יותר? To where does that come from, that statement? So here in this very, very nice sefer with perushim and iyunim on the sefer Chofetz Chaim, the mechaber is Rav Moshe Kaufman. So he quotes the Rabbeinu Yonah writes like this in Shaarei Teshuva, in at least two places, Rabbeinu Yonah says that מוציא שם רע רחמנא ליצלן is חייב מיתה בידי שמיים. Seems to imply for a even for a single instance of מוציא שם רע רחמנא ליצלן a person could be חייב מיתה בידי שמיים. He quotes the lashon Rabbeinu Yonah. Where's that, one second? He quotes the lashon Rabbeinu Yonah. וזה לשונו במאמר ק''ט וחייבין עמידה זו בני שמים as is explained in the mishna ויש בהם אשר ביארו אותם רבותינו ז''ל b'gemara b'midrashim. Verubam יש ללמדם מן הפסוק v'chulu. וזה לשונו במאמר קי''א בספרים אחרים קי''ב וזה לשונו של רבינו יונה והמוציא שם רע שנאמר וימותו האנשים מוציאי דבת הארץ רעה במגפה לפני ה' אמרו רבותינו ז''ל אם המוציא שם רע על הארץ עונשו במיתה המוציא שם רע על איש ישראל שנתחייב בתורה ומצוות על אחת כמה וכמה עיין שם.
So that's that's the Rabbeinu Yonah and again very clear mokof for what the Chafetz Chaim writes. And again it's that lechora where if you don't say the pshat if you don't say delo kemaharsha, if you take the gemara at face value that יסכר פי דוברי שקר means that it's talking about sheker, so then the question is so how can you bring a rayah from this that for lashon hara on emes... Okay ein hachi nami so that that where that remains. In the Rambam lemaise when you look it's very interesting. In perek zayin of Hilchos Deios וזהו רכיל המרגל בחברו והולך ואומר שנאמר לא תלך רכיל בעמך. הלכה ב' איזהו רכיל זה שהוא טוען 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 עוון גדול מזה עד מאוד והוא בכלל לאו זה והוא לשון הרע והוא המספר בגנות חברו אף על פי שאמר אמת אבל האומר שקר מוציא שם רע על חברו נקרא. אבל בעל לשון הרע זה שיושב ואומר כך וכך עשה פלוני כך וכך היו אבותיו כך וכך שמעתי עליו ואומר דברים של גנאי.
So the Rambam again clearly has that division between when it's emes it's called lashon hara when it's sheker he says Chazal call it moitzi shem ra well the Torah does כי הוציא שם רע Chazal the Torah calls it moitzi shem ra but the Rambam doesn't indicate any nafkamina ledina right minei uvei when the Rambam distinguishes what's classified as rechilous what's classified as lashon hara so the Rambam makes a point of saying that lashon hara is עוון גדול מזה עד מאוד and he doesn't make any such comment with regard to the distinction between lashon hara and moitzi shem ra. So why does he so why does he mention it? I don't know so taka the gemara in Kesubos also has it but maybe lemaise again however one will understand the fact that we have a different phrase for it in in the Rambam there's no I don't and I don't know that there's an indication in the Rambam for what the Rabbeinu Yonah and and the Chafetz Chaim write that the moitzi shem ra is so much more chamur. So then if that's the case so then maybe that's how the Maharsha learns pshat. The Maharsha's pshat like this Rambam that moitzi shem ra is not in such a different category than when the lashon hara is is emes and that's pshat in in our gemara. And and maybe Rabbeinu Yonah is going to have to say the mahalach we said maybe he's going to have to learn pshat delo kemaharsha and that the dovei shaker means sheker in that other sense. The Rambam then goes on to quote all those Chazal's the chumra of lashon hara you see they also go back on moitzi shem ra? Like שלושה לשון הרע הורגין and chamur megilluy arayos? You mean is it possible for the Rambam that moitzi shem ra is even less chamur you're asking? Yeah. I don't know if it's meforash. It's, it's... I don't know. See the pashtus is, is, see in Halacha Vav here in Perek Zayin, the Rambam says כל אלו הם בעלי לשון הרע שאסור לדור בשכונתם וכל שכן לישב עמהם ולשמוע דבריהם ולא נחתם
this is I think a, what, it's in the Mishna in Arachin this next line. ולא נחתם גזר דין על אבותינו במדבר אלא על לשון הרע בלבד.
But that's what we call motzi shem ra, right? Because it's referring to the, referring to the meraglim, referring to the motzi dibat ha'aretz. Was that true? Alright, so motzi shem ra. So it's, it's, it certainly meets the Chofetz Chaim's standard. It certainly meets the standard of יש בסיפור שלו תערובת של שקר. I mean, certainly the way it was presented. I mean, the ma'aseh, yeah, lema'aseh they saw, they saw levayos wherever they went. The interpretation that it's eretz ocheles yoshveha was certainly not true. So it certainly does and they certainly intended it lignos. So the pashtus is that it does reach that, the Chofetz Chaim would certainly think that that was motzi shem ra and not lashon hara unless, okay. What's takeh pshat in the... Okay, so then basically we have two mahalachim. One delo k'Rabbeinu Yonah and lich'ora smuchim l'kach in, in the Rambam. And according to Rabbeinu Yonah, maybe we have to say the first pshat that we said in the Gemara, that shaker in this context means shaker in the sense of shaker hahay, that it's אין בו תועלת אין בו ממש. What's pshat in, in the Rabbeinu Yonah as to why motzi shem ra is more chamur than lashon hara? Because lema'aseh the sort of the counterargument to that is, let's say, rachmana litzlan, a person says lashon hara about a fellow Jew. So if what he says is true, it's a lot more damaging than what if he says is not true. Because lema'aseh, if what he says is not true, so ultimately there's, there's a chance and maybe even a likelihood that sooner or later the person who was victimized is going to be exonerated because you're going to be able to show that, that the whole thing was a fabrication. Ma she'ein kein if, if what was said is true, so then, but again, was said lo l'to'eles, so then the damage is irreparable. So there is lich'ora a level on which one could think and argue that ipcha mistabra, that lashon hara b'emes is more damaging to rachmana litzlan to the על מי שנאמר עליו than lashon hara than motzi shem ra, than where it's shaker. So yitachen that the answer is as follows. And again, not to confuse things even though we're explaining the Rabbeinu Yonah, the Rambam doesn't say it, but it's not a stira, not a kasha. There's something very, very fascinating when you learn פרק ז הלכות דעות where the Rambam has the halachos of lashon hara. There's something remarkable. So again, it goes from Halacha Aleph through Halacha Vav. So that's the Rambam's discussion of hilchos lashon hara. So when you look, I mean, there are a few things missing, but one of the things that's missing is the Rambam doesn't mention the issur of kabbalas lashon hara. Not mentioned here. Not mention him in Hilkhot De'ot. He didn't forget it, he has it in Hilkhot Sanhedrin when he quotes לא תשא שמע שוא azhara le-dayan that he shouldn't hear the tainas of one ba'al davor if the other ba'al davor is not present and he says and it's also azhara not to be mekabbel lashon hara. Also azhara not to be mekabbel lashon hara. But why didn't he say it over here? Over here, this is where he gives you all the halakhot of lashon hara, so he doesn't mention it. He doesn't mention it until you get to Hilkhot Sanhedrin. You don't know that such an issur belongs over here where he's talking about Hilkhot Lashon Hara. Mamash a pele. So what's the teretz? Teretz is that the Rambam puts Hilkhot Lashon Hara here in Hilkhot De'ot, which means that the Rambam is telling you that the issur to be mesapper lashon hara, the issur to be holekh rakhil is be-ikkaro because it's a manifestation of a de'ah ra'ah. Otherwise it doesn't belong here in Hilkhot De'ot. It doesn't belong, it doesn't have shaykhus to Hilkhot De'ot. And we'll see, we'll see in a minute smukhim lekakh. That the issur of lashon hara, it isn't that the it's not that the objective dibbur which is which is harmful, which is hurtful, which is pejorative, that that objective dibbur is assur. It's assur because that dibbur bespeaks the de'ah, a de'ah ra'ah. And we'll see, I think nafka mina ledina. Chafetz Chaim writes, Chafetz Chaim has a footnote where he says like this: He says in those contexts in which it's muttar to elicit negative information, shiddukhim, business vekholu, so he says you have to tell the person why you're making the inquiry. He says because otherwise if the person doesn't know why you're making the inquiry and doesn't figure it out and answers you anyway, so you're being makhshil him. What are you being makhshil him in? So at first the Chafetz Chaim says you're being makhshil him in, the Gemara has a case where is it Nazir? The Gemara has a case like this: Let's say a person is on the table in front of him there's basar khazir and there's basar taleh. There's treif meat and there's kosher meat. So he's reaching for what he thinks is the treif meat, הרי הוא מזומן לעבור עבירה, he's meeting and then somehow comes the Malakh Gavriel to save him and he switches the basar khazir and the basar taleh and עלה בידו בשר טלה. So the Gemara says he tzarikh kapparah. Agav that he ended up eating mamash bedat shekhita, couldn't do better than that, but אף על פי כן since he was reaching for the basar khazir, so then he needs a kapparah. So first the Chafetz Chaim says, so if you're making inquiries about a shiddukh, whatever it is, a business deal, whatever it is, but the person answering you doesn't know that that context of hetter exists, so then he's, you're putting him in a position that he's reaching for basar khazir. Agam that it will be עלה בידו בשר טלה, but that's still, there's still something wrong with that. Now Chafetz Chaim says no, better than that. It's also be-yado basar khazir. He says because since he doesn't know the context, he's being mitkavven le-gannos chaveiro and therefore it's not עלה בידו בשר טלה because it's not the objective, it's not pshat that in Hilkhot Lashon Hara, so if objectively the information was given in the context of a shiddukh inquiry, in the context of a business background checkup, that it's muttar, and if it was in a different context it's assur, it's rather what the middah that expresses itself. The middah that expresses itself if the mesapper is unaware of the context, so he's being mitkavven le-gannos. That's assur min ha-Torah. It's also be-yado, it's not עלה בידו בשר טלה, it's also be-yado basar khazir. Now again, it doesn't mean that when you don't have this context you have to have a harei hu mezumman to be mean and nasty and wicked. No, then we say objectively that to say negative things lo tahor. tells us objectively that reflects a middah ra'ah. But it chaps a nafka mina in this case. The other place where lichora you see it again expressed l'halacha in the Rambam. Someone have a Rambam on the computer? The end of Hilchos Tumas Tzaraas? Anyone have a computer? No. Oh, you got it again. So where is it? At the end of Hilchos Tumas Tzaraas. Oh, you got it? Great, nice. How to find it? Is that correct? Yeah, perfect. על ענין זה מזהיר בתורה ואומר השמר בנגע הצרעת זכור את אשר עשה ה' אלהיך למרים בדרך.
I think there's a chiddush atzum here in what the Rambam is about to say. Listen, listen very carefully rabosai. Harei hu omer the Torah says התבוננו מה אירע למרים הנביאה שדיברה באחיה שהייתה גדולה ממנו בשנים וגידלתו על ברכיה וסיכנה בעצמה להצילו מן הים והיא לא דיברה בגנותו אלא טעתה שהשוותהו לשאר נביאים והוא לא הקפיד על כל הדברים האלו שנאמר והאיש משה ענו מאד ואף על פי כן מיד נענשה בצרעת קל וחומר לבני אדם הרשעים הטפשים שמרבים לדבר גדולות ונפלאות.
Again, so how does the Rambam describe, describe Miriam Ha-Neviah? What do I do if I lost the? Just the mousepad. Move it around. Thank you. What did the Rambam say? והיא לא דיברה בגנותו אלא טעתה שהשוותהו לשאר נביאים, right? והיא לא דיברה בגנותו. Now, now keep that in mind. So what does the Rambam write in Hilchos Deos when he defines the issur Lashon Hara? יש עון גדול מזה עד מאד והוא בכלל זה והוא לשון הרע והוא המספר בגנות חבירו.
The Rambam I think says an unbelievable chiddush. The Rambam says Miriam Ha-Neviah, agam that she was punished with tzaraas, and agam that the זכור את אשר עשה ה' אלהיך למרים is supposed to be the zechirah that keeps us away from Lashon Hara. Miriam Ha-Neviah didn't talk Lashon Hara. Miriam Ha-Neviah did not talk Lashon Hara. The Rambam says the definition of Lashon Hara is hamisaper b'gnos chaveiro. The Rambam's lashon by Miriam Ha-Neviah is והיא לא דיברה בגנותו. What do you mean והיא לא דיברה בגנותו? She said that he was wrongly poresh min ha-ishah. So why isn't that gnos? The teretz is because gnos says something about motivation. Gnos means when you're speaking, when you're speaking again pejoratively, she was speaking l'toeles. She was being misyayetz with Aharon how they should give Moshe Rabbeinu mussar that he's doing something wrong. So that's not gnos. It was wrong, it was wrong, it was incorrect, it was inaccurate ve-chulu, but it's not gnos. Gnos implies again, in this context, it it implies something about the there's a certain maliciousness, there's a certain agenda to put the person down, and and that's the exact same word, and it's avad not a coincidence, it's the exact same word the Rambam used in Hilchos Deos for defining what the issur Lashon Hara is, v'hu hamisaper b'gnos. Lu yehi that the definition of the issur Lashon Hara was that it's speaking negatively about another Jew, negatively about another Jew l'lo toeles. So objectively Miriam spoke negatively about another Jew l'lo toeles. There was no toeles because Moshe Rabbeinu was menuka m'kol avon. So ela mah, the teretz is no, that's why the Rambam says it belongs in Hilchos Deos, it belongs in Hilchos Deos. So then mamash hen hen ha-devarim, that's why the Rambam doesn't mention mekabel Lashon Hara here. Mekabel Lashon Hara is very very shchiach. A person isn't it's not that I sat down at the table because I knew they were going to talk Lashon Hara to hear Lashon Hara. I was there and I happened to hear it and I was mekabel. It doesn't when when there's no initiative, that's not an issur of Hilchos Deos. So it's klar klar that that's the pshat in the Rambam. Klar. It could also be that that's the pshat why of ich veis, what again a shidduch inquiry, a background inquiry for business v'chulu. The Rambam doesn't spell those out. Rambam doesn't spell those out. So what's pshat? No, because it's not they're exceptions. If you learn pshat that that again the definition is negative speech, so then here's a hetter Loshon Hara. If you say no, that that the definition is there's a maliciousness to it. It's a Hilchos De'os-dike issur. So then it's not an exception. It's not just Loshon Hara. He doesn't have to, and if I tell you what the weather is today, so Rambam doesn't write Hilchos De'os either that that's muttar, that that isn't that that isn't an issur Loshon Hara. There's a De'os component which defines the the issur. Hashata d'asina l'hachi, so the Rambam thinks, okay, עד כאן ולא יוסף. In terms of De'os, Motzei Shem Ra and Loshon Hara are they're in the same camp. But you can hear how Rabbeinu Yona would tell you, what did we taina against Rabbeinu Yona as a question, right? What did we ask? That l'chora the Loshon Hara which is true can be more damaging than something which is not true, because ultimately that sheker lo kai, so ultimately that's going to be exposed and the person will be exonerated. As a de'ah ra'ah to fabricate something out of thin air against a fellow Jew, you can hear that Rabbeinu Yona would tell us that the Torah is judging it on that level and and by that yardstick. On that level and by that yardstick, so then you can hear that Motzei Shem Ra is takeh more chamur than than Loshon Hara. At least Loshon Hara, the person takeh, he's being malicious, because what's it his business to go expose this, but l'maiseh he at least at least limited himself to to what was true, ma she'ein kein this person, the de'ah ra'ah is that he's even even fabricating.