Deos 7:2 – more L”H

Let's see the latter part of Halacha Bet here rabosai.

יש עון גדול מזה עד מאד והוא בכלל לאו זה והוא לשון הרע.

So the lav of lo teleich rachil actually

והוא לשון הרע והוא המספר בגנות חבירו אף על פי שאומר אמת.

So this fact is something the Chofetz Chaim expended tremendous effort to dispel the erroneous notion that if something is true it's not lashon hara but as the Chofetz Chaim pointed out it's meforash, it's meforash in the Rishonim it wasn't a chiddush of the Chofetz Chaim this is something that he shone a spotlight on it's meforash yes that אף על פי שאומר אמת it still constitutes lashon hara אבל האומר שקר מוציא שם רע על חבירו נקרא. Now the lav for motzi shema is also lo teleich rachil but the Rambam in Hilchos Na'ara Besula in I think it's perek gimmel so the Rambam says there he happens to be taka talking about the specific example of מוציא שם על בתולת ישראל where the husband claims that she was nizna after eiruson but it's the same lav even if it's a different type of hotza'as shem but all three are included in lo teleich rachil whether it's rechilus whether it's lashon hara whether it's motzi shema they're all subsumed within lo teleich rachil.

אבל בעל לשון הרע זה שיושב ואומר כך וכך עשה פלוני וכך וכך היו אבותיו וכך וכך שמעתי עליו ואומר דברים של גנאי על זה הכתוב אומר יכרית ה' כל שפתי חלקות לשון מדברת גדולות.

So the ba'al lashon hara means someone who speaks lashon hara habitually that there's this constant flow of lashon hara that's what the idiom of yoshev ve'omer obviously the Rambam doesn't make a difference in terms of lashon hara whether a person is sitting or standing but yoshev it represents a kevius as in ובמושב לצים לא ישב that's what the sense that of yeshiva means that he's entrenched and that it's something which is habitual rachmana litzlan and constant. The mesaper lashon hara is even if a person does it once and the ba'al lashon hara is someone for whom it's rachmana litzlan again constant and habitual. Now Halacha Gimmel lichora is following up on the latter part of Halacha Bet when the Rambam quotes that

אמרו חכמים שלש עבירות נפרעין מן האדם בעולם הזה ואין לו חלק לעולם הבא עבודה זרה וגלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים ולשון הרע כנגד כולם.

So the context here suggests and we'll see in a minute it's actually even more meforash elsewhere in the Rambam but the context suggests that the Rambam is referring to the seifa of the halacha that this ma'amar chazal is not said about a one-time violation rachmana litzlan of lashon hara but this ma'amar chazal is said about the ba'al lashon hara. If you take a look in where it's meforash in the Rambam again the mashma'us is pretty clear here as well but where it's meforash is if you take a look in perek gimmel of Hilchos Teshuva Halacha Vav so in gimmel vav in teshuva the Rambam has the list of אלו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא and in that list the second to last in that list is ba'alei lashon hara right not hamasaper lashon hara but ba'alei lashon hara and and that's clearly what the p'shat is here as well that Halacha Gimmel is referring back to the very end of Halacha Bet of ba'alei lashon hara. At least this, this beginning of Halacha Gimmel, the beginning of Halacha Gimmel.

ולשון הרע כנגד כולם ואמרו חכמים כל המספר בלשון הרע כאילו כפר בעיקר שנאמר אשר אמרו ללשוננו נגביר שפתינו אתנו מי אדון לנו ועוד אמרו חכמים שלושה לשון הרע הורגת האומר והמקבל וזה שנאמר עליו והמקבל יתר מן האומר.

The pshat in Chazal is clear why המקבל יתר מן האומר means that in Halacha Daled we'll have this imagery. If you imagine someone speaking Lashon Hara as shooting an arrow, so what determines whether or not the arrow hits its target, what determines whether or not a mesaper Lashon Hara successfully disparages the person about whom he's speaking is whether or not anyone believes him. A mesaper Lashon Hara can talk Lashon Hara from today to tomorrow, if no one buys into it, if no one believes it then the Lashon Hara misses its mark and it doesn't accomplish anything. What the detrimental effect of Lashon Hara is when people believe it and that's what it means that המקבל יתר מן האומר. Sometimes when a person rachmana litzlan hears Lashon Hara, even if it's not something that the person was knowingly exposing himself to, but sometimes it happens, so you know generally we sort of assume our mindset and in other contexts this is appropriate, you know we assume people have credibility and it's a little bit of a nisayon not to be meqabel Lashon Hara. So the Chofetz Chaim points out that if even le-divrei ha-mesaper the Lashon Hara it's not justified, so then bi-khlal the person has no chezkas kashrus and it really undercuts the nisayon in terms of the credibility because if the person is alerting us to what על פי הלכות לשון הרע we need to know, what he should be telling us, okay, so then what he's doing doesn't impugn his own chezkas kashrus. אף על פי כן the Gemara in Niddah says lemekhash mi-ba-ei. A person shouldn't be meqabel, but if a person isn't in a position to either confirm or refute, so lemekhash mi-ba-ei, he should be on guard in case the Lashon Hara is true. But where afilu le-divrei ha-mesaper it's unwarranted, so the Chofetz Chaim points out bi-khlal the person has no chezkas kashrus because even li-dvarav there's no reason for the person who's hearing this Lashon Hara to be told about the Lashon Hara. So in those situations, again, either way the person shouldn't be meqabel unless there's devarim nikkarim, unless there's, you know, very clear indications that it's true, but the nisayon is undercut when even le-divrei ha-mesaper it's unwarranted. Other than this allusion in this context to the meqabel Lashon Hara, so I think this we spoke about earlier in Hilchos Deios, so the Rambam doesn't say anything about the issur of shemiah kabbalas, שמיעת קבלת לשון הרע and it only sort of comes in sort of incidentally through the back door because the Rambam wants to quote in terms of impressing upon us the chomer ha-aveirah, so he wants to quote the ma'amar of שלושה לשון הרע הורגת האומר והמקבל וזה שנאמר עליו and in that context so meqabel, you know, gets swept in through the back door. But otherwise let's say when the Rambam says the lav, so the Rambam only tells us what the lav is for being mesaper Lashon Hara and it's not until we get to Hilchos Sanhedrin where the Rambam quotes the pasuk of לא תשא שמע שוא. In Hilchos Sanhedrin the Rambam says that that's an azharah for shemias Lashon Hara. It's the lav includes two things: the reason it's in Sanhedrin that it's also that the Beis Din is not allowed to listen to the tainos of one... one baal davar when the other baal davar is not present. That same lav also includes a lav for שמיעת קבלת לשון הרע or whatever the definition of the issur is, and it's only in Hilchos Sanhedrin that the Rambam tells it to us, and as we discussed, it's because there's a fundamental conceptual difference between the issur of kabbalas lashon hara and the issur of sipor lashon hara. The issur of sipor lashon hara is a Hilchos Deios-dikker issur. The mesaper lashon hara is the one who initiates it. It's not just that he passively makes this mistake of giving credibility to the mesaper lashon hara. שומע מקבל לשון הרע lav davka that there's a deia ra which is at the core of the issur. So it doesn't belong here in Hilchos Deios, so the Rambam doesn't mention it. That yesod again, that we've been discussing about how the definition of the issur is then that it's the deia ra that expresses itself in the lashon hara also accounts for something else. Again, the Chofetz Chaim famously explains that, again, the way we usually formulate it is that there are certain contexts when it's muttar, even required, to say lashon hara. A shidduch inquiry, an inquiry about a potential business partner, or any time when the person to whom, with whom the lashon hara is being shared needs to be aware of that flaw, of that shortcoming, of that plot to kill the Gedalia, needs to be aware of it. So the Rambam doesn't mention that, right? Again, we all know it from the Chofetz Chaim, but the Rambam's not here. So how is it that it's not here in the Rambam? So it's a pela. So the answer is because conceptually, the way we say it is really not accurate according to the Rambam. It's not that this is lashon hara that's muttar to say. That formulation suggests, again, that issur lashon hara is an issur dibbur and that the definition of the issur dibbur is saying something negative about a fellow Jew. And then, okay, so ninety-nine percent of the time that's assur, but there's one percent of the time where you're allowed and even required, again, with all the conditions that the Chofetz Chaim lays out, where you're allowed and even required. But conceptually that's not correct. It's not that this is lashon hara which is muttar. It's not like a case, I don't know if you hold pikuach nefesh, Shabbos is dechuya pikuach nefesh that a chilul Shabbos that's muttar. The hayos that issur lashon hara is a Hilchos Deios-dikker issur, it's bechalal not lashon hara, because it's only lashon hara when a person is cynically disparaging. When a person is looking out for the interests of someone who's making a shidduch inquiry, of someone who's making inquiry about a potential business partner, it's not the pshat that it's lashon hara that's muttar. It's not lashon hara. Because the core of the issur is a Hilchos Deios-dikker issur. So itachen that that would explain why the Rambam doesn't feel that he needs to spoon-feed and needs to spell out these because conceptually they're not exceptions. If it would be an issur dibbur ra, say, of saying something negative, then these are exceptions. And hayitachen that the Rambam doesn't have the exceptions? But Hashta de-asino lehacha that the definition of the issur is that it's a Hilchos Deios-dikker issur, so obviously a person is not he's not manifesting some deia ra when for tachlis purposes he needs to share something which is unflattering, something which is negative about someone. But why are you saying my shmia isn't a Hilchos Deios issur? Because by definition the, again, the definition of an issur is what will always be present when a person is over the issur. The fact that sometimes it may be there, but if the fact that sometimes it isn't there means that it's not at the core of the issur. So mesaper lashon hara by definition can and therefore always is a Hilchos Deios-dikker issur in the sense that the person is initiating the lashon hara, right? The mesaper lashon hara... He's the one even if someone, again even if someone asked him a question, but lemaiseh, he's the one who's initiating the lashon hara in terms of speaking the lashon hara. Mah sheken shomea lashon hara person can be minding his own business. He wasn't looking to hear lashon hara, he was exposed to it. Now, even then the Torah says, okay you need to push back against the sense of you know naivete that that we have that we just assume that everything we hear or read is true. But that's not lav davka that there's a deia ra'a that's that's manifest or that's underlying. Again we do it all the time, right? People open a newspaper and and there's this aura of credibility to print and and they think that what they're reading in the newspaper is true. An awful lot of what one would read in newspapers is is either sheker gomur or is a combination of of truth and and sheker. But it's not a again a person could easily be mekabel lashon hara without there being a deia ra'a. So it's not a hilchos deos-dike inyan. Yes, by definition a person can't be mesaper lashon hara without that deia ra'a. So that's why the Rambam understood that being mesaper lashon hara is is a hilchos deos-dike inyan. But the mekabel lashon hara, lav davka that it's hilchos deos. So then Shmuel Aharon mentioned the exceptions besides the shomea lashon hara being since the shomea lashon hara is not a hilchos deos-dike issur, so then he should mention all the exceptions the Chofetz Chaim talks about besides the shomea. So you're asking very well. So it could be, it could be you're asking very well, but kemidumni that the answer to that question is, let me just check my... Yeah. So it could be that again the Chofetz Chaim famously has a diyun whether or not the issur is only kabolas lashon hara or whether there's an issur de'oraisa just in shmias lashon hara. מצד לא תלך רכיל. Does lo telech rachil or whatever the lav is for being on the auditory end of lashon hara, so is it shmiah or kabala? He has an arrichus. And and he says that it's shmias lashon hara. That there's an issur in shmiah alone even without kabala. But itochen meod that the Rambam doesn't agree with that. Again in terms of what the lav of lo telech rachil is. If you would hold, again the lashon haRambam in Hilchos Sanhedrin, it's פרק כ"א הלכה ז. So in chaf aleph zayin the Rambam writes that

אסור לדיין לשמוע דברי אחד מבעלי דינים קודם שיבוא חברו או שלא בפני חברו אפילו דבר אחד אסור שנאמר שמוע בין אחיכם וכל השומע מאחד עובר בלא תעשה שנאמר לא תשא שמע שוא ובכלל לאו זה אזהרה למקבל לשון הרע ומספר לשון הרע ומעיד עדות שקר.

So the lashon haRambam is mekabel lashon hara. Here too in halacha gimmel it's

שלושה לשון הרע הורג את האומר המקבל וזה שאומרים עליו.

So itochen meod that the shitas haRambam is that the issur of lo telech rachil is davka mekabel lashon hara, in which case there don't need to be any exceptions. Right? You only have to say there are exceptions let's say it's muttar for a person lechatchila to hear again lashon hara. loshon hora about in the context of a potential business partner, in context of a potential shidduch, right? If you hold that the איסור שמיעת לשון הרע, that's an exception. If you hold the איסור קבלת לשון הרע, so hear it and don't believe it. So lav davka that there is an exception. So ein hachi nami in terms of sippur loshon hora, so the teretz is the Rambam doesn't need to say it because it's not the de'ah ra'ah, it's not the Hilchos De'os-dik loshon hora. And mitzad being on the receiving end, so if you say not like the Chofetz Chaim and it's yitachen me'od that the pshat in the Rambam l'chora seems to be that way, that the issur is davka the kabbalah. So either way, it's not an exception there either because in those contexts, let's say of the shidduch inquiry or the potential business partner, there's no hetter to believe it. The hetter is to seek out the information and hear it, but lav davka to believe it. To hear the information and as the Gemara says למיחש מי בעי. So if a person hears a negative information and can't again, can neither confirm nor refute, so למיחש מי בעי, he has to be on guard that it might be true. I don't know that it's true, so as long as I don't know that it's true, so I'm not being mekabbel loshon hora, so it doesn't need to be an exception. It isn't an exception. That's why the Rambam doesn't have to say it either time. He doesn't have to say it mitzad the mesapper because mitzad the mesapper conceptually, let's say, is it muttar to take a walk in Shabbos? The answer is yes. So is that an exception to the issur melachah? No, it's just isn't the melachah to take a walk. It's not an exception to the issur melachah, it isn't the melachah. So mitzad mesapper loshon hora, it's not the de'ah ra'ah, it's not a Hilchos De'os-dik loshon hora when a person is saying for tachlis purposes. Now, ein hachi nami, so you're asking, but we're saying that the mekabbel loshon hora, the one on the listening end, that's not a Hilchos De'os-dik issur, so shouldn't the exceptions have to be mentioned there? The answer is, but if you hold that the issur's kabbalah, vayter there's no exception, because in those contexts that the Chofetz Chaim talks about, the takeh is no hetter to believe it. The hetter is only to seek out the information and to hear it. Now, it's important to again, juxtapose to what we just talked about in terms of the shitas haRambam about mekabbel versus shomeia loshon hora. So what we said notwithstanding, if you take a look at halachah vav. Just skip ahead for a moment to halachah vav, rabosai. Kol eilu people who engage in the type of speech that the Rambam's been talking about previously here in the perek:

כל אלו הם בעלי לשון הרע שאסור לדור בשכונתם וכל שכן לשבת עמהם ולשמוע דבריהם. ולא נחתם גזר דין על אבותינו במדבר,

this is the mishna in Archin, right?

ולא נחתם גזר דין על אבותינו במדבר אלא על לשון הרע בלבד.

So how does this, does this contradict what we were just saying, the diyuk that we had in Hilchos Sanhedrin the loshon of mekabbel loshon hora? So the answer is no, because let's say assur ladur bishchunasam. So let's say so on One Main Street, Number One Main Street, there's a ba'al loshon hora. And someone goes ahead and knowingly buys the house on Three Main Street. So he was עובר לא תלך רכיל? When the Rambam says assur ladur bishchunasam, he means that that's mitzad lo selech rachil? No. It means that a person is harchak mishachen ra. That a ba'al loshon hora is a shachen ra. So the dinim that the Rambam is telling us here in halachah vav, that's not mitzad lo selech rachil, it's mitzad that a person is not harchak mishachen ra. A person should not be keeping company with a shachen ra. So ein hachi nami, halachah l'ma'aseh, the fact that we just said that for the Rambam lo selech rachil, or excuse me, not lo selech rachil, לא תשא שמע שוא is an azharah davka for mekabbel loshon hora, not for shomeia loshon hora, doesn't translate halachah l'ma'aseh that for the Rambam it's a non-issue to knowingly expose oneself to hearing loshon hora, right? That's crucial to understand that, rabosai. We're saying it's not b'klal the lav of לא תשא שמע שוא. Well neither is moving in next door to the ba'al loshon hora either. If a person buys Three Main Street when he lives in One Main Street, a person's not violating... So this shouldn't be my Baal Sicha, this shouldn't be the person that I'm schmoozing with all the time and conversing. So again this halacha vav doesn't contradict what we're saying, but on the other hand it's a very crucial supplement to what we're saying that tachlis halacha lemaaseh even after having established that for the Rambam the lav deoraissa לא תישא שמע שוא is an azhara for mekabel lashon hara, that doesn't translate into halacha lemaaseh that it's muttar, that it's a non-issue to knowingly go and hear, to knowingly go and listen to lashon hara. Tachlis halacha lemaaseh it's assur, but conceptually, you know if the person asks you why it's assur, the answer is not that it's assur mitzad לא תישא שמע שוא, but it's assur mitzad again this bundle of dinim of assur ladur bishchenaso etcetera.