Hi,
1) I have a question that has been really bothering me lately. I have been learning a whole sougya of the 3 aveiras that one must give up his life for (arayos,retzicha,avoda zara) and than I got to "halbanos panim" and "lashon hara" and I got completely confused. I mean, it says conserning halbanos panim in various places ( baba metzi 59) that it is "keilu shofech damim" and "mutav yapil atzmo bekivshan haesh veal yalbin es pene chavero berabim"... and the tosphos over here in sotah 10b says that it is part of yehareg veal yaavor and rabbeinu yona even paskins that way therefore my first question is why doesnt the shoulchan arukh list halbanas panim as one of the yehareg veal yaavor cases!!?? (and please dont tell me the teirutz that many rabbis told me ie: that when it says "keilu" shofech damim it doesnt really mean killing its just "keilu" but I really dont like that answer cuz if its Keilu than it is equal to killing period..even the tzadekes Tamar new that!)
2) My second question is: concerning lashon hara this time. it says in erchin 15b that speaking lashon hara is equivalent to the 3 yehareg veal yaavor cases once again but this time no one (including rabbeinu yona) paskins that it is a yehareg veal yaavor case!!! why not???!! rabbeinu yona even prooves how lashon hara is THE WORST AVEIRA IN THE TORAH (I say that in your insights on erchin15b!) therefore why doesnt the shoulchan aruch codify lashon hara as a yehareg veal yaavor case??!!
Thanks alot in advance for helping me out. I cant wait to see a good teirutz to these 2 kashyas,
Dan Israel Abittan, Montreal, Canada
1) There is a very big argument among the Rishonim whether or not embarrassing someone in public is indeed "Yehareg v'Al Ya'avor." There are some who hold it is not, such as the Meiri in Berachos (43a) and the Tur ha'Aruch on the Pesukim about Tamar. One possible answer, therefore, is that the Shulchan Aruch very possibly holds like the Rishonim who do not say it is Yehareg v'Al Ya'avor.
The answer of your Rabbis that "k'Ilu" is only like killing definitely has a basis, and is pretty clearly the position of the Meiri in Berachos (ibid.). In Rabbi Shlomo Kluger's notes on Even Ha'Ezer ch.1, he indeed states that whether the word "k'Ilu" is literal or is only "as if" but not exactly, is an argument between the Derishah and the Taz. However, it is true that, as you noted above, Tosfos and other Rishonim hold it is literal in this case.
2) This is more clearly an aggadic comment. It is absolutely impossible to think that this should be taken literally to mean that in all aspects it is worse than all three sins put together. This is clearly pointed out by the Maharatz Chiyos is his introduction to Ain Yaakov, who brings your question (why isn't it listed as Yehareg v'Al Ya'avor) as proof that it is not literal. The Maharatz Chayos clearly says that it is the way of Chazal to make such statements to show that something is very stringent.
However, if you don't like this answer, it can be understood to mean that one act of Lashon ha'Ra can possibly do more damage and can therefore be a bigger sin than three individual acts of the big three (such as the Lashon ha'Ra of Doeg that ended up wiping out the Kohanim of Nov). It can also be understood to mean that someone who makes a habit of being a Ba'al Lashon ha'Ra (who Rabeinu Yonah says has no portion in Olam ha'Ba) is looked upon more severely by Hash-m than someone who did three individual acts of these sins.
All I can tell you is that you certainly should not think that it means that one act of Lashon ha'Ra is always worse than doing all of the big three together. Everyone knows that Aggadic statements must be carefully understood, and understanding that it means this is a serious mistake.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose