Page 212 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim 7 VOL-4 םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Heh - Halachah 4 ז הכלה - ה ללכ

to greet David HaMelech is not called actual circumstantial evidence לעש ,רתוי עירכמ ןיא בוח ףכהש ןאכ ןנירייאד
(against Mephiboshet) but only a slight indication of circumstantial
evidence (as Rashi explains there at the end of his commentary on that ש"מכ ,ךתימע טופשת קדצבד השע תוצמה יאק הז
page in the gemara, that David HaMelech made his award to Tzevah ףא ה"לאד( ,ש"יע ח"יר רמאמב ת"שב הנוי 'רה
conditional on whether or not in the end there was substance to Tzevah’s
comments. Thus (Mephiboshet’s initial behavior) is not called actual הנוי 'רה ש"מכו בוח ףכל ועירכהל אלש הוצמד
circumstantial evidence. Therefore most certainly the law is as we wrote ר"השל ללכב ונניא הז לע רבע םא םוקמ לכמ םש
it, since he (David HaMelech) saw something unusual (in Mephiboshet’s
behavior), namely that Mephiboshet did not come to greet him together .)'ג ללכב ל"נכו
with Tzevah, and he (David HaMelech) assumed that he might be harmed
(by Mephiboshet), that perhaps Mephiboshet was planning a revolt or ליעל יתאבהש תויארה תוחדל לכוי שקעתמהד ףאו
some other harm to David HeMelech, then it was permissible for him to עירכמ היה תוכז ףכה ינה לכד רמאיו 'א קלחב
investigate Mephiboshet.Even though it is possible to argue and say that
only there it was allowed because David HaMelech was concerned for his הז רובע תונגל לבקמה וא רפסמה ךכלו ,רתוי
life, and he was dealing with a possible life threatening issue, nevertheless םה םא ןכ ןיאש המ ,ר"השל לבקמ םשב ארקנ
(even without this reason) it seems to me (in my humble opinion) that
in the context of our discussion here it still is permitted to inquire about בישא ינא ףא .אמלעב הוצמ קר אוה ילוא ,םיוש
someone who might do harm even though there is no hard circumstantial ףכל ונודל הרותה ןוצרד ןניזחד ןויכ ,)'א ,ול
evidence to support that contention.
הזמ ךפיה השוע אוהו ,יאכז רדגב ובישחהלו תוכז

אליממ ,ז"יע ןויזבלו יאנגל וינויערב וטילחמש
Mekor Hachayim
סלפ ול שיש אוה ימד דועו ,)'ב .ילילפ ןוע אוה
RK5/4. Understand clearly that all of the rules we wrote in the first איה תוכז ףכהש וננינעב עירכהל ,טפשמ ינזאמו
th
th
th
part of this sefer in the 6 Kelal (10 and 11 halachot) relating to
suspecting the veracity of Lashon Hara apply equally to suspecting ןכ םאו ,רתוי טעמ איה ילוא הבוח ףכה םע הוש
that the gossip might be true (6). Therefore one must be very careful ןכ לע ,לבקמו ר"הל רפסמ לש תשרב דכלנ אליממ
when he hears that “Plony” said something negative about him or .דואמ הזמ קחרי ושפנ רמושה
that he did such and such to him or wants to do such and such to
him, not to believe that gossip but (only) that he can take whatever
steps are necessary to protect himself. But even in that framework,
he may not even suspect there is some truth to the remarks because
Plony still has a presumption of righteousness and most probably
Plony did not do or say anything bad about him. Therefore, it is םייחה רוקמ
forbidden to do anything to him or to cause any loss to him or to
ִ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
humiliate him in any way, not in a significant way and not even in קזּחְתיֶּשׁ ,וֹנוּקִּתּ )ט( ,תוּליִכרְ לבּקִו רבע רבכּ םִאו .ז
an insignificant way. Even to secretly harbor in one’s heart some וֹל הֶשׁקָ םִא וּלִּפאו .םניִמאהל אלֶֹּשׁ וֹבִּלִּמ רבדּה איִצוֹהל
ֲ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֲ
ְ
ָ
ַ
hatred for him is an esur, a Lav of the Torah. And most certainly
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ֲ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֲ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
the “victim” may not use the gossip as a basis for absolving himself ,בֹשׁחי ,וֹבִּלִּמ םירִבדּה לכּ תא הדבּ רפּסְמהֶשׁ ,בֹשׁחל רבדּה
195 202
volume 4 volume 4