Page 105 - V3

4
VOL-3
Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Zayin - Halachah 2 ד הכלה - ז ללכ

is Lashon Hara or Rechilut, most certainly silence is not an admission of םייח םימ ראב
guilt. One can prove this from the Ehven HaEzer, section #2 paragraph
#4 in the Hagahah, that if someone was called a mamzer \ illegitimate קפנד אלילג ינב והנה )א"ס( הדנב ש"ממ .לוק )ח(
and he kept quiet, his silence is no proof at all to suspect him of being
illegitimate. Even according to the Shulchan Aruch, where the Mechaber ןופרט 'רד הימקל ותא אשפנ לוטקד אלק והיילע
rules stringently, that stringency only applies to merely suspecting the ןנבר רומא אה וכנירמטא יא 'וכו רמ ןנירמטל ל"א
veracity of the remarks as they apply to the victim and his family. Here
too in our case we do agree that one can be cautious and protect oneself יעבימ אל ילובקלד בג לע ףא אשיב אנשיל יאה
(and the interests of others) in case the Lashon Hara proves true, as the אניד יאה אתיא לוקב םגד ירה יעבימ היל שחימל
Gemara Niddah (61a) teaches, that one may (only) suspect the veracity of
the Lashon Hara but one may not form a conclusion based on the victim’s .ערה ןושל תלבק רוסיאד
silence that the speaker’s remarks are true.
)א"ל( ןירדהנסב בותכש הממ הז לע תושקהל ןיאו
Truthfully, in the context of our subject, all of the opinions cited in the
Hagahah there are relevant. All of those opinions agree that the victim who אתלימ ילגד אלק הילע קפנד אדימלת אוההב
absorbs his shame and remains silent and does not respond to any insults, ןינש ןיתרתו ןירשע רתב אשרדמ יבב רמתיאד
except insults to his family’s legitimacy, is demonstrating the nobility of
his character and the prestige of his lineage. (Please see that reference). ,איזר ילג ןיד רמאו וילע זירכאו ימא 'ר היקפא
So too here, the case is similar to a “victim” who remains silent during ש"כו ד"מהיבמ והואיצוה וילע קפנד אלק לעד ירה
the heat of an argument. Therefore, even if the victim’s personality is
normally not to remain silent and now he did so, nevertheless his silence is ש"ארהו ף"ירה תסריגב 'יע ,דבלב ןימאהל רתומש
not proof that the speaker’s Lashon Hara is true, as I explained above (in עמשמ 'וכו קיפאד קר אלק הילע קפנד יסרג אלד
the Mekor Chayim) his reasons for remaining silent. This is also obvious
from the alternate opinion (the second opinion) in the cited Hagahah ןירדהנס 'להמ ב"כפ ם"במרב ףאו ,היה רורב רבדד
(as there we are talking about someone who would have protested if he ,עודי רבדב ירייאד ןכ םג עמשמ הז ןידב
was called a mamzer but he would not have protested if he was called a
Chalal‑ the son of a divorced woman and a Kohein, in order to avoid an ררבתנד הזב ארמגה תנווכ ונתסרג יפל ףאד ל"נו
argument and even in the absence of a protest he maintains his full status
of legitimacy, and we hold that he did not protest because he wanted to טקנד אהו רבדה תא הליג אוהש ימא 'רל ךכ רחא
avoid an argument), and from the conclusion of that Hagahah. Chazal are קפנד םושמד ונעימשהל אלק הילע קפנד ארמגה
cited as having taught in Gemara Chulin (89a) that the universe continues
to exist only in the merit of those people who remain silent in the face of a םא רבדה תא הליג אוהד אשרדמ יבב אלק הילע
confrontation and would not get involved in an argument. רבדב םשה לוליח היהו וזה הלועמ לכה ועדי ןכ
Moreover, we learn from the particulars of the law formulated by Chazal ידכ םגו ד"מהיבמ וקיחרהל ימא 'ר חרכוה ךכלו
(Gemara Yevamot 116a) just how many details and conditions must be met ןינעכו וזה הער הדממ דוע םידימלתה לכ וקחרתיש
before making a decision regarding a woman who claimed her husband
divorced her, that her claim is believed because of a presumption that a תא םא רמאש המ לעד ה"ע ונבר השמב וניצמש
married woman would not be so brazen to lie in a face to face confrontation וילע ךסיח רומח ןוע אוהש ףא 'וכו םיה יגד לכ
with her husband. Those details are listed in Ehven HaEzer in section #17
paragraph #2, that her claim is believed specifically when we know there הבירמ ימ לש לבא העניצב היהש םושמ בותכה

95 110
volume 3 volume 3