Page 124 - V3

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

have been so brazen and shameless as to have said something in front עמש וליפא הזל התע דע קזחתנ אלו ןגוהכ אלש
of the victim that really never happened?” Because of society’s many
sins, I have heard this false leniency used by many people. Regarding ותוא אונשלו הז לע ךומסל רוסא םישנא הברהמ הז
this fallacy, I will answer you and say that this is not the understanding .ותוזבלו ערה ןושל וילע רבדל ש"כו
of our holy Torah. Just because we have a “logically possible” basis for
upholding the speaker’s status as someone who is believable, that “logical ויתולמב י"שר ללכ הלא ונירבד לכש הארו
possibility” is not nearly sufficient cause for us to cancel the “victim’s”
presumption of legitimacy and full standing in society. Even if evidence ינסד ה"ד )ב"ע ה"כ( הליגמב ל"זש תורצקה
was brought before a Beit Din, where evidence in a court carries great תואונשו תוער תועומש וילע תואצויש הינעמוש
weight, nobody ever used this reasoning, that a matter should be decided
because the testimony of a single‑witness was said in the presence of the הער העומש וילע אציש בתכ אלש ירה ,ףאונ אוהש
“victim.” And in monetary disputes, the most this single witness could וישעמ ינפמ הז םדא ךרדד עמשמ 'וכו תואצויש קר
do would be to compel an oath by the “victim,” whereas if this witness
testified to other acts that were shameful or denigrating or demeaned the הז ןינעכו ,תוער תועומש המכ וילע תאצל םיערה
victim, and in so doing this witness attempted to portray the victim as לע ןיקלמ ה"ד )א"פ ףד( ןישודקב י"שר שריפ
a Rasha or as an unfit person, his testimony is absolutely worthless and
incapable of impugning the victim’s presumption of full legitimacy. The אוהש לוק וילע אציש ימ ל"זו העומשה הבוט אל
law does not even entertain a shadow of a doubt as the the “victim” being רבעש וילע לוק אציש ימ בתכ אלו ,תוריבע רבוע
possibly unfit, as cited in Choshen Mishpat section #28 paragraph #1 in
the Hagahah. ןיזחוא הז ןינעב אקודד ש"מכ כ"ג עמשמ ,הריבע
The Gemara Niddah (61a) that says one is permitted to only suspect (but ש"מכו אל יכה ואלב לבא תצק תושממל לוקה
not to conclude an opinion), is only for the purpose of taking steps to .הלעמל
protect one’s interests and the interests of others should the Lashon Hara
prove to be correct, but it does not mean that there is any doubt at all ח"עק ןמיס רזעה ןבא ע"ושב ןכ םג חכומ ש"מכו
that the victim has lost his presumption of legitimacy (and his legitimacy
remains absolutely intact), as I explained in the 6 Kelal, in the Be’er אוהש שיא לע תנעוטש שיא תשא ל"זו 'כ ףיעס
th
th
Mayim Chayim, at the end of the 25 notation. Please see that reference. ורסייל ידכ הנימאהל ןיא שיחכמ אוהו הירחא ףדור
What I wrote above in the Mekor Chayim “(since we did not hear) the תוירעה לע דושחל םהיניעב קזחומ אוה םאו 'וכו
2
victim accede to the speaker’s remarks,” this law applies even if we ןיקלמ ל"זר ורמאש ומכו םידי יתשב והוחדיו 'וכו
see the victim excuses himself for his actions and it is obvious from his
excuses that the remarks are true, then it would be permitted to believe ע"ושב בתכ אלש ירה .ל"כע העומשה הבוט אל לע
those remarks, just like any of the other strong, circumstantial indications אלא םתס תוירעה לע דושח אוהש ריעב עמשנ םאו
which would permit accepting the Lashon Hara as truth that are described
th
th
th
further on in the 10 , 11 and 12 halachot of this Kelal. ונבתכש ומכ עמשמו 'וכו םהיניעב קזחומ אוה םאו
(K7/2/2)-(3)..even if the victim does not respond: Based on what ,הלעמל
is explained in Ehven HaEzer section #178 paragraph #9, that even if a
single witness testified in front of a woman that she was an adulteress and ינס יאו ל"זו ב"מס ד"לש ןמיסב ד"ויב ןכו
she remained silent, if this witness is believed by her husband and he relies 'וכו םיסרוקיפא ירפסב קסעתמש ןוגכ הינעמוש

91 114
volume 3 volume 3

4

VOL-3