Page 170 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Zayin - Halachah 12 י הכלה - ז ללכ

agony David endured or just the opposite, as the Maharsha writes in his ףא היב אזח םירכינה םירבדד לאומשל אמלשבו
commentary there (please reference it). I have also found this explicit in
the commentary of the Maharshal, in the citation beginning with the words ראבנש ומכו וריבחל ז"יע דיספהל רוסא אמלעבד
“He answered him harshly,” meaning, that his response was an insight םע תמאהש םירעשמ ונאש ףא הרותה ןמד ןמקל
into the meaning of his unkempt appearance (i.e., circumstantial evidence)
(quoted up until this point). This implies that he too (the Maharshal) held םא יכ שממ דספה וריבח תא דיספהל רוסא דחאה
that Rashi’s understanding follows that of the Maharsha (please see the קוח ינפמ ינאש אוה ךלמד אכה מ"מ םידע י"ע
cited Maharsha). Notwithstanding this, the Maharsha’s understanding is
very evidently the law, especially as it applies to our subject, that in the ה"לאד היארו( ד"ב פ"ע אל סנק תרותבו תוכלמה
absence of strong circumstantial evidence it is forbidden by the Torah to םהיניב וקלחיש ףוסבל דוד קספש ז"ע ךייש יאמ
believe the speaker, and one cannot oppose both the Marharsha and the
Maharshal and hold a lenient opinion. Even though it appears that they תושר ךלמל שיו )אביצל אקוד ךייש המו הדשה תא
differ in their understanding of Rashi, as is evident to anyone who studies הז ןיעכב כ"ג יתיארש ומכ ךרוצה ינפמ ןכ תושעל
the Maharsha carefully, still in terms of formulating the law they both
agree to this common understanding. ארג ןב יעמש תגירהד םיטפשמ 'פב והילא תרדאב
דבלב הכולמה קוח יפ לע כ"ג היה
(K7/11/2)-(27)..from someone else: This is obvious, that it itself (the
circumstantial evidence) is forbidden to be believed, but one may only
suspect its truth. םירכינה םירבדמ ארמגה העדי אלש התע תעל לבא
ול היה אל יאדווב ךינודא ןב היא אמלעב הימת קר

Mekor Hachayim התע תעלש ןויכ תשוביפמ לע סנק ףכית קוספל
המ תשוביפמ לע הלוע שיש ותעדב ררבתנ אל
K7/12. Understand clearly, that even strong circumstantial
evidence (that the Lashon Hara is true) is only relevant in allowing יפל ש"כו הכולמה קוח פ"ע דוד וסנקש הזב ךייש
the listener himself to believe what he hears. But circumstantial ושיחכהו 'וכו ינמר ידבע תשוביפמ בישהש המ
evidence has no value at all in allowing this listener to go out and ןכ םאו םירכינ םירבד םוש ןאכ ןיא יאדווב אביצל
tell others what he heard, as it is no better than if he himself saw his
fellow Jew doing something shameful, that is forbidden to go and כ"ג אוה ןרקשד אביצל הלחתמ ואצמ אל וליפא
tell others (28) about it, as I explained above in the 4 Kelal, the 3 דוד לע אלפה לידגהלד ל"יד ונממ לבקל רוסא אהי
th
rd
halacha. Understand even more, that under no circumstances (29)
can someone rely on this leniency of “circumstantial evidence” and .'וכו אוה ארקישד הייזח ידכמ רמאק
cause a financial loss (30 ) to someone or harm him (31).
ל"ס אלד ףא ברד אוהו רחא ןפואב דוע רמול שיו
רבד םש היה מ"מ לאומש לש םירכינה םירבדה
Be’er Mayim Chayim אביצ םע תשוביפמ אב אלש המב תצק רכינה
(K12/1/1)-(28)..forbidden to go and tell others: Unless this person
has an established reputation in society as being a Rasha because of his 16 Tzevah had earlier reported to David that Mephiboshet was not a Talmid
th
evil deeds \ lifestyle, as I wrote above in the 8 Kelal, the 7 halacha, or Chacham. That report proved to be a lie.
th

173 160
volume 3 volume 3