Page 171 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Zayin - Halachah 10 בי הכלה - ז ללכ

report might be true and to protect himself accordingly, but certainly not יתאצמ ןכו ,ש"יע א"שרהמ בתכש ומכו ךפיהל וא דוד תרצ לע
th
th
to cause a loss to someone, as I wrote above in the 6 Kelal, 11 halacha.
הז שוריפ ב"נ 'וכו השק ובישה אוהו ה"דב ל"שרהמב אידהב
I have no question regarding Shemuel’s statement that he (David) saw
circumstantial evidence, even though normally it is forbidden to cause a אידהב הינימ עמשמ .ל"כע הארש םירכינה םירבדה לע חיכומ
loss to a fellow Jew (based on “circumstantial evidence”), as I will explain יכה ואלבו ,םש א"שרהמב ןייעו א"שרהמ ירבדכ כ"ג י"שר תעדד
th
further on in the 30 notation, that from the perspective of the Torah even
though we have assessed (based on circumstantial evidence) that the truth רוסיאד וננינעב טרפבו ,אנידל דואמ ארבתסמ א"שרהמ ירבד
lies with one side, still it is forbidden to cause a loss to a fellow Jew except ל"שרהמהו א"שרהמה דגנ הזב לקהל ןיא יאדוב אוה אתיירואד
by the testimony of two authoritative witnesses in Beit Din. Even so, in
David HaMelech’s case the law is different, because as king he has the ,םש א"שרהמב ןייעמהל י"שריפב ןיקלוחמ םהש הארנש ףא
royal prerogative of imposing a loss without the acquiescence of Beit Din. .תחא תעדל םימיכסמ םהינש םה אנידל פ"כע
(A proof to this is – that if this wasn’t so, how can one jusify David’s
final decision, that Mephiboshet’s property should be divided equally with ןימאהל רוסא אפוג הזד אוה טושפ .םירחא יפמ ןעמש קר )זכ(
(Mephiboshet and) Tzevah, and why specifically with Tzevah?). A king
has the prerogative to impose this loss for cause, as is discussed in Sefer .שוחל קר
Aderet Eliyahu in perashat Mishpatim (Shemot 21:14), that the execution
of Shim’i Ben Gerah was also at royal discretion (for cause).
However, at this point, since the gemara was not aware of the concept of םייחה רוקמ
“circumstantial evidence” and that David’s question was merely a general
ְ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ֲ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
one (in asking Tzevah) (Sefer Shemuel II: 16:3) “where is your master’s קרַ ליִעוֹמ וֹניא ,שׁמּמ םירִכּנּה םירִבדּ וּלִּפאדּ ,עדַו .בי
son” (Mephiboshet was King Saul’s son and Tzevah was King Saul’s
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ֲ
ֶ
ֻ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ְ
slave), he (David) certainly should not have imposed a fine on Mephiboshet רבדּה תא וֹמצעבּ ןיִמאהל רָתּמ היהי הז ידֵי לעֶשׁ ,ןינִעל
before even seeing the evidence clearly and presumed that Mephiboshet הז רבדּ רפּסלוּ ךְכּ רחא ךְליל ןינִעל לבא ,וֹל ןירְִפּסְמֶּשׁ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ֲ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
ַ
had committed a “crime.” If so, how was it possible that David’s action
ְ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ָ
(in fining Mephiboshet) was based on royal prerogative, especially in light וֹמצעבּ הארָ םִאֵמ ,ףידֲִע אלדּ ,)ליִעוֹמ אלֹ( יֵנַּהְמ אלֹ ,םירִֵחֲאַל
of Mephiboshet’s reply (his verbal self‑defense) (Sefer Shemuel II 19:27)
ָ
ְ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ַ
that his slave (Tzevah) tricked him, etc., and so Mephiboshet totally ,םיִשׁנאל ךְכּ רחא רפּסל רוּסאֶשׁ )חכ( ,וֹרֵבֲח לַע תוּנְגּ רַבְדּ
contradicted Tzevah. Certainly, here, there is no issue of “circumstantial )טכ( דוֹע עדְַו .'דְו 'ג ףיִעָס 'ד לָלְכִבּ ליֵעְל רָאֹבְמֶּשׁ וֹמְכוּ
evidence.” That being the case, then even if initially Tzevah’s remarks
ֶ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ַ
were not found to be lies, still it would have been forbidden to accept םירִכּנּה םירִבדּ לֶשׁ הז רֵתּה לע ךְֹמסִל רוּסא ןפֹא לכבדּ
his Lashon Hara. (Then why did David accept Tzevah’s remarks?) In
ַ
ְ
answering this question we must say that the gemara wanted to magnify .וֹתוֹכּהל וֹא )אל( ןוֹמָמְבּ הֶז ידְֵי לַע וֹדיִסְפַהְל )ל( שָׁמַּמ
the astonishment, ‑ Why did David act as he did since he saw that Tzevah
was lying.
1
Suggesting another possible approach: even though Rav disagreed with םייח םימ ראב
Shemuel’s understanding of “circumstantial evidence,” nevertheless
there was something discernable in that meeting with Tzevah that subtly ריעב קזחומ אוהש אל םא .כ"חא רפסל רוסאש )חכ(
suggested “circumstantial evidence” namely that Mephiboshet did not
come with Tzevah to greet David after Abshalom’s coup failed, as David ,ז"סב 'ח ללכב ןמקל ש"מכו עשר םדאל וישעמ עור ינפמ
161 172
volume 3 volume 3