Page 172 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס 6 VOL-3
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Zayin - Halachah 11 י הכלה - ז ללכ

nevertheless Shemuel says later on that we believe him (Tzevah) because ןב היא ומצעב דוד ולאשש ומכו השעמ תעשב
of the strong circumstantial evidence (the evidence against Mephiboshet).
דודל כ"ג רתומ היה דבל ז"יעד ברל ל"סו ךינודא
רבכ אצמש ינפמ קר תשוביפמ לע אביצל ןימאהל
Daily Halacha: Leap Year-5 Kislev, 14 Adar II, 24Tammuz
ול ןיא בושד ברל ל"ס אביצל ןרקש תרחא םעפב
Mekor Hachayim ולאכ תצק םירכינ םירבד י"ע אביצל ונימאהל

K7/11. But this must literally be strong circumstantial evidence, *'וכ אוה ארקישד הייזח ידכמ רמאק ךכלו
namely that it is directly relevant (26) to the subject of the remarks
and that he (the speaker) saw the evidence himself. But if the היב אזח םירומג םירכינה םירבדד ובישה לאומשו
circumstantial evidence is not directly related to the remarks, היאר היהי כ"או( ו"כ ק"סב ןמקל בותכנש ומכ
that the circumstantial evidence is flimsy, or if he did not see the
circumstantial evidence firsthand but only heard about it from ר"השל לבקל רתומ כ"ג תצק םירכינ םירבד י"עד
someone else (27) then there is no basis for believing the Lashon ןושארה ץוריתכ סופתל שיו )םינפב ש"מכ אלדו
Hara at all. ןיא ינווג לכבו אוה אתיירואד אקיפסד אנידל

.שממ םירכינ םירבד י"ע אל םא ןימאהל
Be’er Mayim Chayim
'וכו הייזח ידכמ רמאק יכהלד ץרתל ןיא הז לבא
(K7/11/1)-(26)..directly relevant: This evolves from the Maharsha’s
writings in his Chidushei Agadot on Gemara Shabbat (56a) in the citation םירבד םש היהד לאומשכ כ"ג ל"ס ברד םושמ
beginning with the words “he (David) saw circumstantial evidence,” ןרקש ואצמ תרחא םעפב רבכד םושמ ךא םירכינה
please see his commentary there. Truthfully Rashi’s commentary in the
citation beginning with the words “He saw circumstantial evidence,” דלויו( םירכינה םירבד ינהמ אלד ברל ל"ס רבדב
also implies that David did not rely exclusively on Mephiboshet’s הכלהד ה"כ ק"סב ןמקל ש"מכ אלד שדח ןיד הזמ
unkempt appearance since Rashi writes in the middle of that reference
that he (Mephiboshet) answered harshly “My only complaint is against לביק אל רמול לאומשל ל"וה כ"אד )ירוסיאב ברכ
Him who brought you here” implying that he was sorry David returned רמאקדמו היב אזח םירכינה םירבד אהד ר"השל דוד
safely (quoted up until this point). It is clear from this statement David
deduced that Mephiboshet’s unkempt appearance was because he was ארבס דילוה לאומשד עמשמ 'וכו םירכינה םירבד
sorry David returned safely and that validated the circumstantial evidence; אל ברלד רמול ןיחרכומ ונא כ"או קוספה הזמ וז
but without that validation his appearance alone would not constitute
strong circumstantial evidence even though there was a slight indication
of circumstantial evidence in his appearance. And that which David astonishment, or [the Chafetz Chayim’s Z”L second considered approach]
because even though Rav did not hold that there were strong circumstantial
initially responded to Mephiboshet (Sefer Shemuel II 19:30) “Why are indicators, there were however weak ones, and if not for the fact that he
you still talking, I declare that you and Tzevah should divide the property,” had already seen that Tzevah was a liar, they would have allowed him to
David’s thinking was that he wanted to hear how Mephiboshet would accept the Lashon Hara. However, this second approach is problematic
defend himself and in so doing he (David) would come to understand the and so the first approach, which is more stringent, is how the subject was
implication of Mephiboshet’s unkempt appearance, if he was upset by the concluded.

171 162
volume 3 volume 3