Page 173 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim 6 VOL-3 םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Zayin - Halachah 10 אי הכלה - ז ללכ

HaMelech himself asked Tzevah, “where is your master’s son?” Rav םירבד םושמד כ"חא לאומש רמאק ה"פא היה כ"ג דבע
holds that based on this incident alone it was permissible for David to
believe Tzevah’s indictment of Mephiboshet, but since David had caught .ונימאהל רתומ םירכינה
Tzevah lying once before Rav held that from that time on David could
not believe Tzevah based only on flimsy “circumstantial evidence” like
this (that Mephiboshet did not travel with Tzevah to greet David or that .זומת ד"כ ,'ב רדא ד"י ,ולסכ 'ה - תרבועמ הנש :ימוי חול
Mephiboshet was not clothed and groomed in a way befitting a meeting
with King David) and that is why he (Rav) said he (David) saw that he
(Tzevah) had previously lied. (Please see the 2 following Hagahah). םייחה רוקמ
nd
Shemuel responded (to Rav) that he (David) saw real, strong “circumstantial תוֹעיגּמ םהֶשׁ )וכ( וּניהדּ ,שׁמּמ םירִכּנ םה םִא אקָודַו .אי
ְ
ָ
ְ
ִ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ִ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ָ
evidence,” as I will describe further on in the 26 notation (that becomes
th
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
a proof to the idea that based on even “subtle circumstantial evidence” it .וֹמצעבּ םירִכּנּה םירִבדּה תא הארָ םגו ,רוּפִּסּה ןינִעל
is permitted to accept Lashon Hara as truth, which would contradict what ,תצקְ רכּנּה רבדּ ןיֵעכּ אוּה קרַ הזִּמ ןיקִוֹחרְ םה םִא לבא
ָ
ֲ
ִ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ָ
I wrote above). One must seize the first approach (the more stringent one)
in formulating the law, since this is all in the realm of an uncertainty, a ןעמְשׁ קרַ )זכ( וֹמְצַעְבּ םירִָכִּנַּה םירִָבְדַּה תֶא הָארָ אלֶֹּשׁ וֹא
ָ
ָ
doubt regarding the application of a Torah precept, and in all such cases we
ֶ
ָ
ֵ
ֲ
ָ
ְ
ִ
ֵ
rule stringently, that it is always forbidden to accept Lashon Hara as truth .ללכּ ןוֹרְתי םוּשׁ הזבּ וֹל ןיא ,םירִחא יִפִּמ
based on flimsy, subtle “circumstantial evidence” and in order to believe
“circumstantial evidence” it must be solid evidence.
However, one cannot answer that the reason why he (Rav) said “since he םייח םימ ראב
(David) saw that he (Tzevah) was a liar” was because Rav also held like
Shemuel that there was valid “circumstantial evidence,” but because he תבשב תודגא ישודיחב א"שרהמ ירבדמ אוה .תועיגמ םהש )וכ
(Tzevah) was found to be a liar once before Rav held that “circumstantial
evidence” was irrelevant (from which we would deduce a new law unlike תמאבו ושוריפב ש"יע היב אזח םירכינה םירבד ה"ד )א"ע ו"נ(
th
what I wrote further on in the 25 notation, since the law follows Rav’s אלד ןכ םג עמשמ םירכינה םירבד ה"דב ל"ז י"שר ירבדמ םג
opinion in matters of esurim), since if this were true Shemuel should have
said David did not accept Lashon Hara (by acting as he did) because השע אלו וידגב תשוביפמ סביכ אלד דוחל הז לע דוד ךמס
he (David) saw “circumstantial evidence” (that molded his decision to קועצל יל ןיא השק ובישה אוהו ד"אב םש י"שר בתכדמ ומפש
take Mephiboshet’s property away from him). And because he (Shemuel)
said, “he (David) saw – circumstantial evidence,” the implication is that עמשמ ל"כע ובוש לע רעטצמש הנה םולה ךאיבהש ימ לע אלא
Shemuel was the originator of this idea derived from the pasuk, to say ורעצ ינפמ היה וידגב סביכ אלש המש דוד חיכוה הזמד אידהב
that David saw “circumstantial evidence” (and since Rav disagrees with
Shemuel) and we are forced to explain Rav by saying that he did not אל הז אלב לבא םירכינה םירבדה םלשנ הזבו דוד רזחש לע
consider those events to be “circumstantial evidence.” But if that’s so, ,תצק םירכינ םירבד יוהד ףא שממ םירכינ םירבד ןיידע ארקנ
why did he (Rav) say, “since he saw it was a lie?” Therefore we are forced
to conclude as I wrote above. תא וקלחת 'וכו ךירבד דוע רבדת המל הלחתמ דוד ובישהש המו
17
הזב דוע לצנתי המ ונממ עומשל ידכ זא היה דוד תעד הדשה
Namely, [the first considered approach of the Chafetz Chayim, Z”L], either רעטצנש םא וידגב סביכ אלש המב ותנווכ היה המ ןיבהל ידכ
that the gemara only said David saw that Tzevah was a liar to magnify the
163 170
volume 3 volume 3