Page 176 - V3

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

(Mephiboshet)” and Tzevah answered that he (Mephiboshet) was in the הפיא דוד ולאששכ ירהד אוה ארקישד הייזחד ןויכ לבא וילע בוכרל
1
house of Machir the son of Amiel in Lo Devir” meaning that he was not
a Talmid Chacham‑ and he (Tzevah) was found to be a liar, that David םכח ונניאש שוריפ רבד אלב לאימע ןב ריכמ תיב ול בישה אוהו אוה
saw Mephiboshet was indeed a Talmid Chacham. Therefore what was הזמ חכומ ןכ םא הרותב אלמ דוד ואצמש הזב ןרקש אצמנ הרותב
apparent from this was that Tzevah’s entire motivation was to diminish אתלימב ףא דוד יניעב תשוביפמ תלעמ תא ןיטקהל אוה ונוצר לכד
Mephiboshet’s esteem in the eyes of David even in a matter that would
eventually become clearly evident to everyone (that Mephiboshet was י"שר תנווכ והזו( הז לע ללכ דוד ולאש אל םגו ייולגיאל אדיבעד
indeed a Talmid Chacham). Furthermore, David did not challenge Tzevah .)ךכב ןרקש ואצמ הלחתמ בתכו קדקדש המב 'וכו הייזח ה"דב
in this matter. (This is the intent of Rashi in the citation beginning with the
words “He saw,” that his (Rashi’s) language was precise when he wrote היהו היה חספ אלה יכ ירמגל םירכינה םירבדה היל וערתיא ןכ םא
“right away he (David) determined him (Tzevah) to be a liar.”)
לע היה ותאיב תעינמש בושחל תוכז ףכל תשוביפמל ונודל דודל ול
That being the case the circumstantial evidence was completely הזלו ,והמיר ודבעש ףוסבל תמאה היהש ומכ הביס הזיאב אביצ ידי
invalidated, and because Mephiboshet was a cripple David should have
judged Mephiboshet favorably and entertained the thought that the delay בר לידגמ הז ידי לעד 'וכ אוה ארקישד הייזח ידכמ ארמגה רמאק
in Mephiboshet’s arrival was somehow Tzevah’s fault. In fact that was ירהש וירבד לבקו אביצל ןימאהש הנושארה הלבקד דוד לע אלפה
ultimately the case, that Tzevah tricked Mephiboshet. That is why the
gemara says “since we see that he (Tzevah) was a liar, etc.,” all of which ךכלו היה ןידכ אלש ןכ םג תשוביפמל רשא לכ ךל הנה ול בישה
serves to intensify our astonishment at David’s original acceptance of היה יאנת לע הלחתמד היל אריבס לאומשו ,ןושארה קוספ איבה
Tzevah’s indictment of Mephiboshet when he told him (Shemuel II 16:4) תשוביפמ ול בישהשכ וירבדמ ףוסבל דוד רזח אלש המו י"שר ש"מכ
“here I give to you all of Mephiboshet’s property,” David acted improperly,
not in accordance with the law. Therefore the gemara cites the first pasuk. .ומצעב םירכינה םירבד וב האר ךכ רחאד םושמ ותאיב תעינמ לע
But Shemuel holds that the initial award of Mephiboshet’s property to
Tzevah was conditional, as Rashi comments (the citation beginning with
the words “Devarim – things that were circumstantial evidence) and םייח םימ ראב
the reason David did not rescind his decision (to award Tzevah) when
Mephiboshet explained why he was delayed in coming to greet David 'ו ללכב ליעל תררובמ ארבסהו .תוכז דצל וטפשל )גכ(
was because David himself later saw in Mephiboshet’s comments valid
circumstantial evidence to justify the award. 19 ל"נכ אוה תולעמה תלילש ש"מו .ש"ע ז"ס הז ללכבו ז"ס
.ןלהלו ב"סמ 'ה ללכב

Be’er Mayim Chayim

(K7/10/2)-(23)..judge the “victim” favorably: The reason for 19 Mephiboshet greeted David in a manner that suggested contempt of the
th
th
this was explained above in the 6 Kelal, 7 halacha, and in this Kelal, king; his feet were bare, his hair ungroomed and his clothes disheveled.
Later, when David took half the award back from Tzevah and returned it
to Mephiboshet, Mephiboshet’s response was – let Tzevah keep it all! I
prayed that you should return in peace, and this is how you treat me? My
8 Rashi: Lo Devir: (Tzevah said) that he (Mephiboshet) was not a Chacham, complaint is not against you, it is against Him who brought you here. A
but David found that in fact he was a Talmid Chacham. Maharsha: Tzevah Bat Kol came down and rebuked Mephiboshet: “A man of strife, the son of
claimed Mephiboshet made disloyal accusations against David but David a man of strife.” (Both Mephiboshet and his father King Saul complained
found that he made no such accusations.
against Hashem.)

167 166
volume 3 volume 3