Page 177 - V3
P. 177

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
   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182