Page 186 - V3

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

Daily Halacha: 2 Kislev, 2 Nissan, 2 Av; Leap Year-4 Kislev, 13 Adar II, 23Tammuz וליפא ןוממ ונממ סופתל רוסא םוקמ לכמ שממ םירכינ
קר ,רבדה ררבתנ אלש ןמז לכ הז ליבשב םידעב אלש
Mekor Hachayim
.וננינעב ןידה אוהו ןידל ומע ךליש ועבותל לוכי
K7/10. If there is circumstantial evidence (22) that tends to
1
support the (Lashon Hara) comments made about the “victim” as י"ע וריבח תוכהל ןיאד אוה טושפ .ותוכהל וא )אל(
being true, then the law is as follows: Even if the comments are
true, if it is possible to give him the benefit of a doubt and judge אהמ הז לע תושקהל ןיאו .דבל תעד ןדמוא תרעשה
the “victim” favorably (23) or if the comments involve character היל בינגא אדיסח ארטוז רמד )א"ע ד"כ( מ"בב ןנירמאד
flaws or any of the other circumstances that I discussed above in ישמד בר יב רב אוההל אייזחו אזיפשואמ אפסכד אסכ
th
the 7 halacha of this Kelal, then any circumstantial evidence is
irrelevant and we are obligated to judge him favorably because תפכיא אלד יאה ונייה רמא הירבחד אמילגב ביגנו הידי
he is an average person (24), in order that he should not become הייפכהד ש"ארה 'יפו ידואו היתפכו הירבחד אנוממא היל
degraded in society’s esteem as was mentioned above. But if it is an לש הרעשה י"ע וריבחל תוכהל רתומד אמלא יטושב היה
action for which there is no possibility of extending the benefit of a
doubt to the person who committed that action, then it is permitted היה ארטוז רמ לש אל ילכהד ,וניא הזד ,דבלב תעד ןדמוא
to believe the comments and accept them as truth (25). (Please see אסריגהו י"נה שריפ ןכו י"שריפדכ היה וזיפשוא לש אלא
the following Hagahah).
ארטוז רמו ,ספלאב אתיאד ומכ היזיפשואמ ל"צ ארמגב
תוכהל רתומד יאדו ןיד-תיבלו ,הז רבדב היה ןייד אדיסח
אל םא ה"הו ,תומוקמ המכב שרופמש ומכ העש ךרוצ יפל
Hagahah
ינפל ודיעהו םידע ואבש קר ומצעב ארטוז רמ האור היה
And even so (even if it is impossible to extend the benefit of the doubt) one
must be very cautious and investigate extensively to determine the validity ותוכהלו םלבקל רתומ כ"ג ארטוז רמ אזחד השעמכ ד"ב
of the facts which indicate the Lashon Hara may be true, and carefully see ,העש ךרוצ ינפמ קר רתוה אל הזו ,הדויש ידכ
if these facts meet all of the relevant criteria necessary to validate them
as indicative of the truthfulness of the Lashon Hara. Because the Yetzer ליעומ םירכינה םירבד ןיאד אוה אטישפ הרותה פ"ע לבא
Hara very easily deceives a person and causes him to make a mistake by
showing him as much “circumstantial evidence” as possible in order to ונממ איצוהל ידכ ותוכהל רתומ אהיש הז ןינעל םידעכ
ונממ איצוהל רתומ אהיש ןינעל ליעומ ןיאד ומכ ץפחה
5 םירכנה םירבד are literally “recognizeable facts.” In this context םירכנה םירבד are אוהש ,דואמב אוה םירכינה םירבדה םא וליפא ,ןוממ
weak circumstantial facts or indications that tend to corroborate the Lashon
Hara told to a listener. The םירכנה םירבד by themselves are not substantial
enough to prompt the listener to form a conclusion, but when coupled with win because of a “migo” meaning that he could claim he snatched it
the Lashon Hara they give the speaker’s report credence and will more and would win because he could have answered a better answer, that he
decisively guide the listener to a conclusion. For example, the unkempt and bought it (a “migo”- a “better answer”), and he would be believed by the
bedraggled appearance of Mephiboshet as he presented himself in audience court that the item was his. But here in our discussion, where the issue is
before David HaMelech seemed to bear out the Lashon Hara reported to “circumstantial evidence,” even if there were no witnesses he would lose.

157 176
volume 3 volume 3