Page 187 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Zayin - Halachah 12 י הכלה - ז ללכ

supporting the rumor, still it is forbidden to seize his money as restitution .זומת ג"כ ,'ב רדא ג"י ,ולסכ 'ד - תרבועמ הנש .בא 'ב ,ןסינ 'ב ,ולסכ 'ב - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
20
for the loss even if there were no witnesses , as long as the matter was not
clearly proven. The most he could do is summon this person to Beit Din, םייחה רוקמ
and same law is true in our case of Lashon Hara.
,הז ידֵי לע הארְנֶּשׁ ,םירִכּנּה םירִבדּ )בכ( וילע שׁי םִאו .י
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ֶ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ַ
(K7/12/4)-(31)..or harm him: It is obvious that a supposition (based
ַ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ֶ
on circumstantial evidence) by itself can never be a basis for harming םִא ,)ךְכּ ןידּה( יִכה אנידּ ,תמא אוּה וילע ןירְִפּסְמֶּשּׁ המֶּשׁ
ֱ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ָ
someone. And don’t pose a challenge to this concept from Gemara Babba
ַ
ְ
ְ
Metziah (24a): “The pious Mar Zutra had a silver cup stolen from him in דצל וֹטְפָשׁל )גכ( ,תֶמֱא רָבָדַּה םִא וּלִּפֲא ,הֶזַּה ןָיְנִעָבּ שֵׁי
his host’s home (Rosh: and he knew that someone from the household
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
stole it). He saw a particular young student drying his hands on his friend’s ,םיִטרְָפּה ראְשׁ לכבּ וֹא ,תוֹלֲעמּה תליִלְשׁ ינינִעבּ וֹא ,תוּכז
shirt. Mar Zutra said: “He is the one (who stole the cup) because he is ,םירִכּנּה םירִבדּ הזבּ ךְיַּשׁ אלֹ ,'ז ףיִעסבּ ליֵעל םירִאֹבְמה
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
inconsiderate of his friend’s money (property).” They coerced him (the
ֵ
ָ
student) and he admitted. The Rosh explains in his commentary there in שׁיִא אוּהֶשׁ ןויכּ )דכ( תוּכְז ףַכְל וֹנוּדְל ןיִבָיֻּחְמ וּנָא יאַדַּוְדּ
th
the second chapter (5 paragraph) that he was whipped (until he admitted).
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ִ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ְ
ְ
That (seemingly) proves one may punish someone based only on a surmise לבא ,ל"נּכו וּניניֵעבּ הז ידֵי לע הזּבְּתי אלֶֹּשׁ ידֵכּ ינוֹניבּ
(a supposition based on seeing circumstantial evidence). However this is )הכ( ,וּהֵשׂוֹעָה לַע תוּכְז דַצ אֹצְמִל ןיֵא רֶשֲׁא רָבָדּ אוּה םִא
not so! (This whole reasoning is incorrect and in fact there is no question
ֵ
ַ
ֻ
ְ
ֲ
ְ
against what I’ve said). The silver cup was not the property of Mar Zutra, .*לבּקַלוּ ןיִמאהל רָתּמ
it belonged to the host, as Rashi explains (citation beginning with the
words “Was stolen”). Similarly this is the explanation of the Nimukei
Yosef (citation beginning with “Cup”) and the correct text in the gemara
should read “from his host,” which follows the text version of the Rif. The :ה"הגה
pious Mar Zutra was a judge in this matter and Beit Din certainly has the םִא ,תוֹריקִח עבֶשׁבּ רקֹחלו דֹאְמ רהזִּהל ןיִכירִצ תאֹז לכבוּ *
ֲ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֲ
authority to inflict punishment (as in this case to hit someone) if that is
ֶ
ֱ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ִ
ֶ
what needs to be done at the moment, as is explicit in several references. הזל ךְירִצֶּשׁ םיִאנְתּה לכבּ רהזִּלו ,םירִכּנּה םירִבדּ תמאבּ םה
This same course of action applies even if Mar Zutra himself did not see וֹל הארְמוּ דֹאְמ הזבּ םדאה תא העְטמ רציּה יִכּ ,ןמּקַלדִכוּ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
ֶ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ֶ
the actions of this student but that witnesses came and reported to him in
ֶ
ִ
ַ
ָ
ֲ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ֱ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
Beit Din what he had done. Then, too, it would be permitted to hit him in וּנּדֶכּליו הזבּ ןיִמאיֶּשׁ ידֵכּ ,תמא םהֶשׁ םירִכּנּה םירִבדּ המּכּ
order to learn the truth, but that is only permitted if there is an immediate לא ןכּ לעו ,ערָה ןוֹשׁל תלבּקַ ןוֲֹע לֶשׁ תֶשׁרֶבּ הז ידֵי לע
ָ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
need at that moment.
ַ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
.הזבּ לקֵהל רהמי
ָ
However, from the perspective of the Torah it is obvious that circumstantial
him by Tzevah, namely that his master Mephiboshet was unhappy that
20 Translator’s note: 4 Adar Aleph 5763: Rabbi Yaakov Konigsberg (Yeshivat David HaMelech emerged from the war with Avshalom as undisputed king
Mikdash Melech, Brooklyn) gave an insight (a peshat) to this statement of of Israel. The Chafetz Chayim Z”L differentiates between Lashon Hara
the Chafetz Chayim “even if there were no witnesses.” That if there were supported by weak םירכנה םירבד and strong םירכנה םירבד For purposes of this
witnesses, in a Beit Din this man would lose because they would testify that translation םירכנה םירבד has been rendered as “circumstantial evidence,”
he snatched the item away from someone. Even if he admitted he snatched it although these “facts” do not constitute “evidence,” but rather they are
away but claimed he was snatching his own (stolen) property, he would still simply varying degrees of indication that the reported Lashon Hara is
lose because the court presumes the holder of the item is in fact the owner of true.
the item. But if there were no witnesses and he was called to court, he would
177 156
volume 3 volume 3