Page 135 - VOL-2

Sefer Chafetz Chayim
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara

Kelal Gimal - Halachah 7

And don’t say that truthfully people would curse him but that it was not
sanctioned by the halacha. (Don’t say this) Because if it was so, then
Ravina should not have been concerned about this at all, since Mishle
teaches (26:2) “An unwarranted curse comes back to the one who spoke
it.” Moreover, the Gemara is certainly not formulating halacha in the
context of the behavior of evil people (the gemara would never discuss a
case of law in the context of the behavior of a Rasha or in the context of
people who do not abide by the halacha; the gemara does not compose law
for Resha’im). But based on what we have said, this is consistent. From
the perspective of strict law if appearances tilted this circumstance to the
side of being “guilty,” then the Halacha would not obligate us to view this
person as being innocent.

But note this type of situation could never have occurred in the time of the
gemara, one would never lend without witnesses as the Gemara Yomah (9b)
states, Resh Lakish would not even speak to Rebbe Elazar because (Resh
Lakish was so discriminating that) anyone seen speaking to him in public
would (immediately be perceived as having an upstanding reputation and
he would) be lent money without witnesses (implying that in those times
people lent money only if there were witnesses to the loan). Moreover,
the gemara in Babba Metziah (75b) relates three categories of people who
cry out in prayer but will not be answered. One of them is a person who
lends without documentation or witnesses. Therefore, if someone comes
with a payment demand where there were no witnesses to the loan, and
the (supposed) borrower denies the loan ever took place, circumstances
overwhelmingly tilt to favor the (supposed) borrower; the lender’s charges
are nothing more than unsubstantiated accusation and therefore society
curses the person making the payment demand. (Please see the following
Hagahah).

Hagahah

Moreover, another possible answer is that one may say it is an obligation
to uphold the (supposed) borrower with his presumption of legitimacy and
then necessarily the lender’s accusations are slander. However, the first
answer (above) is more likely to be correct.

125
volume 2