Page 137 - VOL-2

Sefer Chafetz Chayim
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara

Kelal Gimal - Halachah 7

Be’er Mayim Chayim

(3/7/4)-(10-B)..: This premise conforms as well to the incident related in

Gemara Sanhedrin (26a): Rebbe Chiyya Bar Zarnokey and Rebbe Shimon
Ben Yehotzadak were traveling to Assia to deliberate adding a thirteenth
month to the year. Resh Lakish met them and joined them to watch the
deliberations, etc. Resh Lakish saw a man plowing a field during the
shevi’eet \ sabbatical year and told the two Amora’im that the man was a
Kohein and he was plowing. The two Amora’im told Resh Lakish (why
are you assuming the man was in violation of the laws of shevi’eet) perhaps
he would answer that he was working for a non-Jew on a non-Jewish field.
Then they saw… (i.e., a similar incident occurred) Subsequently they
came before Rebbe Yochanan. Resh Lakish asked Rebbe Yochanan if
people who are suspected of violating the laws of shevi’eet etc. etc.

Superficially it would seem that it wasn’t enough that Resh Lakish did
not judge them favorably by giving them the benefit of the doubt like
Rebbe Chiyya Ben Zarnokey and Rebbe Shimon Ben Yehotzadak who
said “ maybe the man is working for a non Jew etc.” But Resh Lakish
went so far as to throw suspicion on these Amora’im as being guilty of
violating the laws of shevi’eet. Yet this conforms to what was said above,
that since Resh Lakish believed circumstances overwhelmingly tilted
against this person because this kind of circumstance (as interpreted by
these Amora’im) almost never occurred (and therefore one is not required
to judge this person favorably). Moreover (for this reason) Resh Lakish
believed these two Amora’im were lax in warning the man who was
plowing and did not make him aware that it was a shevi’eet year and that
he might be in violation of the laws of shevi’eet. And to make matters
worse (to add to Resh LaKish’s suspicions), because of what Resh Lakish
said, the two Amora’im complained to Rebbe Yochanan that Resh Lakish
was an argumentative person.

Everything discussed until now was written from the perspective of strict
law. But from the perspective of good character practice one should
extend himself beyond the requirements of the law and judge this person
favorably. Even if appearances tilt greatly towards the side of culpability,
nevertheless one should judge charitably and positively. The proof for
this view (seeing people in a charitable perspective) comes from all of
the references cited in Gemara Shabbat (127b), that circumstances
overwhelmingly tilted to the side of culpability but nevertheless one is
obligated to judge a fellow Jew favorably, as the gemara related in those

127

volume 2