Page 358 - V1

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Beit ‑ Halachah 2 א הכלה - ב ללכ

Similarly, anything that is degrading would be forbidden even if spoken to הטושו יתפ אוהש וילע רמול ןוגכ הז ןפואב דועו
a group of three people, even if the speaker knows that what he is saying
is truthful. So, too, based on a logical deduction, the law is that it would אריתה ךייש אל יכה ואלב תונגה יקלחמ המודכו
be forbidden for the listener to accept these remarks as truth. Just as it is רוסא וינפב ףאד וינפב רמא ולאכ יוהד תופסותד
forbidden for the speaker to make his remarks and he knows they are true,
how much more so is it forbidden for the listener to accept what he hears תופסותהד רמאת םא וליפאו ,םירבד תאנוא םושמ
not knowing if the remarks are true!
ךכ יל תישע המל רמול רתומ וינפבש רבדב ירייא
Another conclusive proof to this concept evolves from an incident which םנחב וריבח ופרח םא ןוגכ ,הז רובע ופרחלו ךכו
is considered as being wrongdoing on the part of David HaMelech. The
Gemara Shabbat (56a) relates that David HaMelech accepted the Lashon ךרדב ובישהל רתומ ןידה יפ-לע וינפב יאדובש
Hara (by believing the remarks made by Tzevah), and there the remarks השודק הדמ יפ-לע אל םא( אוה ופריחש ןיפורחה
made by Tzevah regarding Mephiboshet were made in public, as the text
relates (Shemuel II 16:1-4). Even though his (Tzevah’s) remarks were ןיבלוע םניאו ןיבלענה ל"זח ורמאש ומכ אמלעב
Rechilut, this same law obviously applies to Lashon Hara regarding the ריתמ הז לעו )'וכו ןיבישמ ןיאו ןתפרח ןיעמוש
40
listener who accepts the remarks as truth, because it is from the same
(one) Lav that we learn the prohibition of believing both Lashon Hara and ולאכ יוהד וינפב אלש אתלת יפאב רפסל 'סותה
Rechilut, from the pasuk (Shemot 23:1) “Do not accept a false report,” as ןידה יפ-לע רתומ וניאד ,וניא הז םג ,וינפב רמא
rd
Rabbeinu Yonah explains in Shaare Teshuvah (3 sha’ar, sections #213
and #225). The Rambam’s also grouped them together (Hilchot De’Aut , ומצע ןיבל וניב ופרחלו ושארב ולומג בישהל קר
rd
41
th
7 perek, 3 halacha) , regarding the listener who accepts them as truth. ךליל לבא ,הליחת ופרח אוהש ךרדכ השעמ תעשב
Thus most certainly the law against accepting what three people said
applies to both (Lashon Hara and Rechilut) equally. ינפב ףא ערה ןושל ירקימ םירחאל הז רבד רפסלו
ופרח אוהד יריימ םאו( .םיבר ינפב ןכש לכו דיחי
It seems obvious to me that according to the Tosafot’s understanding,
regarding going and telling someone else that “so-and-so talked about ריתמ יכהלו יכה ואלב רבדה םסרפתנו םיברב
אתלת יפאב אלש וליפא ןכ םא ,תולגל 'סותה
40 During the civil war waged by Avshalom against his father, David HaMelech רופיסהמ תלעות ול שיד יריימ םא ןכו ,רתומ ימנ
retreated from Jerusalem with his allies. Mephiboshet, the son of Shaul
HaMelech, whom David took under his wing, did not accompany David תולגל רתומ הזבד ,דוע ונפרחי אלש אבהל לע
during the retreat. Tzevah, Mephiboshet's aide, quickly sided with David
and told him that his master (Mephiboshet) remained in Jerusalem, implying רתומ אהי אתלת יפאב אלש וליפא ןכ םג ,ןמקלדכ
that Mephiboshet joined sides with Avshalom against David. David believed ינפמ קר וריבחל תונגל ותנווכ תילכת ןיאד ןויכ
Tzevah's story, seemingly contrary to the halacha, and awarded him all of
Mephiboshet's property. The civil war ended with Avshalom's death. David ג"יסמ 'י ללכב ןמקל הזב ךיראנש ומכו ותלעות
HaMelech returned to Jerusalem and confronted Mephiboshet wanting to
know why he did not join him in his retreat. Mephiboshet explained that his .)הזה ןידה יטרפ לכב ןלהלו
donkeys were saddled but because he was a cripple he could not travel without
Tzevah help and Tzevah left to join David. David did not completely accept
Mephiboshet's excuse. He retained some belief in Tzevah's Lashon Hara against
Mephiboshet and he divided Mephiboshet's property, some going to Tzevah

349 328
volume 1 volume 1