Question: Is it permitted to believe that lashon ha’ra that you told is true based on outside evidence?
Short Answer: It is permitted to believe lashon ha’ra that you know to be true based on outside evidence of which you have firsthand knowledge.
Explanation:
I. Believing Lashon HaRa
The Chofetz Chaim (klal 6:1) writes that one is forbidden to believe lashon ha’ra that he is told. This is based on the pasuk (Sh’mos 23:1) “Lo sisa sheima shav” – that the listener must not believe improper words that he hears. The Chofetz Chaim adds that a person who believes lashon ha’ra is worthy of being “thrown to the dogs.”
But, what about where the lashon ha’ra is consistent with outside evidence that the listener is separately aware of. May the listener believe the lashon ha’ra or must he continue to deny the veracity of the lashon ha’ra, even in the face of the outside evidence?
II. The Story of Mefiboshes
In Sefer Shmuel (Beis, 9:1-13; 16:1-4; 19:25-31), the Navi recounts the story of Mefiboshes, the son of Yonason (who was the son of Shaul HaMelech). When David HaMelech ascended to the throne, he desired to repay the kindness performed to him by Yonason, the son of Shaul HaMelech. He therefore asked Tziva, a former servant in the house of Shaul, whether any descendants of Shaul are still alive. Tziva responded that Mefiboshes, a son of Yonasan, was still alive and currently in the place, “Lo Davar.” Notably, Mefiboshes was lame and was unable to walk very well. David HaMelech called for Mefiboshes, and invited Mefiboshes to join him in Yerushalayim in the palace and to eat at his royal table. David HaMelech appointed Tziva to be a guardian of Mefiboshes’ property and family.
When Avshalom, a son of David HaMelech, rebelled against his father years later, David HaMelech ran away and went into hiding. Many of his friends greeted him along his journey, bringing him provisions and support. Tziva likewise came to greet David HaMelech and provided him with provisions. When David HaMelech asked Tziva where Mefiboshes was, Tziva responded that Mefiboshes remained in Yerushalayim to support the rebellion, hoping that the kingdom would be restored to the house of Shaul. David HaMelech, enraged at Mefiboshes, replied that Tziva may take possession of the entirety of Mefiboshes’ estate.
After Avshalom is killed, and David HaMelech begins to travel back to Yerushalayim to retake the throne, David HaMelech is greeted by Mefiboshes. Mefiboshes, however, looked like an aveil, i.e., he had not shaved, nor laundered his clothes, nor bathed. David HaMelech asked Mefiboshes why he had not joined David HaMelech’s fleeing entourage when Avshalom rebelled. Mefiboshes responded that he had tried to join, but Tziva tricked him and instead traveled himself to slander Mefiboshes to the king. David HaMelech responded by dividing up Mefiboshes’ estate between Mefiboshes and Tziva. Mefiboshes, upon hearing David HaMelech’s response, appears to thank David HaMelech for his kindness.
This story is quite complex. Why did David Hamelech listen to Tziva? Was Mefiboshes really speaking the truth? What is the lesson of this story?
III. Rav vs. Shmuel
The Gemara (Shabbos 56a-b) debates this story, presenting two different accounts of what happened.
According to Rav, Tziva initially told Dovid HaMelech that Mefiboshes was in “Lo Davar,” which means a place of ignorance, i.e., that Mefiboshes was not a learned man. David HaMelech discovered this falsehood when he met Mefiboshes and saw that he was actually a talmid chacham. Despite Tziva’s reputation as a liar, David HaMelech believed Tziva when he later again spoke lashon ha’ra about Mefiboshes, when he said that Mefiboshes joined Avshalom’s rebellion. David HaMelech clearly believed Tziva, as he splits Mefiboshes’ estate. The Gemara explains that, according to Rav, Hashem decreed that David HaMelech’s kingdom would be split (during the lifetime of Rechavam, David HaMelech’s grandson), because David HaMelech split Mefiboshes’ estate based on the lashon ha’ra that he believed.
According to Shmuel, the story occurs differently. David HaMelech never improperly believed lashon ha’ra. On the contrary, David HaMelech was permitted to believe that Mefiboshes joined the rebellion, as he saw “d’varim ha’nikarim” (clear evidence) that Mefiboshes was part of the rebellion. Indeed, the fact that Mefiboshes had not shaved, showered, or laundered his clothes proved that Mefiboshes was not happy about David HaMelech’s return to the throne. Even though David HaMelech only learned of this proof AFTER he decreed that Mefiboshes’ estate should be given to Tziva, David HaMelech didn’t believe the lashon ha’ra until he learned of the proof, and he only gave Mefiboshes’ estate to Tziva on condition that Tziva was telling the truth. According to Shmuel, Mefiboshes’ response to his estate being split was not gratitude that David HaMelech was again king, but rather was (improper) anger at Hashem for restoring David HaMelech as king.
Thus, the Gemara presents two opinions whether David HaMelech improperly believed lashon ha’ra (Rav) or properly believed lashon ha’ra that was supported by clear evidence (Shmuel).
IV. The Chofetz Chaim
The Chofetz Chaim (klal 7:10-11) paskens like Shmuel, that it is permitted to believe lashon ha’ra that is supported by clear and uncontroverted evidence witnessed by the listener himself. This is based on the rulings of the Smag and Hagahos Maimoniyos (Hilchos Dei’os 7, n. 4), who adopt Shmuel’s interpretation of the above story. However, you may not act on the lashon ha’ra to cause a monetary (or other) loss to the person being spoken about.
The Chofetz Chaim (B’eir Mayim Chayim, ibid) elaborates that we follow Shmuel, and not Rav, because even Rav fundamentally agrees that one may believe lashon ha’ra that is supported by evidence, but Rav just understands that there was no such evidence by Mefiboshes. Simply not bathing, laundering, or shaving is insufficient evidence, or David HaMelech was punished for initially giving the estate to Tziva before observing the supporting evidence. Alternatively, Rav holds that supporting evidence allows one to believe lashon ha’ra, but not where the supporting evidence is contradicted by prior lies of the speaker, such as here, where Tziva previously lied that Mefiboshes was unlearned.
V. Dissenting Opinions
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Shu”t 6:6) disagrees and holds that a regular person may not extrapolate any leniency to believe lashon ha’ra from David HaMelech, who was a king and was thus permitted to enact judgment based on “umdena” – circumstances (as opposed to legal testimony).
Likewise, the Rambam never cites the leniency of “d’varim ha’nikarim” with respect to lashon ha’ra. The Rosh HaM’dabrim (siman 14) cites the Bris Moshe, who explains that the Rambam paskens like Rav, that we do not have such a leniency.
Rabbi Ephraim Glatt, Esq. is Associate Rabbi at the Young Israel of Kew Gardens Hills and a practicing litigation attorney. Questions? Comments? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..
