SEFER CHOFETZ CHAIM
Day 53 ¨C The Occasional Sinner
?
If a person whose actions may have involved a given transgression is known to commit that particular sin at least occasionally, then the commandment, ¡°Judge your fellow favorably,¡± does not require that one seek a positive explanation
for what he did.? However, it is meritorious to give the person the benefit of the doubt and assume that this time he did not sin.? Reproof would not be necessary.
?
If it is absolutely clear that the person did commit a sin, then the mitzvah to reprove does apply and one should, in a respectful and caring manner, help the person to overcome his evil inclination by offering reproof.
?
There are times when it would be more effective for someone else, such as a close friend or rav, to reprove the individual.? Theoretically, it should be permissible for the one who witnessed the transgression to inform the friend or rav of it and ask that he
handle the situation.? However, we have learned that one may not act on hearsay, which would mean that one cannot possibly offer reproof unless he personally witnessed the transgression.? Consequently, it would be one¡¯s responsibility to find an effective
means of reproving himself, or to ask the rav to either personally investigate the situation or tactfully discuss the matter with that individual without making accusations.
?
?
SEFER SHMIRAS HALOSHON
?
David¡¯s Acceptance
?
The Sages teach that one who speaks loshon hora is fit to be stoned (Arachin 15b). The following lends support to this statement of the Sages, whose teachings are true and everlasting:
?
In an incident recorded in the Book of Shmuel, King David was, according to the Sages, guilty of accepting loshon hora. In the very next incident, David, as he fled during the rebellion of his son Avshalom, was cursed and stoned by Shimi ben Geira. The word?
¡°and behold¡± with which this second narrative begins (II Shmuel 16:5), indicates a connection between the two episodes. This implies that for transgressing the loshon hora prohibitions one is fit to be stoned, as David was (by Shimi) after he had been guilty
of such an infraction.
?
Parenthetically, the above is indicative of David¡¯s exalted holiness and righteousness, for Scripture makes clear that David was as of yet unaware that he had sinned in accepting a slanderous report. Yet when one of his officers suggested that Shimi be punished
for his blasphemous behavior, David responded, ¡°Hashem told him [i.e. inspired him] to curse¡± (ibid. v. 11). David, without knowing how and when he had sinned, recognized the fact that Hashem would not have permitted Shimi to act as he did had he, David, not
been deserving of such disgrace. Therefore, he would not allow his men to attack Shimi.
|
|
