Page 133 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Alef - Halachah 8 א הכלה - ג ללכ

his arguments, therefore we write the verdict as both opinions hold. Our םייח םימ ראב
Authorities codified the law per the opinion of Rebbe Elazar, so we see
that as a first approach the response should not have any appearance of a ןויכ הזב ףידע אהי המלד .ז"ד רמוא היהש )א(
lie.
ומכ וינפב אלש ןיבו וינפב ןיב רוסא תוליכרד
Concerning what I wrote above, “but if the speaker understands,” in
this regard Rebbe Elazar would most certainly agree with the opinion of .ףכית ראבנש
Rebbe Yochanan, his rebbe. But (he chose a compromise) because he had
another way of (avoiding the problem and) protecting himself from lying
(that is why the halacha follows his opinion). But if not for this alternative רמאש יסוי 'ר ירבדב העטת אלש ידכו .וינפב )ב(
approach, most certainly the law would follow the opinion of Rebbe ךכיפל ,ירוחאל יתרזחו רבד יתרמא אל ימימ
Yochanan and it would not follow the opinion of Resh Lakish. Moreover
the gemara has already concluded in Masechet Yevamot (65b) that it is a םיקסופה לכמ תוארהל ידכ תצק ךיראהל יתכרצוה
mitzvah to change the details of a story in order to promote peace. That is .הז ןידב קפס םוש ןיאש ס"שהו םינושארה
nd
also the deciding opinion of the Rif and the Rosh there and also in the 2
perek of Gemara Baba Metziah (the Rif’s commentary, 13a). Also, it is
obvious to me that Resh Lakish holds this same opinion since this subject :]ה"ה ז"פ תועד 'לה[ ל"נה הכלהב ם"במרה ל"זש
is the opinion of the earlier Tana’im in Gemara Yevamot. Furthermore,
this is also the opinion of the Yeshiva of Hillel (and the law nearly always ,וינפב אלש ןיבו וינפב ןיב ר"השל רפסמה דחא
follows this opinion) in Gemara Ketubot (17a), regarding the subject of בתכש ומכ יאק תמא רבד לע וליפא ם"במרהו
how to compliment a bride at her wedding (who hold the praise for a bride
should be unqualified). The Ritbah explains there that the leniency of the יאק ימנ תוליכראד יאדובו ,ןינעה תלחתב ומצעב
Yeshivah of Hillel (Beit Hillel) is based on the concept of promoting peace תלחתב ם"במרה םידקהש אלא ,וינפבד רוסיאה
(between a newly married couple- hence the leniency to compliment the
bride irrespective of how she appears in order to endear her to her new ללכ כ"חאו ,תוליכרו ר"השל אוה המ ראיבו קרפה
husband). But Resh Lakish held as he did (his format of the written verdict) ער ןושל ןהינש יכ ,ר"השל לש דחא םשב ןהינשל
only in the case of the mishnah when a judge tells the losing litigant- “I
am the one who was in favor of you but I was in a minority” (and had no ןינידה לכו .)ת"עשב הנוי וניבר בתכש ומכ( אוה
choice but to vote against you) implying he still believed the loser was ומכו ,ןהינש לע לכה ךלוהו בבוס כ"חא בתכש
right. In that circumstance the losing litigant will develop a deep hatred
of the other judges who voted against him and therefore it (the judge’s ר"השל תוכלהב ליעל תויארב הז לע יתיברהש
remark) is prohibited. However in a written verdict, using the format “that .'ג ק"סב ח"מבב 'ב ללכ
initially there had been a dispute,” but in the end they all agreed and the
law clearly defined the verdict and the losing litigant, in this circumstance
the loser would not develop a hatred for the judges. This is the rationale of הרורב היאר דוע ךל הארא ארוקה ןיע תוור ןעמלו
the Tosafot in their commentary (Sanhedrin 30a), that Resh Lakish holds ,ןתגרוה ר"השל 'ג ,קרפה הזב ם"במרה ש"ממ
that his format is immune from the Lav of “Do not peddle gossip.” I have
found support to this understanding in the P’nei Moshe’s commentary on ארמימ יאה אידהל אתיא האיפד א"פ ימלשוריבו
rd
the Yerushalmi (op. cit., 3 perek, 10 halacha). But in our discussion all
th
Authorities are unanimous that it is permitted to change the story (i.e., to
lie) in order to promote peace.

123 146
volume 4 volume 4

5

VOL-4