Page 166 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Dalet - Halachah 2 ב הכלה - ג ללכ

3
Kamma (10a) regarding someone who placed dried wood in the path of םייח םימ ראב
an oncoming fire (in order to divert it to burn the stack of grain belonging
to a neighbor in an adjoining field). (Please see that reference and the וליפא רוסא תוליכרד ונבתכש המ לכמ אצויה
Tosafot (10b) there in the citation beginning with the words- “What more
did he do?” quoted as follows: Throughout that entire gemara, every time המכמ הז רבד ונרריבש ומכ וינפבו תמא רבד לע
it says “what more did he do,” the underlying discussion revolves around קיתעה ג"מסה ןכו ,ם"במרהו ס"שהמ תומוקמ
the issue of what more did this second person do than the first person,
in order to make each one of them liable for the share of the damage רסאל כ"ג תופסותה תעד ןכו ,ם"במרה ירבד כ"ג
they each caused? This is similar to the gemara’s discussion (in Gemara וינפב הרמוא היהו תמא רבד לע וליפא תוליכרב
4
Babba Kamma 51a) of someone who dug a pit in a public area that was
ten Tefachim deep (about 40 inches deep and a second person came and טושפ רבדד ,ל"נה 'ב ללכב 'א קלחב ליעל ש"מכו
increased its depth to twenty Tefachim and) a (third) person came along הרמוא םא ןיב קולח ןיאד םהירבדב ןייעמהל אוה
and increased it depth to thirty Tefachim. All of these men are liable even
though without these other men the animal that fell into the pit would have וא ,וינפב הרמוא היהש רעשמ אוהו וינפב אלש
died (after falling into the pit that was only ten Tefachim deep). However ירעשב י"רב חכומ ןכו .רוסא ינוג לכב ,שממ וינפב
here in this case (of the burning grain) one must be analytically precise
and argue - “Just because he tossed one branch into an already raging fire, ר"השל רמול ינוג לכב רוסאד ח"כר רמאמב הבושת
etc…but to someone who dug a pit ten Tefachim deep and someone else יסוי 'ר ירבד דימעהל חרכמ אוה ךכלו ,תוליכרו
came along and increased its depth to eleven Tefachim….” (Tosafot quoted
up until this point). Please review carefully the Rosh’s commentary on the ףיעסה לכ םינפב יתבתכ ז"פעו ,םש ראבמה ןפאב
st
gemara (Babba Kamma- in the 1 perek, 9 section) where he explains .'א
th
“What more did he do?” and he completely exonerates this second person.
The Nemukei Yosef also holds this same opinion (in his commentary
on the Rif in that same gemara, 4b in the Rif, citation beginning with
the words “He…”). Please see the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat .בא ח"כ ,ןסינ ח"י ,תבט 'ח - תרבועמ הנש .לולא 'א ,רייא 'א ,תבט 'א - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
section #396, paragraph #7 where Maran cites the differing opinions of
two different Authorities on this subject. Further, please see there the
th
commentary of the Vilna Gaon on the Shulchan Aruch (15 notation) that םייחה רוקמ
the Tosafot, the Rambam and the Rashbah all agree that both men are
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ִ
ֵ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ֵ
ִ
ִ
ְ
ֵ
ֵ
liable (for destroying the grain). And the Tosafot’s question “However, if רפִּסו יול ךְלהו ,יול ינְפִבּ ןוֹעְמִשׁ לע רבּדּ ןבוּארְ םִא .ב
we are precise” is answered by the Rashbah, that the case where the second
ַ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
person is also responsible, is only when the fire would have traveled even :ןבוּארְִל ךְכּ רחא רמוֹל ןוֹעְמִשׁל רוּסא ,ןוֹעְמִשׁל םירִבדּה
if only his wood would have been there, just as this person did who dug רבוֹע אוּה םגּ )ג( הֶז ידְֵי לַע יִכּ ?יִוֵל יֵנְפִבּ יַלָע ָתּרְַבִּדּ ךְיֵא
ֵ
ַ
the pit deeper from ten to twenty Tefachim. Therefore the second person
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ֲ
is just as liable as the first person since his bundle of dried wood would וֹל ריִכּזי אלֹ םִא וּלִּפאו ,יול תמחֵמ תוּליִכרְ רוּסִּא לע
have been enough to destroy the grain. But if not for that, the case would
ִ
ְ
ֶ
ֵ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
have been comparable to someone extending the depth of a pit from ten ָתּרְבּדֶּשׁ יִתְּעמָשֶּׁשׁ :םָתס וֹל רמאֹיו ,יול םֵשׁ תא שׁוּרפבּ
Tefachim to eleven Tefachim. Yet there, the Rosh and the Nemukei Yosef
hold that the second person is completely exonerated. And that is similar 7 i.e., Shimon (the “victim,”) the person who was the subject of the gossip.
to our discussion; that according to the opinion of the Tosafot, the Rambam
8 i.e., Levi (the “speaker”) who conveyed Reuven’s gossip to Shimon.
177 156
volume 4 volume 4