Page 226 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Vav - Halachah 10 ג הכלה - ו ללכ

Hagahah דחא ידִוּהי לצא עבקָ ירִכנֶּשׁ ,ןוֹגכּ ,יוּצמ הזבּ אצוֹיּכו( )ב
ֶ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
This law is explicit in the Shach’s commentary in the 75 section of Choshen חינִּהו ,חקִּמּה תא רמגו ,הזבּ אצוֹיּכו הקְֶשׁמ וּנּמִּמ תוֹנקְִל
th
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ִ
ֵ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
Mishpat, paragraph #64. The Taz’s commentary there in paragraph #17 is
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ִ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
in agreement with the law as expressed by the Shach, that the victim may ןירְִמוֹגֶּשׁ רחא ףאֶשׁ ,םינוֹקּהֵמ שׁיו ,וֹתיבבּ וילכּ ןכּ םגּ וֹל
not seize any of Plony’s property even without witnesses being present. םירִחא ןירִכוֹמל ןיִכלוֹה ךְכּ רחא ,ירְֵמגל דחא םִע חקִּמּה
ְ
ֲ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
ַ
In this regard the Sefer MehIrat Enayim (49 notation) has a dissenting
th
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
opinion. ילוּא ,תוֹרוֹחסּה וּלּא לֶשׁ םיִחקִּמּה םהֵמ שרֹדְִל ,ןיִמּה הזִּמ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ַ
,וּנּמִּמ וּרזחיו ,ןוֹשׁארִה חקִּמּהֵמ תוֹחפבּ טעְמ גיִשּׂהל וּלכוּי
ְ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
הזבּ רמגֶּשׁ ךְיא ,הזִּמ רבדּ םוּשׁ ינֵשּׁה רכוֹמּהל ןירְִפּסְמ ןיאו ְ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
Daily Halacha: Leap Year- 19 Tevet, 29 Nissan, 9 Elul
ֵ
ַ
ִ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
םיִמעְפִל ,הזִּמ עדֵוֹי וֹניא ינֵשּׁה רכוֹמּהֶשׁכוּ .רחא םִע הלִּחְתִּמ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
Mekor Hachayim ןוֹשׁארִה רכוֹמּה לֶשׁ חקִּמּהֵמ טעְמ תוּחפּ חקִּמבּ הצּרְַתִמֶּשׁ ערַא
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
RK6/ 0. Based on this, we can see for ourselves how people make לצא ףכֵתּ ךְלוֹה אוּה הזּה רבדּה תא ירִכנּה עֹמְשִׁכו ,עוּדיּכּ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
this mistake, because of the many sins of society, that if someone אוּהֶשׁכוּ .הנֲעמוּ הנֲעט םוּשׁ יִלבּ וּנּמִּמ וילכּ חקֵוֹלו ןוֹשׁארִה
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ֵ
suffers a loss in his affairs because someone informed on him, or
something comparable, and he has circumstantial evidence pointing
to Plony as being the cause of his loss, in relying on this circumstantial up its passenger, the Gaon. The Gaon intended to tell this gentile that it
evidence this victim goes and informs on Plony because of society’s was not his fault at all, that he was not negligent and that it was the fault
of the wagon driver who was not careful and did not properly control his
misconception that if someone informed on you, you now have the horse. But instead, the Gaon strengthened himself and did not answer the
license to retaliate and inform back on him. gentile. Later, the Gaon remarked that had he answered the gentile he
would have stepped over the line of halacha and would have become an
Truthfully, this is a very serious mistake from several aspects: informer (because truthfully the wagon driver was also legally innocent
and this law is well known). But even if the wagon driver was guilty of
(1). The “victim’s” right to “retaliate” (i.e., the law permitting negligence, the most he would be liable for would be the compensation
“retaliation”) and inform back on “someone” who first informed owed to the gentile for his loss but certainly not to be beaten up. Had he
on him is applicable only if there will be a future outcome that spoken up, the Gaon would have been liable for causing an undeserved
is beneficial, for example, that this “someone” will not be able loss to a fellow Jew since the driver was not legally responsible. (Had the
to inform on the “victim” again and that there was no other way Gaon informed on the wagon drive) Necessarily he would have had to be
reincarnated as a mad dog and neither his Torah learning nor his mitzvot
of achieving this benefit except by informing on him. Only then would have been enough to save him.
would it be allowable. But if this victim’s only motivation was to (All this was told to me by the great righteous sage, our teacher, Rabbeinu
take revenge, most certainly it would be absolutely forbidden, as is Yehoshua, of blessed memory, the author of Sefer Chosen Yehoshuah
brought down in Choshen Mishpat (section #388, paragraph #9, in and Sefer Maoz HaDat, who heard it from the pure righteous sage, our
the Hagahah). teacher, Rabbeinu David Taybeel (author of Sefer Nachalat David), of
blessed memory, who was the presiding judge of the city of Minsk, who in
(2). Before retaliating against this “someone,” the victim himself turn heard it from the Maor HaGolah, our teacher Rabbeinu Chayim, of
must have seen “someone’s” act of “informing” and not merely blessed memory, who was the senior-most student of the Vilna Gaon, his
memory is a legacy for peace). From all of this, man should come to know
surmise “someone” was the culprit because of circumstantial how careful he should be in matters such as these throughout his entire
evidence, even if the circumstance evidence is obvious and the life.
245 216
volume 4 volume 4