Page 228 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Vav - Halachah 9 ג הכלה - ו ללכ

Thus it becomes obvious to us in our case that the victim does not have לעֵמ הלועה קלּסל ידֵכוּ ?הככּ יִל הֶשׂוֹע הָתּא המּל :וֹלאוֹשׁ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֲ
ָ
ָ
ְ
license to seize Plony’s money, not even to seize it without witnesses being
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ִ
present, because there is no difference if witnesses gave testimony on this ןיא המּל :יִל רמאו ינעגְפּ רכוֹמּה ינוֹלְפּ :וֹביִשְׁמ אוּה וֹמצע
ָ
ְ
ֲ
ֶ
ִ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
circumstantial evidence in a court or if the victim himself is aware of the הבוֹט הרָוֹחסּה יִלצא אלֹה ?הרָוֹחס ינּמִּמ תוֹנקְִל הצוֹר הָתּא
circumstantial evidence.
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ףכֵתו .וּנּמִּמ ךָל ליזוֹא חקִּמּה םגו ,ינוֹלְפּ לֶשִּׁמ רֵתוֹי הבּרְה
ַ
ְ
ִ
ֶ
th
I have illustrated further on an example (in the 10 halacha) of ךְפּהְמה ינעל ידִוּהיּה תא בֵשׁוֹחו הרָוּמגּ תמאל הז תא לבּקְַמ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ִ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ֶ
ְ
ֶ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ֱ
ַ
ֵ
“circumstantial evidence” in the context of an “informer” and now I will
ְ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ְ
ְ
ֲ
ָ
ְ
ַ
illustrate it with another small example that is commonly found today in ,וֹבִּלבּ האנִשׂ ידִוּהיהל רֵטוֹנו ,עָשׁרָ ארָקְנֶּשׁ ,'וּכו הרָרָחבּ
society, as follows: Money was stolen from Shimon’s house and that night טוּשׁפּ דרֵוֹיֶּשׁ דע ,םיִחקִּמבּ הבּרְה וֹרבח דגנ לזלזי רחמלוּ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ֵ
ֲ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
Reuven happened to have slept there. Shimon went through his safe (his
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
locked box) and discovered it was broken into and all indications pointed הצוֹר דחא לכֶּשׁ ,םירִוּמגּ םיִאנוֹשׂ הז ידֵי לע םיִשֲׂענו ,וייּחל
to Reuven as being the thief. Even so, it is forbidden for Shimon to seize םֵשׁלוּ ארֵָתּהכּ םלצא לֹכּהו ,וֹמדּ תא תוֹארְִלו וֹרבח תא עלֹבִל
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ֶ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ֲ
ְ
ָ
any of Reuven’s property even if the seizure is made without any witnesses .)הככּ ןכּ םגּ וֹל הָשׂע וֹרבחֶשׁ םבְשׁחבּ ,הוצִמ
ָ
ְ
ֲ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ָ
being present. The most Shimon can do is to take Reuven to Beit Din
9
where the court will force Reuven to swear to his innocence (and if he ,"אוָשׁ עמֵשׁ אָשִּׂת אלֹ" :הז ידֵי לע רבע ןיואל המּכּ הֵארְ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ִ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
refuses to swear, he will have to pay the victim the amount in contention).
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
(Please see the following Hagahah). דוֹעו ,"רֹטִּת אלֹו םֹקִּת אלֹ"ו ,'וּכו "ךָיִחא תא אנְשִׂת אלֹ"ו ְ
ִ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ָ
Do not contradict what I have said by citing the statement in Gemara םגּ םיִמעְפִלו ,החיִתְפּבּ ליֵעל ןירִאֹבְמה ןיִשֲׂעו ןיואל הבּרְה
Shabbat (56a-b) “David HaMelech did not transgress the Lav of accepting תלבּקַ ידֵי לע וּשֲׂענ וּלּא לכו .הרָוֹתּה יִפּ לע רוּמגּ ןיִשׁלמ ןכּ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
Lashon Hara (he did not accept Tzevah’s report about Mephiboshet as
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ֱ
ַ
ִ
ִ
ֲ
being true), because he saw circumstantial evidence that Mephiboshet רוּסִּא ןידּ יִפּ לע אלֹהו .תמא ירֵבדּ וֹל רפִּסֶּשׁ בַשׁחֶשׁ ,תוּליִכרְ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ְ
was not loyal. There, because of this report, David HaMelech imposed ןיא םגו ,וינפבּ וֹל רפִּס ידִוּהי םִא וּלִּפא אוּה תוּליִכרְ תלבּקַ
ָ
ָ
ֲ
ְ
ֵ
a loss on Mephiboshet he commanded Mephiboshet to relinquish half of רוּסא יכה וּלִּפא ,ןכּ םגּ קַתָשׁ אוּהו ,רבדּבּ העיגנ םוּשׁ וֹל
ָ
ְ
ֲ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ִ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ַ
his field to Tzevah. That citation is not at all a challenge to what I have
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
ֱ
ְ
ֶ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
th
said, as I wrote above in the first part of this sefer, in the 7 Kelal, the 'א קלחבּ ליֵעל וּנרְרַבֶּשׁ וֹמכוּ( תמא רבדּהֶשׁ וֹבִּלבּ טיִלחהל
nd
22 notation. (Please see that reference). Now regarding the issue of ,ידִוּהי וֹניא אוּה רפּסְמהֶשׁ הזבּ ןכֶּשׁ לכו ,)םיקִסוֹפּה לכִּמ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ֵ
verbally denigrating Plony because of the circumstantial evidence, this
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ְ
issue requires substantially more thought and analysis to resolve. תא שׁרֵוֹדּ אוּה וֹרוּפִּסבּ םגו ,).ה"מ ףדּ ארְָתבּ אבבּ ןיּעו(
רבדבּ עגוֹנ אוּהו ,וילעֵמ הלועה תא תוֹחדְִל ידֵכּ וֹמצע תבוֹט
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֲ
.וֹניִמאהלוּ וירָבדּ תא לבּקַל רוּסאֶשׁ המּכו המּכּ תחא לע ,הז ֶ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
,ןרְָקַּשׁל רבדּבּ עגוֹנּה תא קיזחהל הז ןוֹדּנבּ וֹל היה בוֹט רֵתוֹיו ְ
ִ
ֲ
ִ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
19 Translator’s note: 4 Adar Aleph 5763: Rabbi Yaakov Koenigsberg (Yeshivat
ְ
ְ
ָ
ָ
Mikdash Melech, Brooklyn) gave an insight (a peshat) to this statement of .]ןוֹשׁארִה רוּיִּצּבּ[ תוּכז ףכל לארְָשׂיּה תא ןוּדלו
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ִ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
the Chafetz Chayim: “even if there were no witnesses.” That if there were
witnesses to the seizure, Shimon would lose in a Beit Din because the witnesses עדֵוֹי היה אלֹ ידִוּהיּהֶשׁ ,בֹשׁחל ןכּ םגּ וֹל היה ינֵשּׁה רוּיִּצַּבוּ
ְ
ִ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ַ
would testify that he snatched the item away from Reuven. Even if Shimon
ַ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ִ
admitted he snatched it away but claimed he was snatching his own (stolen) לוֹצּנ היהו ,וּנּמִּמ תוֹנקְִל וֹתִּא רמגו הלִּחְתִּמ וֹלצא עבקֶּשׁ
property or compensation for his stolen property, he would still lose because קדֶצבּ"דּ הֵשֲׂע תוצִמ םיּקְַמ היה םָשׁארֹבוּ ,ןיואל המּכִּמ הזבּ
ָ
ֶ
ֶ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ִ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ַ
the court presumes the original holder of the item is in fact the owner of the
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ֲ
ָ
ָ
item. Nor is Reuven liable for any compensation unless witnesses testify that וֹתוֹא ןדֶּשׁ ,האוֹר וֹרבח היהֶשׁכּ אליֵמִּמוּ ,"ךֶָתיִמֲע טֹפְּשִׁתּ
243 218
volume 4 VOL-4 8 volume 4