Page 245 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס 8 VOL-4
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Vav - Halachah 7 ו הכלה - ו ללכ

Be’er Mayim Chayim וינפב דחא ופרח םאמ ףידע אלד .'וכו הלגי אל )י(

ךליל ול רוסאש ליעל ונרריבש ,ומצע ןיבל וניב
(RK6/7/1)-(15).. all Authorities are in agreement: I have expressed
this based on the commentaries of the Rif (Gemara Ketubot 43b) and the ול שיש אל םא ,םירחאל הז רבד רפסלו כ"חא
Rosh (Gemara Ketubot, perek HaKotev, in the middle of his 6 paragraph) ,ותיב ישנאל וליפאו ש"מו .אבהל לע תלעות הזמ
th
quoted as follows: We have seen the writings of Rav Hai Gaon who has
said: Nowadays a judge may not say that “I trust the testimony of this ר"השל רוסיאד תוטישפב ןמקל בותכנש ומכ אוה
particular person” because the definition of “trust” is not at all clear to us. אמלעד שיאל רפסל םא ןיב קוליח ןיא תוליכרו
This concept is brought down in Choshen Mishpat, section #15, paragraph .ותשאל רפסל ןיבו
#5 as a matter of law even though this law is not brought down in Ehven
HaEzer, section #115 (paragraph #7 in the Rama) cited above. There, in
order to keep someone away from doing something that is forbidden, the אוה םגש ןויכ אוה טושפ .רחא שיאמ עמש )אי(
Shulchan Aruch is strict in the law’s application. But here, if the victim
does not believe the gossip and does not conclude an opinion, so what of .היב ןימאהלו לבקל ול רוסא ומצעב
it? The victim could still suspect Plony and protect himself against him.
And even without this, there is nearly not even one person in a thousand
in matters such as these (for many people do not even consider this to be
a sin, because of the very many sins of society) that we can say about him
that he can be believed by the victim with the same authority as he would םייחה רוקמ
believe two witnesses testifying in court, that this speaker would never
add or subtract even one word from the story as it actually happened, that שׁיִאדּ הּוּגבּ הּל םיקִדּ ילִּמ ינה ,ליִעוֹמּה ןפֹאבּ וּלִּפאו .ו
there is no way to judge Plony favorably and that the future outcome of ְ ֵ ַ ְ ֵ ְ ֵ ֵ ָ ַ ֶ ָ ֲ ַ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ְ
this gossip is useful and beneficial. שׁיִאה עבֶט תא בֵטיה ריִכּמֶּשׁ )בי( ,וּניהדּ ,אבוּט אוּהה
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ְ
וֹתְּעדַו ,רבדּבּ םזּגְמ וֹניאו ,ןפֹא םוּשׁבּ רֵקַּשְׁמ וֹניאֶשׁ ,אוּהה
ַ
ֶ
(RK6/7/2)-(16).. it makes no difference who is conveying the
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ְ
gossip: Who can say that they can be believed with the same authority םגו ,הזבּ )גי( וירָָבְדּ וֹל םיִנָמֱאֶנֶּשׁ דַע ,ךְָכּ לָכּ ויָלָע תֶכֶמוֹס
as two witnesses? We see even the most discrete \ careful among them do ,ןידּ תיבבּ םידִיִעְמה םידִֵע ינְשִׁכּ ,דיִמָתּ םירִבדּ ראְשִׁבּ ןכּ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ֵ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
add or subtract their own comments to a story. Never can we find anyone
ָ
ָ
ֲ
ֵ
ֶ
ֲ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
whose testimony is precisely and objectively as factual as the testimony וֹניא םירִבדּ ראְשִׁבּ םִא לבא .*קפס םוּשׁ םהירֵחא ןיאֶשׁ
of two witnesses in court. Moreover, we require that the speaker’s gossip
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ֲ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ָ
\ report must be believed by this “victim” in any and all circumstances ןוֹשׁל יבגרִ וֹל וּקְתמדּ םוּשִּׁמ ,הזבּ קרַו ,ךְכּ לכּ וֹניִמאמ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
ֲ
ַ
reported by this speaker, just as he would believe two witnesses and not יבכּ וֹניִמאמ אוּהֶשׁ ,רבדּה וֹשְׁפנבּ רֵמוֹגּ ,תוּליִכרְוּ ערָה
just here; and that is not at all plausible! After all of these leniencies,
ְ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ֲ
there also must be no way to judge Plony favorably, and the gossip he has טיִלחיו ןיִמאי רֵתוֹיֶּשׁ לכּ ,הבּרַדּאדּ ,רוּסא יאדּובּ ,ירְֵתּ
conveyed must have been for some useful \ beneficial future outcome, ערָה ןוֹשׁל לבּקְַמ ללכִבּ סנכּי רֵתוֹי ,תמא אוּהֶשׁ רבדּה
ָ
ֵ
ֱ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ִ
as I wrote above. Practically speaking all of these conditions are nearly
impossible to fulfill. .תוּליִכרְוּ
235 226
volume 4 volume 4