Page 252 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Vav - Halachah 3 ט הכלה - ו ללכ

the gentile answers - “So and so, the merchant, approached me with a לכוי אל ןכ םג ומצעב ונייהד ,וננינעב טושפ אליממו
deal – “Why don’t you buy those good from me instead of him? I have
merchandise that is a lot better than Plony’s (the first merchant) and my ,הז םעטמ םידעב אלש הסיפת וליפא ,ונממ סופתל
merchandise is cheaper than his!” Immediately, Plony (the buyer) believes םירבדה ולא לע םידע ודיעה םא הינימ אקפנ יאמד
the gentile’s story as being absolutely true and considers this other merchant
to be “meddling in someone else’s affairs and stealing away another man’s תא עדוי ומצעב אוהש וא ,ןיד תיב ינפל םירכינה
livelihood” and is therefore an evil person, a Rasha. Plony then hates this .םירכינה םירבדה
other Jew and tomorrow, at the next opportunity, he will undercut him in
every way that he can until he destroys his livelihood and they become .תונישלמ ןינעל םירכינה םירבד יתרייצ םינפב הנהו
sworn enemies. Each merchant now wants to utterly destroy the other yet
each one sees his actions as being completely permissible and a mitzvah תועמ ובנגנש ןוגכ ,יוצמש המב ןטק רויצ דוע רייצאו
since his antagonist has done the same thing to him.
קדבו ,ותיבב הלילה ותואב ןל ןבוארו ,ןועמש תיבמ
See how many Laveen were transgressed because of this: “Do not accept םיארמש םירבד ג"הכ לכו הצורפ האצמו ותבית ןועמש
a false report,” “Do not hate your brother \ your fellow Jew” and “Do
not take revenge and do not hold a grudge” as well as many other Laveen וליפא וספתל רוסא יכה וליפא ,ודיספה וריבחש ןיעל
and Aseen explained above in the Introduction. On occasion he meets םשו ןידל ומע ךליש ועבתל קר ,םידעב אלש הסיפת
the Torah’s criteria for an “informer.” All of this because he believed the
gossip he heard from the goy, that he believed this gentile was telling him .*הז לע תסיה והעיבשי
the truth. The law sees the acceptance of gossip as truth as being forbidden
even if a Jew conveyed that gossip directly to the victim in front of Plony אל )ב"ע ו"נ( תבשב ש"ממ ונירבד לע גישת אלו
and even if the gossip is irrelevant to this speaker and Plony remained אזח םירכינה םירבד אמעט יאמ ר"השל דוד לביק
silent and did not respond to the accusation. Even so, it is forbidden to
conclude an opinion that the gossip must have been true (as we explained דוד רזגש ,תשוביפמל ז"יע דוד דיספה םשו ,היב
nd
th
above in the first part of the sefer (the 7 Kelal, the 2 halacha) quoting אישק אלד ,הדשה תא וקלחי אביצו אוהש הז םושמ
the unanimous opinion of all our Authorities). And all the more so in our
case where the speaker is a gentile (please refer to Gemara Babba Batra ב"כ ק"ס 'ז ללכב 'א קלחב ליעל יתבתכש ומכ ידימ
45a) and he is looking out only for his own good in order to obscure his םירכינה םירבד תמחמ םירבדב ותונגל ןינעלו .ש"יע
own culpability, and yet he is directly an interested party (with an obvious
compelling motivation to lie about his involvement). How much even .לודג ע"צ
more so is it forbidden to accept his gossip and believe that what he was
saying was true. It would have been much better, regarding this victim, to
presume the gentile had a vested interest, an ulterior motive, that he was a
liar and to have judged his fellow Jew favorably (in the first example).
he owes the money. But if there were no witnesses and Shimon was called
And in the second example he (the first merchant) should have assumed to court, he would win because of a “migo” meaning that he could claim
he snatched it and he would win because he could have answered a better
the second merchant knew nothing about the deal that was transacted with answer, that he bought it (a “migo”- a “better answer”), and he would
the gentile and had he taken that approach, he would have been spared be believed by the court that the item was his. But here in our discussion,
from violating many Laveen. First among them he would have fulfilled where there is only “circumstantial evidence” that there was a loss (and
the Torah’s commandment of “Judging your fellow Jew favorably” and, that it was caused by Reuven), even if there were no witnesses to the
naturally, as soon as the second merchant saw that he was given the benefit seizure, Shimon would lose because he has no right to make the seizure.

219 242
volume 4 volume 4

8

VOL-4