Page 258 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Tet - Halachah 1 א הכלה - ז ללכ

and tell his “friend”- (“Shimon”) not to form that partnership, I must now
elaborate on this subject. (I will express this law by illustrating it with
one example but this concept extends to all of the illustrative examples
that follow). For example, someone (Shimon) wants to hire “Plony” as a 'ז ללכּ
ָ
ְ
caretaker in his home and Reuven recognizes Plony and knows from his
past that he is a thief. There are three possible paths to follow: (1) Is it
permissible to tell Shimon what he knows about Plony and prevent Shimon
from hiring him and incurring a loss, or (2) Maybe it is also a mitzvah, an ,וינינִע לכבּ תוּליכרְָה רוּפּס רוּסִּא רַאֹבי הז ללכבּ
ְ
ָ
ִ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ִ
ֶ
obligation to tell Shimon about Plony, or (3) Maybe it is forbidden to tell
ִ
ְ
Shimon because conveying that information is Rechilut and in so doing he .םיפיִעס 'ה וֹבוּ
would cause a loss to Plony, as I mentioned in the Be’er Mayim Chayim at
the beginning of this Kelal.
It seems to me that the law obligates Reuven to tell Shimon about Plony
and the proof comes from Gemara Sanhedrin (73a): “Where is the source .לולא 'י ,ןסינ 'ל ,תבט 'כ - תרבועמ הנש .לולא א"י ,רייא א"י ,תבט א"י - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
for learning that if ‘someone sees a fellow Jew drowning in a river’ that he
has to save him?…or the case of ‘armed robbers coming’ that….(Answer) םייחה רוקמ
the Torah instructs us (Vayikrah 19:16) “Do not stand by passively
while your fellow Jew is in mortal danger.” This law is brought down in
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
Choshen Mishpat section # 426, paragraph #1, that Reuven is obligated to )א( רפּסְמה םִא ןיבּ ,תוּליִכרְה רוּפִּס רוּסִּאבּ קוּלִּח ןיא .א
tell Shimon about the impending danger. (Please see that reference).
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
,דחאל עמָשׁ םִא וּלִּפאו ,קוֹחרָ וֹא בוֹרקָ ,הָשִּׁא וֹא שׁיִא
ֲ
ַ
And do not attempt to refute what I have said by arguing that there, in that
ַ
ֵ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ִ
ְ
case, armed robbers are actually coming to kill him and in order to save דֹאְמ וֹל רצהֶשׁ תמחֵמוּ ,*וֹמִּאו ויִבא לע יאנגּ ירֵבדּ רבּדֶּשׁ
Shimon’s life Reuven must go over to him and tell him about the intent of תוּליִכרְ ללכִבּ ןכּ םגּ ,רבדּה תא םהל הלּגּ ,םדוֹבכּ לע
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ִ
ָ
ַ
these armed people (these murderers) in order that Shimon protect himself.
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
But in monetary matters maybe the Torah’s instruction did not extend to וֹא שׁיִא אוּה וילע ןירְִפּסְמֶּשׁ יִמ לע םִא קוּלִּח ןיא םגּ .אוּה
allowing Reuven to tell Shimon by reporting on Plony because that is not
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ַ
so! The [Mechilta] Sifra commentary addresses this concept as does the 'א קלחבּ ליֵעל וּנרְאבֶּשׁ וֹמכּ לֹכּה ,ןטקָ )ב( וֹא לוֹדָגּ ,הָשִּׁא
Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvot (Lav #297), that the Lav of “Do not stand .'ג 'ב 'א םיִפיִעס 'ח ללכִבּ
ְ
ָ
ְ
by passively” includes a warning not to withhold testimony in monetary
matters even if he was not called to testify (he is obligated by the Torah to
ְ
ֲ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ֵ
step forward and give his unsolicited testimony in Beit Din) as we infer םירִענ ינְשֶּׁשׁ ,האוֹר דחאֶשׁכֶּשׁ ,הזבּ ןיִלָשׁכנֶּשׁ םיִשׁנא שֵׁיְו
from the language of that Torah imperative “Do not stand by passively!” ךְאיה :םהֵמ דחא לֶשׁ ויִבאל רֵמוֹאו ךְלוֹה ,הז תא הז ןיִכּמ
ֶ
ְ
ֶ
ֶ
ֵ
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
This concept is also brought down in Sefer Sha’ar HaMishpat at the
beginning of the section dealing with the laws pertaining to ‘witnesses ךְכּ רחא אוֹבל ליגרָ הז ידֵי לעו ,ךָנִבּ הכִּה ינוֹלְפּ רענֶּשׁ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ִ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ַ
giving testimony’ and implicit in the cited Sefer HaMitzvot.
ַ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ךְכּ רחא הכּמ ינוֹלְפּ וֹתוֹא לֶשׁ ויִבאֶשׁ ,םיִלוֹדגּ םיִלוּקלקִ
Also, do not try to refute this law by arguing that in those cited references
ַ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
we are asking this person to testify in court and in court his testimony רחא הֶשֲׂענ הז ידֵי לעו ,האנִשּׂה לדֶֹגּ ינְפִּמ הז ןטקָ רענל
is immune from the laws of Rechilut but outside of court he may not
ְ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ֲ
ֲ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ַ
‘testify.’ This too is not so, since the Sifra commentary taught us that יוּצמ רֵתוֹיבוּ ,םירִענּה לֶשׁ ןהיֵתוֹבא ןיבּ הלוֹדגּ תקֶלֹחמ ךְכּ
277 248
volume 4 volume 4