Page 304 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim VOL-4 10 םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Tet - Halachah 2 ב הכלה - ט ללכ

he will protect his contract \ proof-of-purchase. (Please see the following ר"השל תלבק רוסיאד ג"ס 'ז ללכב 'א קלחב ונרריבש
th
Hagahah after which this 9 notation will continue).
םוקמ לכמ )ןיד תיבל ץוח אוהש לכ םינשמ וליפא אוה
ןזוא תולגל ךירצ ךכלו ,רמא אמשו יעבימ שחימל
Hagahah
.*ורטשב רהזיש ידכ קיזחמה
Nevertheless it seems to me that the Lav of “Do not stand aside passively
while your fellow Jew’s life is in danger” is not relevant to this circumstance
except if he witnessed the event himself or (even) if he heard about it from
someone else and it is clear to him that the report is true. But just hearing :ה"הגה
something in general, even though one can suspect its truth, (acting on what
he heard and warning the victim) is only a general mitzvah (but it is not the ןפואב יאק אל ךער םד לע דומעת אלד ואלד ל"נ כ"פעא *
imperative of the mitzvah of “Do not stand by passively”). Regarding this,
they (Chazal) have said (Gemara Niddah 61a) “He (Gedaliah) should have אוהש ול ררבתנ ךא ,עמש וליפא וא .ומצעב האר םא קר ,הז
suspected,” but G-d forbid Gedaliah Ben Achikam did not transgress any ,ל"נכו הזל שוחל ךירצד ףא אמלעב העימש י"ע לבא .תמא
sin, he was a great man and he did not violate the Lav of “Do not stand היהש ךותמ ורמא הז לעו ,אמלעב הוצמ רדגב םא יכ הז ןיא
aside passively while your fellow Jew’s life is in danger,” merely that he
held a different opinion of what the law requires regarding the acceptance ארבגד ,םקיחא ןב הילדג רבע אל ו"ח לבא .'וכו שוחל ול
of Lashon Hara and Rechilut as truth, to the extent that he believed it was תלבק ןינעב קרו .ךער םד לע דומעת אלד ואל לע ,היה הבר
forbidden to even suspect it might be true.
.שוחל ןינעל וליפא לבקל ןיאד תרחא הטיש ול התיה ר"השל

Be’er Mayim Chayim, continued ..
(RK9/2/8)-(9) .. other requirements: Even though there are strong םייח םימ ראב
proofs supporting this basic expression of the law, that even if there is only
a suspicion of possible loss, one must deflect that suspicion away from a וליפאד ןידה םצע ןינעל תוקזח תויאר ןהש פ"עאו
fellow Jew. However it is possible to deflect them quite simply by arguing
they are not relevant to our topic because on the basis of conveying his שי כ"פעא ,לארשי לעמ תוחדל שי קזיה קפס ששח
report and stopping a possible loss from occurring to him (to Shimon) המ י"ע יכ ,וננינעל םיכייש םניאד תוטישפב םתוחדל
he is causing a loss to him (to Plony), and maybe the gossip he heard
about Plony was a lie. Regarding this law in the cited reference, it is ,ודגנכשהל קזיה םרוג אוה הזמ קזיה ששח ריסמ אוהש
known that the Rosh’s opinion is that only if the gossip will not result in אוה עודי אולהד .וילע עמשש זעלה אוה רקש ןפו
any loss to Plony, but rather it will protect Shimon and he now he will
be alert to protect his assets, and on this basis the speaker is obligated to י"ע עיגי אל םא קר אוה ל"נה ןיד ש"ארה בתכש המד
convey his report in order to satisfy both parties; this one (Plony) is not ורובידבש םא יכ ,הלגמ אוהש ימ לע קזיה ורוביד
damaged by the speaker’s report and this one (Shimon) protects himself
even from a suspicion of possible harm since he is allowed to suspect ידכ תולגל ךירצ אוה ךכלו ,ודגנכשה תא רומשי
the report might be true. But that is not so (the speaker may not convey הזלו ורובידב קיזמ ונניא הזל ,לכה ידי אצי הזבש
a report) if as a result of his report Plony will suffer real damages. Most
certainly it would be forbidden, as we clearly proved in the first part of ןפ יעבימ שוחלד ,קזיה קפס ןמ וליפא רמוש אוה

295 294
volume 4 volume 4