Page 323 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Tet - Halachah 5 בי הכלה - ט ללכ

that what Rav Yosef said “and only when it pertains to himself,” means םַשׁא רֶשׁאל רֹזֲעלו תמאל אנּקַל וֹתנוּכּ רקִּע היהִתֶּשׁ )ב
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֱ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֲ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ַ
he is believed to eat the Taharot that he touched since a person is believed
ַ
to testify on himself but he may not feed it to others. (Rashi quoted up ןוֹלקְִבּ חֹמְשִׂל )גל( אלְֹו ,הֶנַּאְתִמַּה תֶלֶעוֹתְלוּנְיַהְדּ ,וֹל
until this point). What follows from this is that even if we uphold the law
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
according to the opinion of Rebbe Yehudah [which is the opinion of the וֹתוֹא הנוֹהֶשׁ ,רוּרבבּ וֹמצעבּ עדֵוֹי אוּהֶשׁ ףא ,הנּאְמה
Ra’avad (in the amendments to the Laws of Shi’ge’got \ Unintentional ,דחא ןינִע דוֹע ללכנ טרְָפּה הזבוּ .חקִּמּה הזבּ רכוֹמּה
ְ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
th
th
Mistakes, the 11 perek, in the 8 halacha) that the law does follow Rebbe
Yehudah’s opinion; and most certainly according to the Rambam (in that לכוּתֶּשׁ ,רֵעַשׁיֶּשׁ ,וּניהדּ ,וֹמצעבּ טרְָפּה וֹתוֹא טעְמִכּ אוּהו
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
reference) who held the law is like the rabbis (who disagreed with Rebbe
ַ
ֶ
Yehudah) all of this is unnecessary] that this man is believed (to say he תא עדֵוֹי אוּה םִא )איִצוֹהְל( יקֵוֹפַּאְל ,תֶלֶעוֹתּ הֶזִּמ אוֹבָל
is ritually pure and) to eat the Taharot that he touched since he himself
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ֵ
knows what the truth is, that he is ritually pure, nevertheless only he is ,אניּדַו אנידִבּ ךְליל אוּה םירִבדּ שׁיִא אלֶֹּשׁ ,הנּאְתִמּה עבֶט
allowed to eat that Taharot but he is not allowed to feed that Taharot to דבלִבּ וֹבִּל ביִאכי קרַ ,הז ןינִעבּ וּהוּרזעיֶּשׁ ,םיִשׁנא שֵׁקּבלוּ
ְ
ָ
ֲ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
others. The implication is obvious that even if others know nothing about
ֵ
the testimony brought by these witnesses saying that this man was impure, ןיא )דל( ,וֹדְּגֶנְכֶּשַּׁה לַע וֹבִּלְבּ הָאְנִשׂ וֹל סיִנְכַיְו ,וֹרוּפִּסְבּ
still it is forbidden for him to feed them this Taharot even though he himself
ֶ
ֶ
ָ
ֲ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
knows that he was pure since he understands that his word would not stand ןוֹשׁארִה ןפֹאבוּ .הז ןפֹאבּ וֹלאוֹשׁ םִא רֵתוֹיבוּ ,וֹל רמוֹל
up in court as being truth (since two witnesses testified otherwise). It הזִּמ רֹזחל רוּסא ןידּ יִפּ לעֶשׁ םוֹקמבּ ,וּניהדּ ,וּנרְיִּצֶּשׁ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ִ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
was in this regard that Rebbe Yehudah said the law is a man is believed to
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ֵ
testify about himself more than the testimony of 100 witnesses, but only רבדִּמ" םוּשִּׁמ וֹבּ ןיאו ,וינפבּ חקִּמּה חבַּשׁל הוצִמ ,חקִּמּה
about himself and not regarding others. So too in our discussion; even
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֲ
ֲ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֻ
though he (Reuven) knows it is the truth, since from the perspective of the חקַלֶּשׁ ירֵה .ז"י תוֹבּתכִבּ ל"זח וּרְמאֶשׁ וֹמכּ( "קחרְִתּ רקֶֶשׁ
Torah’s laws the testimony of a single witness in monetary matters has no .)ויניֵעבּ וּנּחבַּשׁי ,רֵמוֹא יוה ,'וּכו קוּשּׁה ןִמ ערַ חקִּמ
ֲ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
value except to compel the defendant to swear an oath in his own defense
and Reuven knows that Shimon will believe him as though he was two
ָ
ְ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ַ
ְ
witnesses (contrary to the law) and in so doing cause a loss to Plony, it is החכוֹהבּ הנּאְמהל ןיִעמְשׁנ וּיהי וירָבדֶּשׁ ,רֵעַשְׁמ אוּה םִא )ג
forbidden to convey that report \ gossip.
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ִ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ריזחהל וֹמצע ןיבל וֹניבּ וֹתוֹא חיִכוֹי ,האנוֹאה ריזחהל
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
(In a similar sense the gemara brings down in Babba Kamma (117a)
ָ
ִ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
regarding “a trapper’s net that two men were fighting over…each one .ןוֹדּנּל הלּגי אלֹו ,האנוֹאה
claimed it was his...one of them went and informed on his antagonist to the
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
government. Rava said- He went so far? and Rava said we excommunicate אלֶֹּשׁ ,תרֶחא הצֵעבּ )הל( תֶלֶעוֹתַּה תֶא בֵבַּסְל לוֹכָי םִא )ד
him” even though he himself knows that truth was on his side. Also .רפּסי אלֹ ,וילע תוּנגּה רפּסל ךְרֵטצי
ְ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
in Gemara Shvu’ot (30b) regarding a witness who knows his fellow Jew
(Plony) is a thief, the witness cannot join him (Plony) to testify (in some
ָ
ְ
ִ
ֵ
ֶ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ַ
other matters) even though he knows the testimony is truthful, that “Plony ,ליִכרָ ךְלוֹה וֹעבִטבּ היהי אלֹ ,וֹל רפּסְמ אוּהֶשׁ שׁיִאהֶשׁ )ה
A” owes “Plony B” money, and Beit Din would not be doing anything ,רכוֹמּל רפּסי אמָתסִּמוּ ,וֹזּה העוּרגּ הדִּמבּ וֹריִכּמ אוּה םִאדּ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ְ
wrong by accepting their testimony and telling Plony to pay since they
ִ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
do not know that one of the witnesses is a thief. Nevertheless, being that הנּניאֶשׁ וֹא ,הערָ איִה וֹזּה הרָוֹחסּהֶשׁ יִל רמא ינוֹלְפֶּשׁ ךְיא
ָ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
he knows that the other witness is not qualified to testify, he will end up
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ֻ
being a single witness testifying and therefore it is forbidden to testify רפּסל רָתּמ םִא ,ןוּיִּע ךְירִצ ,הּדֲעבּ ןַתנֶּשׁ חקִּמּה יֵמדּ הוָשׁ
313 340
volume 4 volume 4