Page 329 - V4

11
VOL-4
Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Tet - Halachah 5 אי הכלה - ט ללכ

verbal report an outcome resulted (that caused Plony to lose money); האנש דצמ רבדה השעי םאד ,הזה טרפה םג ןאכ ךירצד
therefore most certainly this report is forbidden.
ףכית רבדה בושחי יאדובד ,םיטרפה ראש םג ומלשוי אל
And do not attempt to refute what I have said by arguing that there the
reason (he was excommunicated) was because he testified in a gentile ידי לע אצי םא ןכ םג לכתסי אלו ,הלועה לידגיו ער ןינעל
court for the benefit of a gentile and that is why Chazal were so strict with .םש ז"טה יריימד ןינעב כ"אשמ ,ןידה יפכמ רתוי ורופיס
him even though he knew that the truth was on the side of the gentile. But
had he testified in front of a gentile court (in a scenario where two Jews לעב עבט תא ריכמ אוה םאד ל"נ ,'דה טרפה ןינעלו
came to court) to help one Jew against anther Jew and the Jew lost the case
and paid out money he would not have been excommunicated since he לכב תולגל רתומ תוירבה תא דימת המרמ אוהש תונחה
knows that the Jew he testified against was really liable. So too is the law םסרפל ידכ תרחא הצעב ותלעות תא בבסל לכויד ףא ינווג
in our case, since the speaker (Reuven) knows that the report he is making םא לבא .םירחא םדא ינב תא דוע המרי אלש ,םיפנחה תא
is true and if the Beit Din would also have known that the report was
true, they would have dissolved the partnership, then it is possible to say קזחתנ אלו ,הזל תומרל הצור אוהש וזה םעפב קר והאר אל
Reuven did not transgress any sin (in making his report to Shimon). But בבסל לוכי אוה םא הזל תולגל רוסאד ל"נ ,הזב התע דע
this is also not so! The Taz concluded the law there in Choshen Mishpat
section #28, paragraph #4 (citation beginning with the words “and most .תרחא הצעב תלעותה תא
certainly”) that the law is we do excommunicate this single witness even
if both contending parties (in the gentile court) are Jewish since because
of his testimony money was extracted from his fellow Jew in a way that is
contrary to the Torah’s law even though he knew the truth was on the side .לולא א"כ ,רייא א"י ,טבש 'ב - תרבועמ הנש .לולא ב"כ ,רייא ב"כ ,תבט ב"כ - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
of the litigant (and the law is not like the Maharshal who ruled leniently
in this regard [that we do not excommunicate the speaker]). I have also םייחה רוקמ
found support to the way I expressed this law in the Tummim in this
reference (Urim, sub-paragraph #12) who quotes the Ra’mah’s response, ידֵיִל אוֹבי אלֶֹּשׁ ידֵכּ ,וֹריִהזהל הצוֹר אוּה םִא הז לכו .אי
section #52, who concurs with the Taz’s opinion. Subsequently, I also ָ ְ ְ ַ ְ ֶ ֶ ָ ְ
found support in the Kenesset HaGedolah on Choshen Mishpat in the cited עדֵוֹי אוּהו ,הרָוֹחס דחאֵמ חקַל רבכּ םִא לבא .האנוֹא
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֲ
ָ
ְ
ָ
paragraph (Hagahot HaTur, sub-paragraph #10) who quotes the responsa
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ְ
of the Mishpat Tzedek (part 2, paragraph #68), as well as in other responsa ,הזבּ יוּלָתּ ,תוֹנוֹרסח ראְשִׁבּ וֹא חקִּמּה יוּוִּשׁבּ וֹא ,וּהמּרִֶשׁ
who all hold like the Taz. Please see that reference.
ַ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ִ
ֵ
ןיבּ ,םוּלכּ הנּאְמה לע הָתּע וֹל ןיא ,הרָוֹתּ ןידּ יִפּ לע םִא
And that which I wrote above “or if he has circumstantial evidence” we
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ְ
th
already wrote above in the first part of this sefer, in the 7 Kelal (12 ןיבוּ ,תוּתְשִּׁמ תוֹחפבּ הָתיה חקִּמּה יוּוִּשׁבּ האנוֹאהֶשׁ ינְפִּמ
th
halacha) that from the perspective of law we cannot compel the defendant
to pay out money (to penalize the defendant) on this basis. )טכ( וֹא ,וֹבוֹרקְִל וֹא רָגַּתְל הֶארְַיֶּשׁ ידְֵכּ ,ןַמְזַּה רַבָעֶשׁ יֵנְפִּמ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
(RK9/5/4)-(18) .. two people: Since had they gone to (a Jewish) ךְלוֹהֶשׁ יִמ יאדּובּ ,הנּאְתִמּה דיִסְפִה הּללגִבֶּשׁ הבִּס ראְשׁ
court the judge’s decision would have resulted in the same outcome that לע רבוֹע ,וּהמּרִ ינוֹלְפֶּשׁ ךְיא ,וּהארְמוּ הנּאְתִמּהל ררֵוֹעְמוּ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
ִ
ֶ
ַ
ֵ
occurred (to Plony) as a result of the report that was conveyed to him
ָ
ַ
ָ
ִ
ֵ
ֵ
ְ
(to Shimon). A proof to this comes from Gemara Babba Kamma (114a) הָתּע וילע וֹל ןיא ,הרָוֹתּ ןידּ יִפּ לעדּ ןויכּ ,תוּליִכרְ רוּסִּא
ָ
ַ
cited above. The gemara there says “this is the conclusion for one witness
ְ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ֲ
(excommunication), but not for two.” Please reference the Choshen ,אמלעבּ םירִבדּ םִא יִכּ ,רוּפִּסּה הז יוה אלֹ בוּשׁ ,םוּלכּ
319 334
volume 4 volume 4