Page 342 - V4

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

rd
th
Mishpat cited above (the 3 and 4 paragraphs, in the Hagahah), that the םייח םימ ראב
essential reason underlying this law is as I expressed it, and that being so,
then that is also the law in our discussion here. ימ ,ע"צ יל היה הז ןידב .'וכו תותשמ תוחפ )זכ(
(RK9/5/5)-(19) ..themselves saw the incident: Meaning that they תוחפב וליפא ותומרל רוסא הלחתכלד ןויכ אמינ
themselves saw the “bad event” that was the basis for permitting one ךירצ אליממ ז"כר ןמיסב מ"חב קספנש ומכ תותשמ
partner to dissolve the partnership with “Plony.” For example, in the case
of the caretaker (Plony), they witnessed Plony stealing and on this basis ומכ אנידד אקיפס אוהד ןויכ אמליד וא ,ול דיגהל
the law allows terminating his employment if the theft (the loss) was made הלחתכל וליפאד רשפאד מ"בב ש"ארהב אבומש
known to him (through these witnesses) and similarly this same theme
runs throughout the coming examples and the law is applied based on the ןידה ןמ רוסא אליממ כ"א .תותשמ תוחפב רתומ
specifics of these cases.
רשפאו .אשיב אנשיל ללכב אוהו ,וילע לגרלו ךליל
And the way I expressed this “two people themselves saw the incident” ארמוחל אכה ליזו ,אוה אתיירואד אקיפסד ןויכ
means to exclude those cases where they only heard about the incident
from others, most certainly that would not help here (hearing is never .רופיס ןינעל ארמוחל אכה ליזו ,האנוא ןינעל
a basis for witness testimony). (Please see the responsa of the Shevut
th
Yaakov (part 1) in section # 174. Also see above in the 9 notation an לקשמבשו הדמבש רבד לכ יכ .ינווג לכב )חכ(
explanation if hearing information from others can be a basis for reporting .*רזוח האנוא ידכמ תוחפב וליפא
an incident before a partnership was completely formed). For here we
require that testimony be admissible in Beit Din (and if that criterion is
met) then it is permissible to report that incident to Shimon even outside
of the Beit Din. However, testimony conveyed in Beit Din by witnesses :ה"הגה
who only heard from others has no value. Thus even (in an instance of
two witnesses appearing in Beit Din) if one saw the event and the second ,ל"נה םיטרפה ורסחי אלש םינפב יתבתכש המד עדו *
only heard about the event from others, that too would be inadmissible
testimony. Also, the two witnesses may not be related to each other, and if ,האנש דצמ רבדה הז השעי אלש אוהו ,'גה טרפה הרואכל
they are related their testimony is inadmissible even if each one witnessed ש"ע ,ח"כקס א"כת 'יסב מ"חב ע"מסה ירבדל קר ךייש אל
the events. This is explicitly brought down as law in Choshen Mishpat, ליצמ אוהש המב רטפנ ןיא האנש דצמ אוהש אכיהד בתכש
section #28 of the citation above.
ןויכ בתכש ,ידכ ה"דב םש ז"טה ירבדל לבא ,ורבח תא ז"יע
(RK9/5/6)-(20).. their only motivation: Meaning that this is not אל הרואכל ,ותנוכב הנימ אקפנ ןיא הזב הוצמ השוע אוהד
comparable to what we explained above several times, that it is forbidden
to speak Lashon Hara or gossip even if two speakers are conveying it הדומ ז"טה םג תקייד דכ תמאב םלוא .הזה טרפה ךייש
(outside of Beit Din) and even if what they are conveying is truthful. This
is all true in a circumstance where their motivation is to denigrate Plony.
But that is not the case here where their sole motivation is to achieve an
outcome that is beneficial to Shimon. And even though necessarily Plony 4 Note: One may “not warn the customer” because the halacha might be as
will be denigrated, the report conveyed to Shimon is immune from the the Rosh expressed it, that even from the outset an excess charge of less
laws of esurei Lashon Hara and Rechilut as we explained above at the than one-sixth above market value is allowable, and consequently making
beginning of this Kelal. The only other remaining detail is the issue that that disclosure to Shimon would be Lashon Hara.

321 332
volume 4 volume 4