Page 346 - V4

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

was a Jew the rule forbidding adjudication in a gentile court is irrelevant )ל( םירִבדּ ןֵעוֹט אוּהֶשׁ ,םוֹקמ לכבּ רכּזנֶּשׁ לכוֹרכּ *אוּהו
ְ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ְ
since that rule was expressed only in the context of two Jews contending
their cases in their (in the gentile) court. This is also evident in Choshen אלֹ )אל( ןֵכּ םַגּ ,וֹלֲאוֹשׁ הֶנַּאְתִמַּה םִא וּלִּפֲאַו .הֶזָל הֶזִּמ
Mishpat, section #28, paragraph #3 and in the related commentary of the
ֱ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ֵ
ְ
ִ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ָ
th
Me’irat Enayim (20 notation), please see that reference, that the essential וֹרוּבּדּ ידֵי לעֶשׁ ,האוֹר אוּה םִא ןכֶּשׁ לכו .תמאה וֹל רמאֹי
reason is because even though the witness himself knows the truth, that אלֶֹּשׁ וֹא ,וּנּסְפְּתיֶּשׁ ןוֹגכּ ,דסְפה ידֵיִל אוֹבל וֹדּגנכֶּשּׁה לוֹכי
ְ
ֶ
ֶ
ֶ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ְ
the defendant \ victim owes the money and because of this reason he (the
ָ
ֶ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ָ
ִ
ֵ
defendant) is free from paying anything since he (the witness) could say- I ,הזּה קסֵעל ןידֲַע וֹל ביּח אוּהֶשׁ ,תוֹעמּה ןוֹרְתי וֹל םלַּשׁי
witnessed truthfully, as the cited Choshen Mishpat brings down (in the
ַ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ֲ
ֶ
Hagahah). Still, since based on the Torah’s law it would not be possible to ,האוֹר אוּה םִא לבא .הזל איִבֵמּל אוּה לוֹדגּ ןוֹע יאדּובּ
extract money from the defendant based on single-witness testimony and רֹזחל לוֹכי אהיֶּשׁ וֹא( וֹמִּע ןידּה היהי ,הרָוֹתּ ןידִ יִפּ לעֶשׁ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ְ
ֶ
ִ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
because of his verbal testimony in a gentile court he caused the defendant
ָ
to lose money, the law requires that he be excommunicated since he never היה םִאו .)האנוֹאה וֹל ריזחיֶּשׁ וֹא ,הזּה ערַה חקִּמּהֵמ וֹבּ
ִ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ֲ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ַ
should have gone to the gentile court.
וֹל רמוֹל ךְירִצ )בל( ,הֶזָל הֶצּרְַתִמ הָיָה אלֹ ,הֶנַּאְתִמַּה ַעדֵוֹי
ָ
ַ
This is also the law in our case, that he transgressed a serious esur since he
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ֲ
ֱ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ֲ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
(the speaker- Reuven) knows Shimon’s personality (the intended “victim”) ךְא .וֹתאנוֹא תא וֹרבחֵמ איִצוֹיֶּשׁ ידֵכּ ,אוּה רֶשׁאכּ תמאה
and knows he will not go with him (with Plony) to Beit Din but instead
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ָ
ִ
ְ
ֵ
ֳ
he will rationalize to himself and take the law into his own hands and will :ןה וּלּאו ,בֹתּכאֶשׁ םינפאה וּלּאבּ ריִהז תוֹיהִל ךְירִצ
cause a loss to Plony without any court intervention (namely, the example
that we have used several times regarding a caretaker, that Shimon will fire
Plony from his position as the caretaker of his house (without consulting
with the Beit Din) and similarly in all of the other illustrations that will be
brought at the end of this sefer with G-d’s help; that he will immediately ה"הגה
terminate the relationship that he maintained until now with Plony whether
by breaking up a pending marriage or by reneging on a business deal,
ְ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
and based on what we will explain with G-d’s help a little further on, or םִאבּ ,םָשׁ וּנבַתכֶּשּׁ המ ,ד"ל ןטקָ ףיִעס ףוֹסבּ ןמּקַל ןיּעו *
(cause) some other kind of loss that results from something he said beyond .ןאכּ ןידּה אוּהו ,םָשׁ ןיּע ,'וּכו הנוֹקּהבּ רֵעַשְׁמ אוּהֶשׁ
ִ
ֶ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
what the law would have required if it becomes evident that his testimony
was truthful) or because Shimon’s personality is such that he immediately
believes the “bad” that he heard (from Reuven) about Plony or because
he depends on Reuven and considers him to be as authoritative as two
witnesses. For any one of these reasons, since an action resulted from
Reuven’s gossip that would not have occurred had the matter gone to (a םייח םימ ראב
Jewish) court, that most certainly in a Jewish court it would not have been
possible for someone to be awarded a verdict granting him permission ,תונורסח ראש לע םג יאק הז .הביס ראש )טכ(
to terminate a finalized deal that was made with Plony, or cause some
other loss to Plony just because he (Shimon) has a single witness whom ךייש ןיא האריש ידכמ רתוי וא תותשמ תוחפ לבא
he believes \ trusts with the same authority as two witnesses, as we wrote ראובמש ומכ ,חקמה יוושב םא יכ תונורסח ראשב
th
th
above in the first section of this sefer in the 7 Kelal, in the 15 notation
of the Be’er Mayim Chayim quoting our Authorities. And based on his .ב"לר ןמיס מ"וחב
317 336
volume 4 volume 4