Page 348 - V4

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

together with him because in so doing their testimony could compel the דיעמו ךלוהש דחא דעב ףא אלהד .הזל הזמ )ל(
court to decide against Plony based on the testimony of two witnesses
(one of whom was not qualified to be a witness) and cause a loss to him. אל וירבדש הלחתמ עדוי אוה םא ד"בב וילע
But truthfully there was only one valid witness giving testimony (and המכב הז רייוציו ,העובשל וליפא ד"בב ולבקתי
that is not sufficient to cause the court to extract money from Plony) as
Rashi explains there. And most certainly in our discussion Shimon is not אל לע רבוע דיעמהו .דיעהלו ךליל ול רוסא ,ינווג
behaving according to the law since he is listening to the “testimony” of ןמיסב מ"חב ראובמש ומכ ,שיאב דחא דע םוקי
only a single witness and it is absolutely forbidden for Reuven to cause a
loss like this to occur). אנשיל ללכבו ,ירפסה םשב םש א"רגה רואיבב ח"כ
Hashem Yitbarach illuminated my eyes and I located an explicit gemara ונכראה רבכו ,םש ןייעמהל חכומש ומכ אוה אשיב
that deals with our subject and with that gemara we can now understand all .ליעל הזב
of the details of this law. This is the language of Gemara Babba Kamma
(113b) “Rava proclaimed- This Jew who knew testimony in favor of a תומוקמ המכב ונראיבש ומכ .ול רמאי אל )אל(
gentile and went (unsolicited) and gave that testimony in a gentile court
against a fellow Jew is to be excommunicated. Why?! Because they שקבמו ושרוד אוה םא וליפא אוה תוליכר רוסיאד
(the gentile court) take money from a person based on the testimony of ילע רביד וא ינולפ יל השע םא ול רמאיש ונממ
one witness. This applies only to single-witness testimony but not to
the testimony of two witnesses.” Please reference Rashi in the citation .אבהל לע תלעות הזב ןיאש לכ ינולפ
there beginning with the words “the testimony of one witness” where he
comments “what results is that the witness caused him a loss of money, ונש אל ):א"נ( מ"במ היארו .ול רמול ךירצ )בל(
contrary to the law” (quoted up until this point). So we see that even
though this witness himself knows that in truth he (the “victim” of the ליזאד אכיה לכ חקול אמעט יאמ 'וכו חקול אלא
Rechilut) does owe this money, nevertheless we excommunicate him (this אמלא ,העט אל יא יעט יא היל ירמאו ,היל יוחמ
witness) because of what he did. Had the gentile gone to Beit Din together
with this “victim,” the court could not have extracted money from him ןינעב ל"נה ונירבד לע השקת אלו .ול רמול רתומד
(since only a single witness was testifying) and now his verbal testimony קר יאק אל ארמימה וזד עודיד ,תותשמ תוחפ
caused a financial loss (to a fellow Jew in a gentile court). And do not
challenge what I have said by arguing that the reason we excommunicate יוה רתלאל תותשמ תוחפל וליאד ,רתיל וא תותשל
this single witness is because he gave testimony in a gentile court! First, ,):א"נ ףד( םש תופסותו י"שר ושריפש ומכ הליחמ
it is apparent in that gemara that if two witnesses gave testimony in a
gentile court no excommunication would have been imposed on them. If םא וליפא אוה ,רמול רתומד יכיה לכד עדו .ש"יע
the reason for excommunication was because they appeared in a gentile .ש"יע ללכה תלחתב ונבתכש ומכו ,ולאוש ןיא
court, then why not? (Why weren’t they excommunicated?). Therefore
the reason must be as I stated it. And since testimony from two witnesses
would have extracted money from the defendant (the “victim”) also by
Jewish law, hence the witnesses did not cause any loss to the defendant. םייחה רוקמ
Second, I found explicit support to the way I expressed this law in the
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ְ
commentary of the Kenesset HaGedolah on Choshen Mishpat in section רֵתוֹי ןוֹרסִּחה וֹא הלועה תא וֹרוּפִּסבּ לידּגי אלֶֹּשׁ )א .בי
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ִ
th
#28 (the 9 Hagahah in sub-paragraph #10) and in the Responsa of the
ַ
Ra’mah, section #52, that since the plaintiff was a gentile and the defendant .אוּהֶשּׁ המִּמ
315 338
volume 4 volume 4

11

VOL-4