Page 361 - V4

12
VOL-4
Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut םירויצ
Kelal Tet - Halachah 13 א רויצ

Be’er Mayim Chayim תוֹלּגלוּ ךְליל הצרְִתו )א( ,וֹבצּמבּ לפָשׁ הָתּע אוּה יִכּ ,וֹריִכּמ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
ֻ
,אוּה לוֹדגּ ןוֹעדּ ,וֹתִּא ףֵתַּתְּשׁי אלֶֹּשׁ ידֵכּ הז רבדּ וֹפָתּשׁל
ְ
ִ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
(RK9/13/1)-(36) .. it is forbidden for them to tell Shimon: Even
ָ
ֶ
ְ
ֲ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
if there are two speakers (it is forbidden to tell him- Shimon) and most ,)'ה הכלה( תוֹעדּ תוֹכלִהֵמ 'ז קרֶפּ ם"בְּמרַבּ אָתיִאדּ וֹמכּ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
certainly if there is only one speaker, since from the perspective of the law יִפִּמ שׁיִא וּעְמְשׁנ םִא ,םיִמרְוֹגֶּשׁ םירִבדּ רפּסְמהו :וֹנוֹשׁל הזו
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
it is forbidden for the listener (the recipient of the report \ gossip, who is .ערָה ןוֹשׁל הז ירֵה ,וֹל רצהל וֹא וֹפוּגבּ וֹרבח קיזּהל ,שׁיִא
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ֲ
ֵ
ֲ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ִ
ָ
“Shimon” in this translation rendering) to believe the gossip and conclude
ֻ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ִ
ְ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ָ
an opinion, even if he heard it from many people, as long as their report אוּה םָתהדּ ,תוֹלּגל וּנכרַצהֶשׁ םינינִע ראְשִׁל ללכּ המוֹדּ ןיאו
was not brought as testimony in Beit Din attesting to Shimon being cheated וֹא קזּהה םצֹעֵמ וֹל הלּגְמ אוּהֶשׁ ,שׁיִאה תא הז ידֵי לע ליִצּמ
ֶ
ַ
ֶ
ֶ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
th
by Plony. This law was quoted in the first section of this sefer, in the 7
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
rd
Kelal (3 halacha), that it is forbidden to accept Lashon Hara as truth even ,טיִלחהל היארְ םוּשׁ וּנל ןיאדּ )ב( ,הזבּ ןכּ ןיאֶשּׁ המ ,הערָה
ַ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ֵ
ִ
if many men convey it. The most Shimon is allowed is to suspect the לֹכּה יִתּרְאבּ רֶשׁאכּ ,הערָו קזּה וֹתוּפְתַּתְּשִׁה ידֵי לע וֹל עיגּידּ
gossip might be true [The law does not permit believing the gossip on the .םייּח םימ ראבִבּ
ֵ
ְ
ִ
ַ
ַ
ִ
basis that people will not lie about anything that will eventually become
public knowledge (The law does not allow this!) because it seems that this
rule only applies to single-witness testimony when reporting the death of
a woman’s husband. Similarly it is apparent in Gemara Yevamot (77a) םייח םימ ראב
that the gemara declared “there (the case) is different since Shemuel (the ומצעמ ךליל אקודו .תולגלו ךליל הצרתו )א(
prophet) and his court were still existent.” Please see Rashi’s commentary
26
there. Similarly in Gemara Kedushin (44a) “Yes, (he can be trusted אוהו ,ובצמ תא ונממ שרוד אוה םא לבא .תולגל
since he was relating something that occurred nearby and he would not ,המ ןינעב ומע ףתתשהל הצורד ותנווכש ןיבמ
lie [because someone could come right along and contradict him]).”
Please see the Tosafot’s commentary there. Also, similarly in Gemara םאש שוריפב ותעד ףתושה ול הליגד ןויכד רשפא
Rosh HaShanah (22b) regarding the consecration of the new month, if ,ומע ףתתשהל הצור וניא ובצמב לפש התע אוה
this witness lied in testifying to the appearance of the new moon it would
soon become evident that he lied because in that circumstance there is no עדוי אוה םא אוה ונירבד לכו .ול תולגל רתומ
latitude to hide a lie and the lie would become evident. But that is not אוהו( דואמ ודי הטמ התע יכ ובצמ ןינע תא רוריבב
the case here in our discussion (in matters that are more subjective), that
even if he really did lie, and an expert witness examined it and decided it אוה םגו ,)האנש םעטמ ו"ח ורופיסב ןיוכמ ונניא
was worth more, still he could retort that he believes it really is not worth שי םאד .ינולפ ינזאל רבדה הז אובי אלש רעשמ
more. Also for this same reason, the idea of “then remove your clothes and
ףוסבלש רעשמ אוהש וא ,ןאכלו ןאכל ןינעה דדצל
תקולחמ ז"יע בבוסיו ינולפ ינזאל רבדה הז אובי
6 The gemara is discussing the issue of the legitimacy of the monarchy of David
HaMelech. David’s lineage was in doubt because he descended from Ruth ערהל איהש הבושת בישהל רוסא יאדוב ,האנשו
HaMoaviah. Amasa testified in the name of Shemuel’s Beit Din that the
woman of Moav could become converts and enter Jewish society as full Jews. תא טימשי ולאכ םינינעבש בוט רתויו .הזה ינעל
The gemara states that a rabbi cannot quote a novel law which will decide יניא יכ ךתוא ץעייל ךיא עדוי יניא :ול בישיו ומצע
an issue that demands an immediate resolution. However, in this instance
Shemuel’s Beit Din was still existent and Rashi explains that because the issue .ובצמ ךיא בטיה עדוי
351 366
volume 4 volume 4