Page 363 - V4

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

27
show us” is not relevant (see Gemara Kedushin 66b) that specifically in
cases of a mikveh (which is losing its volume of water through seepage)
or a handicapped person whose infirmity is obvious to everyone, lying is
pointless since those deficiencies will very quickly become evident; but הָמּכּ יתּבַתכּ רֶשֲׁאכּ ,םירִוּיִּצ הזיֵא דוֹע רֵדּסֲא התַּעו
ִ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
that is not so in our case]. And all the more so it is forbidden to tell others
ָ
ְ
ְ
ִ
ִ
ִ
ִ
ְ
whenever this speaker assesses that because of his report, the “victim” of .םייַּח םיַמ רֵאבבּ 'ט ללכבּ םיִמָעפּ
his gossip (the person who is the subject of this gossip) will suffer some
kind of a loss.
Moreover, we have already explained (in the 19 notation of the Be’er
th
Mayim Chayim) that from the law’s perspective this is characterized as .לולא ד"כ ,רייא ד"י ,טבש 'ה - תרבועמ הנש .לולא ה"כ ,רייא ה"כ ,תבט ה"כ - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
testimony conveyed from one witness to another, which is an inadequate
basis for the Beit Din to extract money from him. Then necessarily they םייחה רוקמ
(these speakers) have no authority \ permission to compel a loss based
on their report \ gossip. All this is applicable even if the people who told
these witnesses are expert at assessing the merchandise’s value because ןוֹשׁארִ רוּיִּצ
if not for this reason (that they are expert) then there is no need for any
ְ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ִ
ַ
ֵ
ָ
ֶ
of the reasons that we wrote (i.e., who said that it isn’t really the market .'ט ללכּ ףוֹס 'ב קלחבּ רפסּה םינְפִבּ יִתּבַתכּ רבכּ
ֵ
ְ
value?!).
(RK9/13/2)-(37) .. two speakers: Since their testimony can affect an
actual loss, as we brought down above in the 17 notation several proofs
th
ִ
to this position that the testimony of a single witness does not have the ינֵשׁ רוּיִּצ
authority to bring about a conclusion that would similarly not have been
compelling had that same testimony been brought in Beit Din. Thus, had
ֶ
ְ
ֶ
ֵ
this single-witness given testimony in Beit Din against Plony who cheated ןוֹעְמִשׁ םִע ףֵתַּתְּשִׁהל הצוֹר ןבוּארְֶשׁ ,האוֹר אוּה םִא .א
Shimon, most certainly the Beit Din would not have penalized Plony ריִכּמ אוּהו .וֹעבִטבּ וֹריִכּמ וֹניא ןוֹעְמִשׁו ,רחסִמּה ינינִעבּ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ְ
because of the overcharge.
ֵ
ָ
ֲ
ֵ
ְ
ֵ
ֵ
ָ
ֵ
ְ
Understand clearly that this detail of law is relevant only if there are ינְפִּמ םירִחא ןוֹממל שֵׁשׁוֹח וֹניאֶשׁ ,רבכִּמ ןבוּארְִל בֵטיה
no experts in that locale who can assess the true market value of that ןיאו ,*וֹמִּע ףֵתַּתְּשׁי אלֶֹּשׁ ,הלִּחְתִּמ הזל ריִהזי ,ערַה וֹעבִט
ָ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
merchandise and who could decide that in fact Shimon was cheated.
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ָ
Therefore it is forbidden for a single individual to tell Shimon that he was אלֶֹּשׁ ,דֹאְמ רהזִּל ךְירִצ הזבּ םגו .ערָה ןוֹשׁל םוּשִּׁמ הזבּ
cheated since that report could be the wrongful basis for Shimon to illegally
ְ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
cause a monetary loss to Plony. But if the overcharge was a mistake that .'ב ףיִעס 'ט ללכּ ל"נּה םיִטרְָפּה לכּ וֹבּ וּרסחי
was obvious to everyone and had they gone to court the Beit Din would
have found in favor of Shimon, then it is permissible to tell Shimon he was
cheated and even to tell that to him in private since that report is not the
basis for causing a loss to Plony and in any court Plony would have had :ה"הגה
to compensate \ return the overcharge to Shimon. But all of this is helpful ,האוֹר הָתּא םִא ,הז םעטִּמ ריִתּהל העְטִתּ אלֶֹּשׁ ,יִחא רהזִּהו *
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ֵ
only insofar as absolving the speaker of the esur of speaking Lashon Hara
ָ
ְ
ַ
הָתּאו ,ךְכּ לכּ וֹריִכּמ וֹניאו וֹרבח םִע ףֵתַּתְּשִׁהל הצוֹר דחאֶשׁ
ֵ
ַ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ֶ
ֲ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
353 364
volume 4 volume 4