Page 383 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Ilustrative Examples תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
Example 2 גי הכלה - ט ללכ

to Shimon is) conditional upon the following: If the speaker knows הלגתישבבסל לכויד ,שוריפ .תרחא הצעב )הל(
Shimon will believe his report only up to the point of suspecting
Reuven, meaning that Shimon will not rely on the speaker’s report אלו ןכ השעי ,ול רפסל ךרטצי אלו אליממ ול
and that he will not depend on Reuven in his business dealings or רוטליד יכו )א"ע א"י( ןירדהנסמ היארהו .ול הלגי
trustworthiness at all, but rather that Shimon will now (also) control 'י ללכב 'א קלחב ליעלדכו .תולרוג לטה ךל ,ינא
every aspect of this partnership in order that he may not come to
suffer a financial loss, then under these circumstances the speaker םינינעב קר תכייש הניא הצעה וזו .ש"יע א"י ק"ס
is obligated to warn Shimon. However, the speaker must be very לכב לבא .'י ללכ 'א קלחבו הז ללכב ןנירייאש
careful not to omit any of the conditions for disclosure as written םא ןיב ,רוסא לכה ,תוליכרו ר"השל ינינע ראש
above in the first halacha. But if the speaker sees that Shimon will
likely believe his disclosure and that will result in a loss to Reuven, ליעלדכו ,הזל בבסמ םא ןיבו שוריפב ול רפסמ
meaning Shimon will unilaterally break the partnership (3) or cause .ש"יע ד"ס 'ג ללכבו ח"ס 'א ללכ 'א קלחב
him some other loss, then it is forbidden to tell him (4).

.לולא ב"כ ,רייא ב"י ,טבש 'ג - תרבועמ הנש .לולא ג"כ ,רייא ג"כ ,תבט ג"כ - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
Be’er Mayim Chayim
(E2/2/1)-(3) ..unilaterally break the partnership: Meaning without םייחה רוקמ
the permission of Beit Din.
,וֹעבִטבּ הנּאְתִמּהל ריִכּמ אוּה םִא ,וּנרְבּדּ הז לכּ .גי
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ַ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
(E2/2/2)-(4) .. it is forbidden to tell him: As a single individual most
certainly the speaker is committing a great sin in disclosing his remarks, as רבדּ םוּשׁ וֹל הֶשֲׂעי אלֹ ,האנוֹאהֵמ תמאה וֹל עדַוּי רֶשׁאכֶּשׁ
ָ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֱ
ִ
ֲ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ָ
ַ
I wrote above. And even if two people (two observers) are familiar with
ְ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ְ
ִ
ֶ
this issue, also, from the perspective of the law, it is forbidden for them to .הרָוֹתּ ןידּ יִפּ לע הֶשֲׂעיו ןידּ תיבל וּנּעבְּתי קרַ ,וֹמצעֵמ
make that disclosure (of Reuven’s background) (apart from that, they are
ַ
ֶ
ֲ
ָ
ִ
ַ
ֲ
ַ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ְ
inherently assisting someone else in committing a sin, as I wrote above ןידּ הֶשֲׂעי ,הזִּמ וֹל עדַוּי רֶשׁאכֶּשׁ ,וֹעבִטבּ וֹריִכּמ םִא לבא
at the end of the 2 halacha) since in order to allow this kind of leniency םיִלְשׁי אלֹ וֹא ,הרָוֹחסּה וֹל ריזחיֶּשׁ וֹא ,וּנּסְפְּתיו וֹמצעל
nd
ִ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ֲ
ֶ
ִ
ְ
ְ
ְ
ַ
\ disclosure Shimon must conform to the law (meaning, the decision that
ַ
ָ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ַ
would have been issued by the Beit Din) just as Shimon is now doing רהזִּל שׁי ,ןידּ תיבּ םוּשׁ יִלבּ וֹל ביּח ראְשׁנֶּשׁ ,תוֹעמּה וֹל
ֵ
ָ
ֵ
ֵ
ִ
based on that report. In this particular circumstance it is very difficult to
ִ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ִ
ֶ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
illustrate a case, that if witnesses testified about someone (Reuven) who was ךְירִצ ,רוּסאה רוּבּדּ םצעֵמ לצניֶּשׁ ידֵכּ יִכּ ,וֹל תוֹלּגלִּמ
once suspect of wrongdoing with someone else’s money, the partnership
ָ
ֶ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ִ
ָ
ְ
he formed with another man would be terminated (by the Beit Din), as לֶשׁ הז ןינִע עוּדי היהיֶּשׁ )א :םיִטרְָפּ הָשׁלְֹשׁ דוֹע הזל
long as we do not see now in the context of this present partnership any אלֹ .םמצע םירְִפּסְמל ,וֹתוֹא הנוֹהֶשּׁ המ ,וּניהדּ ,האנוֹא
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ָ
ָ
kind of wrongdoing on his (Reuven’s) part. Therefore I expressed myself
(expressed this law) in a general sense and said that it is forbidden. )ול( ,הֶזַּה חָקִּמַּבּ הָאָנוֹא שֵׁיֶּשׁ ,םירִֵחֲא יִפִּמ וּעְמָשׁ םִא ןֵכ
ַ
ַ
ִ
ַ
If it should happen that they (these two observers \ speakers) acquired אלֶֹּשׁ )ג .םינְשׁ םירְִפּסְמה )זל( וּיְהִיֶּשׁ )ב .וֹל רַמוֹל םירִוּסֲא
their knowledge of Reuven, meaning, they are aware of his behavior up
ַ
ֻ
ְ
ָ
ִ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
until now and how he handles other people’s money, and if they would היהֶשׁ ןידּה יִפכִּמ רֵתוֹי ,םרָוּבּדּ יִפּ לע הנּאְמהל קזּה בבּסי
373 344
volume 4 volume 4