Page 98 - V4

Sefer Chafetz Chayim
Hilchot Esurei Rechilut םייח ץפח רפס
Kelal Alef - Halachah 6 תוליכר ירוסיא תוכלה
'ט ללכ - םייחה רוקמ
that he works for other people and his employers are aware that
something was said about them, and they pressure him to disclose לֶשׁ הז ןינִע עוּדי היהיֶּשׁ )א :םיִטרְָפּ הָשׁלְֹשׁ דוֹע הזל
ֶ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ֶ
ִ
ֶ
that information to them, and he refuses to disclose it, and by
ָ
ַ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
not disclosing it he will become suspected by them as also being אלֹ .םמצע םירְִפּסְמל ,וֹתוֹא הנוֹהֶשּׁ המ ,וּניהדּ ,האנוֹא
involved in that incident and as a result of that suspicion he will be )ול( ,הזּה חקִּמּבּ האנוֹא שׁיֶּשׁ ,םירִחא יִפִּמ וּעְמָשׁ םִא ןכ
ֲ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ֶ
ֵ
removed from his position, and if that happens he will not be able
ַ
ִ
ְ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ִ
to support (13) his family. Nevertheless, the disclosure is forbidden אלֶֹּשׁ )ג .םינְשׁ םירְִפּסְמה )זל( וּיהיֶּשׁ )ב .וֹל רמוֹל םירִוּסא
just as it is forbidden to violate any Lav of the Torah. He is obligated היהֶשׁ ןידּה יִפכִּמ רֵתוֹי ,םרָוּבּדּ יִפּ לע הנּאְמהל קזּה בבּסי
ֶ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ִ
ֵ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ֻ
ְ
to give up everything he owns and not violate a Lav of the Torah, as
ֶ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ֵ
ָ
this law is explained in Yoreh Deh’ah, section #157, paragraph #1, וֹעבִט תא ןירִיִכּמ )חל( םִא לבא .ןידּ תיבבּ םדי לע אצוֹי
ֲ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
in the Hagahah, as long as there is no likelihood of some beneficial
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ִ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ַ
outcome such as the aversion of damages or the reconciliation of a אלֹו ,ןידּה יִפכִּמ רֵתוֹי הנּאְמהל דיִסְפיֶּשׁ ,הנּאְתִמּה לֶשׁ
dispute. However one may not be quick to take advantage of this .ינוגּ לכבּ וֹל תוֹלּגל רוּסא ,הנּאְמהל ךְכּ רחא אנידּ תיּצי
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ֶ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ַ
leniency because many conditions must first be satisfied, as I will
th
explain them at length, with G-d’s help, further on in the 9 Kelal. הנוֹמְשׁ לֹכּה ךְסבּ שׁי םינוֹשׁארִה םיִטרְָפּ הָשִּׁמחה םִעו
ְ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ִ
ֲ
ֻ
ִ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ִ
ַ
ֲ
ֵ
,וּצבּקְַתי םִא וּלִּפאו ,םלּכּ וּצבּקְַתיֶּשׁ יוּצמ וֹניאו ,םיִטרְָפּ
ְ
ְ
Be’er Mayim Chayim
ֵ
לכּ לע לבא ,רוּסאה רוּבּדּ םצעֵמ לצנִּהל קרַ ,ליִעוֹמ וֹניא
ָ
ָ
ֲ
ֶ
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
ִ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ָ
(RK1/6/1)-(12).. a substantial loss: Do not consider saying that לעֶשׁ ,)אצוֹי וֹניא( קיפנ אל הרָבֲע ירֵבוֹע ידֵי עיּסְמִמ םינפּ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ָ
ֵ
ֵ
ִ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
even regarding a literal informer, someone whose sin is most certainly ֵ ֵ
very much more severe than the sin of the person being discussed here, ,םרָוּבּדּ יִפּ לע הֶשֲׂעמ תוֹשֲׂעל עֵמוֹשּׁהל וֹל רוּסא ןידּ יִפּ
ַ
ִ
ִ
ְ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ַ
the Shach decided the law in Choshen Mishpat chapter #388, paragraph
ָ
ֲ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֲ
ֵ
#22, that even if this informer reported on someone while under pressure וּדיִעה אלֶֹּשׁ ןמז לכּ ,םיִשׁנא הבּרְה וֹל וּרְפִּס םִא וּלִּפא
only in order not to incur a substantial monetary loss, still it is possible
ְ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ֵ
ְ
ִ
ַ
ֵ
ָ
ִ
ַ
for him to say that he holds like those Authorities who absolve him of any ראֹבְמכּ ,ןכּ תוֹשֲׂעל ןידּ תיבּ וּהוּשׁרְִהו ,ןידּ תיבבּ וילע
obligation to repay that loss. This is not so! First, even in a circumstance תוֹלּגלִּמ דֹאְמ רהזִּל שׁי ןכּ לע .'יו 'ט ףיִעס 'ו ללכִבּ ליֵעל
ָ
ְ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ֵ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
where the coercion was life-threatening, that all Authorities are unanimous
ְ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ִ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ִ
in holding that this unique circumstance is categorized as “coercion” and ,ןידּ תיבִּמ תוּשׁרְ יִלבּ וֹמצעבּ ןידּ תוֹשֲׂעל וֹעבִטֶּשׁ ,שׁיִאל
this person is absolved from the repayment of the cost of any damages,
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ְ
as is brought down in that citation in Choshen Mishpat, yet even so the .'ו ףיִעסבּ ליֵעל ןיּעו
Me’Irat Enayim writes there in paragraph #12 that this person is only
ְ
freed from paying any compensation arising from this life-threatening ,םיִבּרַה וּניֵתוֹנוֲֹעבֶּשׁ ,ךְיא ,הארְ םגּ הארְ יִחא הָתַּעו
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
ָ
circumstance but that he is still guilty of the sin of causing the damages
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ֲ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֶ
ֲ
ְ
ָ
ִ
ָ
ַ
ַ
because he could have paid money to get himself out of a situation of life- חקֵוֹל דחא רֶשׁאכֶּשׁ ,דֹאְמ הזבּ ןיִלָשׁכנ םיִשׁנא המּכו המּכּ
threatening coercion and not have had to pass on that burden (the loss that
ֵ
ְ
ֲ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֶ
ִ
ֲ
ַ
ְ
ַ
he caused) to someone else’s responsibility. Even according to the Taz ,וֹרבחל הארְמוּ ,ןידּכּ הכיִשְׁמִבּ הָּתוֹא הנקָו ,תוּנחֵמ הרָוֹחס
who comments on that citation (reference beginning with the words “this דוֹע ,וֹחבַּשְׁמ וֹניאֶשׁ ידּ אלֹ ,אלֹ וֹא םלִּשֶּׁשׁ חקִּמּה הוָשׁ םִא
ַ
ֶ
ֵ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
ָ
person is absolved from”) that even as a first approach it is permitted to
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
לע קדּקְדְַמ וֹניאו .דֹאְמ ךְָתוֹא המּרִ יִכּ :רמוֹל וּהנּגְמ אוּה
ֵ
117
volume 4 6
volume 4