Page 110 - V3
P. 110

Sefer Chafetz Chayim                  םייח ץפח רפס
 Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara        ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
 Kelal Zayin  -  Halachah 3             ג הכלה -  ז ללכ


 dealing with Ehven HaEzer section #60 that he also mentions this same    םֵשׁ לח ןיאדּ ,הטלחהבּ םניִמאהלוּ )ז( םהירֵבדּ לבּקַל רוּסא
                                             ֲ
                                      ְ
                                          ָ
                                               ַ
                                                       ֶ
                                                ְ
                                     ַ
                            ְ
                       ָ
                           ֵ
                                   ְ
                                  ָ
                                 ָ
                                                            ִ
                                                           ְ
                                                                ֵ
                                                                         ָ
                                                                   ְ
 proof, that a plaintiff’s charge against a “defendant” based on evidence
                                                                 ֲ
                                                     ִ
                                        ָ
                                   ֵ
                              ִ
                                    ְ
                                                      ַ
                       ָ
                         ֲ
                                                           ַ
                                                 ְ
                                         ֶ
 heard even from two witnesses is not sufficient to compel an oath and the    ץוּח לבא ,ןידּ תיבבּ אלּא ,רֵתוֹיו םינְשׁ לע וּלִּפא ,תוּדֵע
 charge is totally inadmissible in court.
                                                                         ְ
                                                         ֲ
                  ידֵֵע םיִארָקְנ םניא ,רקֶֶשׁ וּרְמאֹי םִא וּלִּפאדּ ,אלֹ ןידּ תיבל
                            ִ
                                                                   ִ
                                                          ַ
                                  ֵ
                                ָ
                                                                       ֵ
 The Mishnah Yevamot (87b) discusses a case of a woman who remarried
                                           ָ
                                          ְ
                                             ְ
                                         ָ
                           ֶ
                             ְ
                                     ְ
                            ֵ
                  ָ
                       ְ
 (as she believed her husband was dead) without the permission of the Beit    ןטקָ תוֹצִמ רפסבּ אָתיִאדְִכו( אמלעבּ ערָ םֵשׁ איִצוֹמ םִא יִכּ ,רקֶֶשׁ
 Din (and subsequently her husband was found to be alive); that woman is    ,)ה"לר הֶשֲׂעַת אלֹ
 permitted to return to her (first) husband.  Rashi and other commentators
 explain there that she married her second busband based on testimony    עמָשׁ אלֹ םִא וּלִּפא ,רָתּמ שׁוּחל לבא ,טיִלחהל הז לכו
                                                                         ְ
                                                                       ָ
 she  heard  from  two  witnesses  who  told  her  that  her  husband  died  and   ַ  ֲ  ֻ  ָ  ָ  ֲ  ְ  ַ  ְ  ֶ
 based on that information she remarried without needing the permission   .ל"נּכו דחאֵמ קרַ
                                          ַ
                                           ְ
                                        ַ
                                                ֶ
                                              ָ
 of the Beit Din.  We see from this mishnah that knowledge based on the
 testimony brought by two witnesses outside of Beit Din is called “first
 hand  knowledge”  even  though  the  relevant  party  (the  woman)  did  not
 witness the event (her husband’s death) herself.  Please see the Responsa   םייח םימ ראב
 of the Later Authorities (Sefer Brit Avraham in the cited section #60) who
 hold that it is possible that this mishnah means that she does not need    הימקל ראובי הז לע היארו .םינשמ עמש םא וליפא )ד(
 the permission of the Beit Din to remarry but in all events the witnesses’
 testimony must (necessarily) have been accepted in Beit Din.  However,   .תשרופמ ארמגמ
 even if you would presume to say that the mishnah means that this woman
 could  re‑marry  immediately  (without  witness  testimony  being  heard  in    לע ורפיס םא ןוגכ .םרופיס ידי לע םיעשר ושענש )ה(
 th
 Beit Din) as the RaDach comments (3  section, 8  Bayit), still there is a
 rd
 distinction between that case and ours, as the Sefer Brit Avraham comments    וליפאש ןפואב םוקמל םדא ןיבש םירבדב תונג ירבד דחא
 th
 in section #60 at the end of the first paragraph and the beginning of the 6     תונג ירבדה וילע רמאנש ימ ןיידע אצי אל םהירבד יפל
 paragraph.  (Please see that reference).
                    םדא ןיבש םירבדבו 'ג ףיעס 'ד ללכב ל"נכו לארשי ללכמ
 However, truthfully, we don’t need all of this, because even if you were to    אנווג יאהכו אבהל לע הזמ תלעות ןיאש ןפואב וריבחל
 say that evidence heard from witnesses can be represented by the person
 who heard it as being definitive knowledge, although this person did not    תלעות היה םאד ,תומוקמ יראשו א"סב 'ה ללכב ל"נכו
 witness the event himself, that can only apply when the testimony involves    ול םשא רשאל רוזעלו תמאל אנקל ידכ אבהל לע הזמ
 something that is incontrovertible, meaning, something that cannot be lied
 about or something that cannot be embellished upon, for example, saying a    ןיד ה"יא ראבנש ומכו םרופיס ידי לע םיעשר ןישענ ןיא
 woman’s husband was dead (or something comparable).  But that is not so   .הזל םיכירצש ויטרפב 'י ללכב ןמקל הז
 in our case of Lashon Hara and Rechilut, where we see that because of the
 many sins of society these kinds of remarks have become commonplace    י"הזעב הז ןיד ראבל הארא .םהירבד לבקל רוסא )ו(
 and trivialized and people frequently lie or at the very least the events they
 portrayed in their Lashon Hara are changed or embellished and the speaker    ךרטצא אלש ידכ תוליכר ןינעל םגו ערה ןושל ןינעל
 is not at all careful in his report not to change in the least bit the facts of the    הזל היארו ,םייח םימ ראבב ינשה קלחב םירבדה לופכל
 matter. It is very well known that under these circumstances the speaker,
 in changing even the slightest detail of his portrayal can completely distort    הדנ ארמגב ש"ממ רתויו םינשמ וליפא ןימאהל רוסאש
 105                                                                             100
 volume 3                                                                     volume 3
   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115