Page 193 - V3

Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפס
Hilchot Esurei Lashon Hara ערה ןושל ירוסיא תוכלה
Kelal Zayin - Halachah 14 י הכלה - ח ללכ

people just like him (that weak circumstantial evidence would also point םשל התיה םתנוכו הרות ירבדב םהיניב היהש םיחוכיוב
at them as being the thief) who are not very careful to respect the property
\ assets of their fellow Jew and would (figuratively) “wipe their hands אלש ידכו הכלהל םכסומ וניא רבדהש וארש יפל ,םימש
on someone else’s shirt” or something comparable. Therefore we require המ ובתכ ןכ לע הזמ לושכמ אציו הז לע םלועה וכמסי
substantial circumstantial evidence that addresses the essence of the
th
theft, as I wrote above in the 26 notation quoting the Maharshal and the ץצולתהלו גיעלהל םלועמ ו"ח ונווכתנ אל לבא .ובתכש
Maharsha (please see that notation). אלה ,תמא היה אוהה געלה םא וליפא יכ ,וריבחמ דחא
.תמא לע וליפא תונגל רוסאד אוה עודי

Mekor Hachayim
.בא 'ב ,'ב רדא א"כ ,ולסכ ב"י - תרבועמ הנש .בא 'ח ,ןסינ 'ח ,ולסכ 'ח - הטושפ הנש :ימוי חול
K7/14. From all of this (explanation) you will see how often people
make a mistake in this regard and when something is stolen from םייחה רוקמ
them, and they suspect a particular person as being the thief, they
tell the authorities of the city that they have circumstantial evidence ןיאדּ ,עדּ .ערָה ןוֹשׁל רפּסל רוּסא יִמ ינְפִל ראבנ הָתּעו .י
ָ
ֵ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ְ
identifying this person as the thief and, contrary to the law, they
ֵ
ֲ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
will hit and punish this person to compel him to admit he was the םיִשׁנאל רפּסְמ אוּה םִא ןיבּ ,רוּפִּסּה רוּסִּאבּ קוּלִּח םוּשׁ
thief. In reality there never was any justification for this actions, ,רבדּ אוּהֶשׁ אלֹ םִא ,וֹתְּשִׁאל וֹא ויקָוֹחרְ וֹא ויבוֹרקְ ,םירִחא
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ְ
ֲ
ָ
as even if the circumstantial evidence is a proof of the crime and
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֶ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ָ
ֵ
ֶ
ֶ
ָ
ְ
ַ
the city’s authorities do have the status of a Beit Din, they must ,אבּהל לע הזִּמ היהִתֶּשׁ ,תלעוֹתּה ינְפִּמ הּעידִוֹהל ךְירִצֶּשׁ
have prior knowledge that the item was stolen and witnesses who רחא הֶשׁקָ היהיֶּשׁ ,םיִערָ םיִשׁנאל תפקּמ איִהֶשׁ ,ןוֹגכּ
ֲ
ְ
ַ
ִ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ַ
ֶ
ֶ
ָ
could testify to the circumstantial evidence, or they themselves (the VOL-3
ֶ
ְ
ֶ
ֵ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ְ
judges of the Beit Din) saw the circumstantial evidence (as was the ערַה םעבִט תא הּל רפּסְמ אוּה ןכּ לע ,םהֵמ איִצוֹהל ךְכּ
case involving Mar Zutra cited in Gemara Babba Metziah 24a). But הזכּ רפּסי ףָתּשֶּׁשׁ ,ןידּה אוּהו .םהל ףיִקּהל אלֶֹּשׁ ,הּרָיִהזמוּ
ְ
ַ
ִ
ֶ
ַ
ְ
ְ
ַ
ֵ
ֶ
ַ
ֻ
ְ
ָ
ָ
in no way can they rely on the assertions of the complainant as a
ָ
ֵ
ֲ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ְ
ֶ
ֱ
ֶ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ֻ
ִ
ְ
ָ
basis for hitting \ punishing a fellow Jew needlessly (i.e., without ,םינמאנ תקַזחבּ םניא וֹתְּעדַבֶּשׁ ,םיִשׁנא הזיא לע וֹפָתּשׁל
any real substantiation of the evidence). It is forbidden for them לא :):ב"נ ףַדּ( ןיִשׁוּדּקְִבּ וּרְמָאֶשׁ ןיֵעְכוּ( אָנְוַגּ יאַהְכּ לָכְו
ַ
to even personally believe the charges that this person is the thief
ְ
ָ
ְ
ְ
ֵ
ַ
ִ
because the assertions are Lashon Hara. And how much even more םה םינרְָטנקֶּשׁ ינְפִּמ ,ןאכל ריִאֵמ 'ר ידֵיִמלַתּ וּסנכּי
ִ
ֵ
ָ
ְ
so is it forbidden to rely on the complainant’s charges and mete
ָ
ְ
ָ
ֵ
ַ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ֲ
ְ
ֶ
out punishment, and in so doing they violate the Torah’s Lav of קרַ ,ערַה םעבִט תא וֹמצעבּ ריִכּמ וֹניא םִא וּלִּפאו .)'וּכו
ֶ
ַ
ֵ
ֵ
(Devarim 25:3) “Do not exceed.” 22 ,םהילֲע עמָשֶּׁשּׁ המ ,הּל רפּסל רָתּמ ןכּ םגּ ,םהילֲע עמָשׁ
ֵ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ֵ
ְ
ֶ
ֻ
ַ
ַ
th
ְ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ֵ
ְ
ְ
ֲ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ָ
ַ
ְ
ַ
ְ
ָ
End of the 7 Kelal 7 המל ,הטלחהבּ ןיִמאהל וֹל ןיאֶשׁ ףא ,אבּהל לע הּרָיִהזהלוּ
ְ
ָ
ַ
ַ
ָ
ֶ
ןפֹאבּ ךְא( יֵעבִּמ שׁוּחל םינפּ לכּ לע אה ,םהילֲע עמָשֶּׁשּׁ
ָ
ָ
ַ
ֵ
ִ
ֶ
ָ
22 Rashi: (both in the cited Chumash and in Gemara Ketubot, 33a): A warning
ֶ
ֵ
ִ
ֵ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ָ
ְ
ַ
ֶ
ָ
from the Torah not to hit a fellow Jew. לבּקְַמֶּשׁ ,וירָבדִּמ חכוּמ היהיֶּשׁ ןוֹשׁלבּ הּלּ רפּסי אלֹ הז
183 214
volume 3 volume 3