Page 203 - 1new

Introduction to החיתפ
Sefer Chafetz Chayim םייח ץפח רפסל
Laveen - L10
די ואל - ןיואל

applies to matters of capital punishment? In reply, the pasuk says “for all ןיבל וניבו יתבתכש המו .אטח וילע אשת אלו ל"ת
sins.” How do we know that he cannot be a single witness for the purpose
of obligating someone to bring a korban? In reply, the pasuk says “for all ל"זו ח"ה תועיד תוכלהמ ו"פב ם"במרה בתכ ןכ ומצע
unintentional sins.” And now that the entire spectrum of sins is included, רמאנש ונמילכיש דע תושק ול רבדי אל 'וכו חיכומה
then what more does “for all intentional and all unintentional sins” teach?
Rebbe Yossi says it does not teach only about monetary matters or matters םילכהל םדאל רוסאש ןאכמ 'וכו אטח וילע אשת אלו
of capital punishment, but rather it also teaches about matters that relate to ןיבלמה םימכח ורמא ךכ 'וכו םיברב ש"כו לארשי תא
oaths (meaning that one witness can cause a party in a dispute to take an
oath in his defense). (The Sifri is quoted up until this point). .ש"ע 'וכו ב"הועל קלח ול ןיא םיברב וריבח ינפ
We learn from this (Sifri) that a solitary witness who knows about a sin
committed by his fellow Jew, where no oath is applicable, may not offer ונייהד םינתשמ וינפו ןיכרעב םש שריפ י"שרד עדו
testimony against that person. If he does give testimony, the court punishes ם"במרהא גילפ אל י"שרד רשפאו םיברב וחיכוה םא
him with lashes because his testimony accomplished nothing other than
giving the victim a bad reputation, as the cited Gemara Pesachim (113b) ןינתשמ דימתש ךרדה םיברבד אקיספד אתלמ טקנ קר
discussed, namely that Rav Pappa punished Zeegood with lashes because ול רביד םא לבא תושק ול רביד אל םא וליפא וינפ
he violated the Lav of “a single witness may not come forward.” Note that
these lashes are rabbinically imposed. That these lashes are rabbinically רבוע ומצע ןיבל וניב וליפא שייבתנ ז"יעש דע תושק
imposed can be proven from the Gemara Sanhedrin (10a) which uses the םא קר הטקנ אלד אתיירבה 'למ חכומ ןכו הז ואל לע
analytical tool of Gezerah Shava (which involves the appearance of similar
words in different pesukim). Therefore the (words of the ) pasuk “rasha, וליפא וינפ ןינתשמש ןפוא לכב עמשמ וינפ םינתשמ
rasha” (evil, evil!!-“evil” in the context of the pasuk of giving lashes, ומצע ןיבל וניב
and “evil” in the context of the pasuk of imposing capital punishment are
compared). Since capital cases are only judged in the presence of the
Sanhedrin (a court of 23 judges) (therefore lashes dictated by the Torah םירבוסש ימנ עמשמ םינושאר ראשמו 'ו ת"ל ג"מסהמו
must involve a Beit Din of 23 judges. However during the era of Rav .ונבתכש ומכ ןפוא לכב הז ואל לע רבועד
Pappa there were no courts of 23 judges and the lashes imposed by him
were not on the level of a Torah precept). (The Se’Mag and the Sefer
Ye're’im are quoted up until this point). םא וליפא יאק ורקיע 'וכו ונות אלד ואלד עדו
The explicit conclusion from their words is that during the time of the ומכ אמלעב רעצ קר הז ידי לע שייבתמ וניא רעטצמה
Beit HaMikdash, Zeegood would have been liable to be punished with ויניע הלתי אל םינפוא הברהב ארמגב םש רייוצמש
lashes by Torah-imposition because he violated this Lav. The practical
difference between these opinions is only that the lashes are either Torah- ואלה רקיע 'וכו אשת אלד ואלהו .הזב אצויכו 'וכו
imposed or that they are rabbinically‑imposed. However Zeegood was כ"ג רבוע שייבמה יאדוובו שייבל אלש לע קר רמאנ
culpable for the punishment of rabbinically-imposed lashes according to
all Authorities, as I wrote above. The supporting proof to all of this comes הבתכד אהו .כ"ג רעטצמ שייבתמהש ונות אלו לע
from the gemara’s description of the incident involving Zeegood.
היכמסמל ידכ ,אטח וילע אשת אלד ואלהל הרותה
Understand that this Lav is applicable even to gossip! For example, if a רוסא החכות םוקמב וליפאד וניתורוהל ,החכוה ןידל
solitary witness testifies about someone, about what he did to someone or
about something derogatory he said about someone, and this witness knows .שייבל

173 184
volume 1 volume 1