Where the Truth Lies Ani Eisav Bechorcha

Transcription

1 Where the Truth Lies Ani Eisav Bechorcha Note: This is the second essay of the Emes V Sheker Series. It is assumed that the reader has seen the first essay in the series ( The Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth ) where the importance of Emes was discussed, as well as the notion that when dealing with white lies one may change the facts as long as he is not looking to deceive but rather to bring about some positive outcome. In this essay we move further along the path of defining how the Torah approaches the ideas of Emes vs. Sheker. Introduction In the previous essay we discussed the overwhelming importance of Emes. To lie is a violation of a biblical command and is an act of moving away from Hashem who is the G-d of Emes. However, we began to discuss that there are situations where lying seems to be the right thing to do. We discussed the idea of Mutar Leshanos Mipnay HaShalom i.e. we may change details a and say a white lie when it is for the sake of peace. In fact, we saw that in general when we are dealing with the conveying of information that is ultimately irrelevant to the other party we can lie so long as there is some positive outcome. We may tell the new groom that his bride is beautiful. We may answer a questioner in a way that allows us to avoid sounding arrogant or immodest so long as we are not seeking to be deceptive. That is, when the information just does not matter to the listener, then it is not a Sheker per se to lie so long as the speaker is doing so toward an end that is good. No one gets hurt, and only good things come about. But what about when the information does indeed matter? What about cases where the listener may indeed lose out? Let us revisit an example we gave at the start of the previous essay in this series: You are sitting in a park at night, and see a very obviously frightened woman run by and jump in the bushes. Before you can get up and investigate, an angry man with a crazy look in his eyes and a knife in his hand asks you, which way did she go? Now you happen to know that there is a group of police officers behind the concession stand in the opposite direction of where the woman is hiding. Are you allowed to say, She is hiding behind that concession a Which is in fact what Lishanos means.

2 stand? Here the information very much does matter to the fellow. He really wants to know where this woman went, and would rather not bump into a group of policemen right now. Are you obliged to tell the truth here? Let s continue our search for Emes and its definition by looking at a few more examples of lies that seemed to be condoned by the Gemora if not outright suggested! More Lies Where It Very Much Does Matter! The Case of the Crooked Innkeeper: The Gemora 1 tells us of a very interesting incident that happened to a group of Tana im b, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yose, who were on the road and stopped at an inn for Shabbos. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yose deposited their wallets with the innkeeper while Rabbi Meir had misgivings about the man and therefore chose not to deposit his wallet with him but instead hid it elsewhere. As they were about to leave, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yose asked for their wallets back from the innkeeper, to which he responded by saying that he had no idea what they were talking about. Later they noticed that he had some lentils stuck in his moustache and they figured out a scheme as to how to get their wallets back. They went to his wife and told her that her husband spoke with them and wanted her to give back their wallets. They told her that he told them to tell her as proof that they were telling the truth that he had had lentils at his previous meal. She took that as valid proof and gave them back their wallets. c We were all rooting for the Rabbis in this story and hoping that the crooked innkeeper and his accomplice wife got what was coming to them, but how could the Rabbis violate a biblical command against lying to get back their money!? Since when do we ignore Halacha just because money is at stake? The Wicked Brother-In-Law When a man dies without any children there is a biblical Mitzva on the dead man s brother to either marry the widow or perform a procedure known as Chalitza, which is the equivalent of a divorce under these circumstances. The Gemora in Yevamos 2 notes that if the brother-in-law is being difficult and wants to extort money from his sister-in-law before he releases her through Chalitza from their quazimarital bond, the court may trick him. The court is allowed to promise him an exorbitant amount of money to do the procedure and after he has finished they can then turn to him and say Mishata Ani Buch (the equivalent of just kidding ), and pay him nothing! b Early Mishnaic scholars c Her husband, when he found out what had transpired, killed his wife. From that the Gemora, in its inimitable way, deduces the importance of washing up after a meal because the failure to do so led to a person s death here!

3 This is clearly deception in its highest form! Why is it not a violation of Sheker? Running for Your Life: The same Gemora above brings a similar allowance to lie in another case where someone is trying to extort money from you. When you are running for your life from unlawful imprisonment d and you reach a river that you desperately need to cross. The ferryman seeing your desperation tells you that he will only cross you for ten times the going rate. You are permitted to promise him the sum he wants and when you get to the other side you can tell him Mishata Ani Buch and pay him the normal rate. Here again we have a clear and blatant deception that is sanctioned by the Gemora! The Story of Ya akov and Esav (Jacob and Esau) Finally, we have the famous story of Ya akov and his brother, Esav. In Genesis (Chapter 25) we are told of Esav s sale of his own birthright a right associated with his having been the firstborn. We are told that the hungry and tired Esav (unbeknownst to his father, Yitzchok or Isaac) sells this birthright to his brother, Ya akov, for a pot of food. This sale was an active rejection by Esav of all the spiritual ramifications of that right, including the very powerful blessing that his father was to give him on his deathbed. e Later in chapter 27 we are given a detailed account of what occurred at the time of Yitzchok s death. The Torah tells us there how Ya akov and his mother, Rivka, worked together to deceive the dying Yitzchak into thinking that Ya akov was in fact Esav so that Ya akov would receive that all-important blessing (that he had bought for a pot of food). The irony of the entire above incident is that Ya akov is known as the pillar of Emes. That is, each of our Forefathers excelled to an unparalleled degree in one particular area. Avrohom excelled in Chesed (loving kindness), Yitzchak excelled in self mastery ( Gevurah or Din ), and Ya akov excelled in Emes (or Tiferes ). Ya akov then is the epitome of truth! How can he then go and deceive his father, on his deathbed no less?! The Basic Rule The Torah and Talmud in the above examples are painting a very enlightening picture for us. We are being challenged to break away from the simplistic black and white view of truth vs. falsehood. When we seek to define an action or statement as Emes or Sheker we must not focus on the words alone. We must see the entire result of that action or statement. The ultimate definition of Emes is whether the situation that you caused to develop was in harmony with all that is good and true or the opposite. d It was not uncommon to land up in jail in previous generations for nothing more than being a Jew. e In fact, the very way Esav chose to live his life was an active rejection of this birthright.

4 We are not discussing a simple case of the ends justifying the means. Rather Judaism looks at the bigger picture of each and every action and its reaction and all the resulting ripples before it pronounces judgment as to the Emes or lack thereof of that particular deed. When someone is trying to extort your money from you, that is Sheker! Getting back or keeping what is yours is itself Emes. For the innkeeper to have succeeded in keeping the Rabbis wallets would be false. To allow the poor widow freedom from her mean spirited brother-in-law is Emes! Lying to stop extortion from happening is not Sheker. This is clear from the story of Ya akov and Esav, as Rabbi Yakov Kamenetzcki notes. 3 For Ya akov to have allowed Esav to walk away with what was rightfully now the property of Ya akov, would be unfair. For Esav to have that all-important spiritual inheritance would have been one large falsehood. Ya akov s lying to his father was an act of Emes, very much in consonance with whom and what Ya akov stands for. f If we take the idea above to its logical conclusion we can posit that anytime someone is trying to extort something from us, and is not entitled to that object, we may lie to keep them from succeeding. This would go for possessions that are not monetary as well, such as time or information. Examples: If someone is trying to extort your time, for example he is trying to keep you on the phone with a long-winded conversation, you can lie to get off the phone. You can say, I really have to run and take care of some errands. This is due to the fact that you do not owe him that time. If he was your boss and was demanding to speak with you about information that he very much has a right to know, then to shirk out of the conversation with the above line would be Sheker. If someone asks you information that they have no right to know, you may lie to keep them from knowing the truth. Let s say that someone asks you if you invested money in some real estate that recently skyrocketed. It just so happens that you did and you made a nice deal of money, but that is none of his business. If you were to tell him something along the lines of I would rather not say, he will immediately know that you did indeed invest. You may simply say that you did not invest. That is not considered Sheker. If however, he has a right to that information (he is an auditor from the IRS) then telling him that you did not invest would obviously be forbidden. f Discussion Point: Nevertheless, Ya akov did not engage in the ruse to attain the blessing until his mother pushed him to do so. It seems that he was afraid that maybe his calculations were off. Maybe his own desire to attain the blessing was clouding his vision and not allowing him to see that his claim may not have been 100% accurate. So he did not rush into action. Once his mother, an objective wise observer, pushed him to get the blessing and assured him that he was totally in the right, only then did Ya akov feel comfortable to trick Yitzchak. We see that when our own interests are at stake we need to ask the question of whether what we are engaging in is REALLY Emes or if we are allowing our personal biases to stand in the way. A third party who is objective and unbiased (as well as knowledgeable in the laws of Emes and Sheker) may be the way to go.

5 Some Exceptions Although it is true, that to get or keep what is rightfully ours and that someone else is trying to unjustly take, we may lie, there are exceptions. There are times when lying is forbidden even if our intention is to create a greater Emes. In other words, there are times when even the words that we use must align with what actually happened, notwithstanding the fact that changing the facts would end up creating a greater Emes. Lying in Court: Lying to get or keep what is in truth ours is not permitted in court. Although outside of court we saw that such lying is in truth Emes, in the courts it is outright forbidden. To abuse the system of the courts for one s own ends is Sheker. The court is set up in such a way that it is designed to follow a very strict set of rules. Although those rules happen to work against someone and his honest claim, he nevertheless has to play by those rules. g This is not just a special law of Bais Din. This would be true of any system that was designed to work within a very strict rule system. It clearly would apply to a secular court. In fact, it even applies to notary publics. h To have a notary sign off on something that you did not sign in front of him, would also violate this notion, and would be forbidden much like lying in court. Lying on a Constant Basis: To be in a situation where one is constantly resorting to the use of false words to achieve true ends is problematic. The Gemora discusses how Rav s wife, a very difficult woman, would purposely serve him the opposite of whatever he wanted for dinner. She would go out of her way not to please her husband. Rav s son, Chiya, reached the age where he understood what was happening and when his father requested a specific dish he would go to his mother and tell her the opposite. Rav seeing that he was finally getting the dish that he requested noted g This is stated clearly in a responsa from the Rashba (3:81). It is also clear from many of the examples the Gemora in Shvuos (30b) brings and rules are violations of M'Dvar Sheker Tirchak. For example the Gemora there says that if three people lent money to John, and John claims he never received a penny, they may not scheme against him by tricking the court. That is, two of the three may not pretend to be unbiased witnesses to the loan and then go and split the money that is truly theirs. The Gemora says that to do so would violate M'Dvar Sheker Tirchak. But the money is really theirs and John is a crook?! Nevertheless, the court may not be abused. It is above our personal schemes (irrespective of their validity). One case there, though, does seem to violate our rule. The Gemora there rules that one may not stand next to a witness to give the impression that he plans to testify together with the other witness and thereby scare the plaintiff into admitting. Even though one trusts the plaintiff that the money is indeed owed and one witness is not going to do the trick, nevertheless you may not even pretend to be another witness and back down before the court gets to you. The difficulty with this is that we are dealing with an action that is taking place before the case even begins. This is not an example of abusing the rules of the court. This is more akin to the cases we discussed above that are outside of court. The Sma (Choshen Mishpat 28 #14) explains that in truth this should be allowed but we are afraid that the defendant may really not owe the money. What right do you have to trust your friend the plaintiff against this defendant. You have no way of knowing that the claim is really accurate. As such to intimidate the defendant is a violation of M'Dvar Sheker Tirchak because he may end up admitting to something he in truth does not owe. h Rav Elyashiv

6 to Chiya that his mother is getting better. But Chiya let his father in on his plot, to which Rav responded by telling him that he must not do that anymore. Being a go between where one is constantly lying is just a negative situation in which to be no matter how noble the intentions. This would seem to rule out certain professions for any practicing Jew. Lying In Torah: Finally, it is forbidden to lie when it comes to Torah. To teach a concept that is false, as being true is forbidden. In fact, according to the Maharshal 4, the prohibition is so powerful that one should rather give his life than say a falsehood within Torah. Saving one s life would seem to be a very noble end, but nevertheless Torah as a source of Emes must not be corrupted. i Trying To Avoid False Words We have already seen that in the episode of Ya akov trying to get the blessings that were coming to him, lying was appropriate in that if Esav were to get the blessings that would be Sheker. However, if one studies the commentary of Rashi to the exchange that takes place there between Ya akov and Yitzchak, we see that Rashi is attempting to mitigate the lies of Ya akov. For example, the Torah tells us that when Ya akov went in to get the blessings from Yitzchak, Yitzchak who was blind asked, Who is there. Ya akov replied, It is I, Esav, your firstborn, to which Rashi explains that what Ya akov had in mind was in fact, that first of all it is I [Ya akov] who is here, and (by the way) Esav is your first born. 5 What is Rashi trying to do here? Lying is permitted under these circumstances! Why would Rashi twist the words of Ya akov into something that sounds very awkward and not just explain the true motivation behind his untruths? The answer seems to lie in a rule discussed in the Orchos Tzadikim 6. The Orchos Tzadikim explains that even when we are permitted to lie in that what we are attempting to do is the ultimate Emes, nevertheless it is best to try and make even our words accurate. Before we delved into the issues of Emes and Sheker, the base line assumption would have been that many of the above examples in this and the previous essay were lies. They may have been lies for a good purpose but they were nevertheless Sheker. But we have established that in truth such an assumption is misguided and the examples given above are examples of people engaging in what is truly Emes. Here though we are going a step further. Here we are saying that even the words themselves should preferably conform to the facts. If one can still i To complicate matters there are a few exceptions to this exception. There are many times in the Gemora where the Rebbi says a Halacha incorrectly so as to sharpen his students and cause them to think. (See Brochos 33b, Niddah 45a, Niddah 4b). Furthermore, the Gemora in Pesachim(112a) says that one may, under very limited circumstances, say a Halacha over in the name of someone greater than oneself so that it carry more weight. See OC 156 Magen Avrohom #2 and Machtzis HaShekel whereby it becomes clear that this dispensation is quite near impossible to ever practically use.

7 arrive at the ultimate Emes without having to use false words, then it is praiseworthy and appropriate to do so. Example: The phone rings and someone is calling to speak with your husband who you know your husband does not want to speak with. The caller asks, Is your husband there? What he is asking is May I speak to your husband? He does not really care if your husband physically in the house. Therefore, based on what we established in the previous essay, it would be perfectly acceptable to say, No, he is not home. However, whenever possible it is preferable to say, He is not available. If that will insult the listener, then by all means one should indeed say that he is not home. Summary The definition of Emes and Sheker is not as simple as it would have appeared at first glance. The way the Torah defines Emes is ultimately not contingent on the veracity of the words, per se, as much as it is on the outcome of the exchange. When one lies in communicating something that is of no consequence to the listener, he has told a white lie. When he does so with some good in mind, like peace, modesty, or anything positive for that matter, that is not Sheker. When he seeks to deceive, on the other hand, that very much is Sheker. Furthermore, when one attempts to keep what is his and what others have no right to, he may once again fib. This goes for anything that one is trying to obtain unrightfully from us, be it money, time, or information. Attempting to keep what is ours is Emes. Nevertheless, making use of lies on a constant basis is not recommended. In fact, even when one only comes across such situations once in a blue moon, he should nevertheless attemp to have even his words conform to truth. The Talmud 7 tells us that the signature of Hashem is Emes. That is how G-d signs His Name. A signature, by definition, is an affirmation to the content of the document on which it is found. If G-d signs His name to something, he in effect agrees to it. By telling us that G- d s signature is Emes, the Talmud seems to be teaching us this very lesson that we have been discussing. Emes and that to which G-d agrees are one and the same! If G-d is willing to sign His Name to something then it is Emes! It is our job to live our lives in a fashion so that G-d can sign off on it with His Name. Our very beings must bear His stamp of approval. Distancing ourselves from falsehood means that the document that is our lives will be signed at the very bottom with the word Emes.

8 Sources 1 Yuma 83b 2 106a 3 Sefer Emes L Ya akov, Breishis 27:12 It should be noted that Rabbi Kamenetzcki himself was known for his outstanding adherence to honesty. His integrity was renowned far and wide and it is therefore all the more powerful that this lesson comes from such a man. 4 Yam Shel Shlomo Bava Kama Perek 4 #9 5 Breishis 27:19 6 End of Sha ar 22 7 Sanhedrin (64a)