License to Lie

Subscribe to the Daily Daf Yomi Summary here.

Rabbi Moshe Menachem Liberman, a member of the Chicago Community Kollel discusses some of the halachos regarding the modification of the truth for certain purposes.

http://www.cckollel.org/html/parsha/bereishis/vayichi5764.html

“And they sent a message to Yoseph saying: Your father commanded before he died, saying: So you shall say to Yoseph: Please forgive now the transgression of your brethren, and their sin, for they did to you evil . . .” Vayechi 50:16-17. Rashi points out that the brothers modified the words of Yaakov Avinu in this matter in the interest of peace because Yaakov Avinu had not actually commanded thus.1 The Gemara learns from these pesukim that there is a license to alter the truth in the interest of peace.2 This freedom to alter the truth is actually mandatory and not merely an authorization to alter the truth.3 Before we look at this obligation to alter the truth in the interest of peace, it behooves us to examine the general restriction against altering it.

The Torah states in Parshas Mishpatim, “From a false matter you shall distance yourself.”4 Thus, halachic authorities hold that there is a biblical obligation to refrain from lying.5 Furthermore, Hashem exhorts us to speak the truth, as the Navi in Zechariah states, “Let one man speak with another in truth.”6

The threshold for establishing what constitutes a falsehood, though, is very low. A mere omission is considered an alteration of the truth.7 The Chofetz Chaim deduces this from our Gemora, which states:

Peace is important because even Hakodosh Boruch Hu altered the truth in the interest of peace. Initially the Torah writes [that Sarah Imeinu, after hearing that she will give birth to a son to Avraham Avinu, said], “[After I am old shall my skin become smooth] and my husband is old?”8 And afterwards it writes [Hashem (only) told Avraham Avinu that Sarah Imeinu had said], “and I am old?”9 The only difference between what Sarah Imeinu said and what Hashem told Avraham Avinu that she said, was that Hashem omitted the comment that she had made concerning Avraham Avinu.10 This omission, the Gemara said, was permitted only because it was done in the interest of peace.11 Thus, even a mere omission of part of an otherwise true statement is considered a falsehood to which we are commanded to keep our distance.12

Although merely omitting is considered a falsehood, when altering the truth in the interest of peace, it is preferred to an outright lie.13 Of course, if merely omitting would be insufficient then he should outright lie.14 This obligation to lie in the interest of peace, however, does not sanction swearing falsely.15 Additionally, one may not lie concerning things which have not yet happened.16

There are other times when it is also appropriate to lie. If a person is asked whether he is knowledgeable in a certain Mesechta, he may lie and answer that he is not when in fact he is.17 However, if he is asked in order to provide an answer to a halachic query or to teach, then he must answer truthfully, consistent with his expertise in the Mesechta.18 If a person is asked in the presence of disreputable people concerning the graciousness of his host, he may lie and answer that his host was not gracious.19

The contemporary halachic authorities also permit altering the truth in the following circumstances:
• People may answer, “I don't know” when asked about a matter that is supposed to remain secret.20
• Wealthy individuals may lie about their wealth if they fear “the evil eye” (ayin hara) or if they do not want to arouse jealousy.21
• If one fears that a package will be mishandled, it is permitted to write “glass” on it, even though it does not contain any glass.22
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Rashi al Hatorah, Vayechi 50:16 (beginning with the words “Your father commanded”)
2 Yevamos 65b
3 Derishah al Choshen Mishpat 262:21
4 23:7.
5 Rabbi Shmuel Hominer, Eved HaMelech, Parshas Mishpatim 23:7:1 (citing SMa”G at Esay 107 and SMa”K 226) (4th ed. 1998); but see Rabbi Menachem Trivash, Orach Maysharim 9:1:1 (noting that this verse is only a restriction on judges and witnesses in the judicial context) (3d ed. 1968).
6 Mesilas Yesharim Chapter 11 (quoting Zechariah 8:16 and other sources).
7 Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Rechilus 1:8:14.
8 Vayera 18:12.
9 Id. at 18:13.
10 Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Rechilus 1:8:14.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Rechilus 1:8.
14 Id.
15 Id.; but see Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Rechilus 1:8:15 (noting that if there is a foreseeable loss to the other person it is questionable whether swearing falsely may be permitted).
16 Magen Avraham 156:2 (citing Sefer Chasidim 426); but see Mishnah Berurah 156:4 (commenting on Magen Avraham 156:2 that it is questionable); see Rabbi Shmuel Hominer, Eved HaMelech, Parshas Mishpatim 23:7:2 (explaining that the Mishnah Berurah does not understand why there should be a limitation as to when one may alter the truth in the interest of peace).
17 Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 262:21.
18 Be'er HaGolah al Choshen Mishpat 262:9.
19 Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 262:21.
20 Rabbi Doniel Yehuda Neustadt, The Weekly Halachic Discussion, 47 (citing Titen Emes l'Yaakov at 76 (quoting Harav S.Z. Auerbach and Harav S.Y. Elyashiv)) (2d rev. ed. 2002).
21 Id. (citing Titen Emes l'Yaakov at 78 (quoting Harav S.Y. Elyashiv)).
22 Id. at 48 (citing Titen Emes l'Yaakov at 66 (quoting Harav S.Y. Elyashiv, Harav Y.Y. Fisher, and Harav C. Kanievsky)).

Read more!

Yearning to the Return to Zion

It is written [Tehillim 87:5]: And to Zion it shall be said: "this man, this man, was born in her," and He will establish her on high. (This verse is describing the future time when all the nations of the world will bring the Jews back to Zion. They will say regarding each Jew: He is a son of Zion, he was born there, let us bring him back to her.)

Rabbi Meyasha the grandson of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said (Kesuvos 75a): This verse is applicable to any Jew that was born in Zion and one who yearns to see her. Even Jews who were born elsewhere will be considered children of Zion, provided that they learn to return there.

I began writing the following incident when I was shown that it was already printed in Daf Digest link, so I am writing their version (with a comment or two of my own).

During World War I, Palestine was under Turkish jurisdiction and the Ottomans made life very difficult for the citizens. Press gangs would roam the streets arbitrarily drafting anyone in their wake. The conditions of these forcibly drafted soldiers were exceedingly difficult. They were subjected to hard labor, and since food was exceedingly scarce they were severely underfed.

These circumstances could all be circumvented by paying bribes to officials. However, there was one decree that was exceedingly difficult to avert. The Turks declared that anyone not born in Palestine would be deported. This was more difficult to deal with than forcible conscription, since the only way someone born out of the country could get around this was to lie on the government forms.

Since everyone knew that Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, zt"l,(where I saw this story brought down, it was with Rav Yosef Rogotchovi from Petach Tikva, but see below)was very careful to avoid falsehood in any form no matter what it might cost, people were afraid that he would forbid people to lie on the forms. During those difficult times, simple honesty would result in the sundering of many homes. When someone ventured to ask the Rav's opinion about this issue, he surprised everyone in the Old Yishuv. "It is certainly permitted!"

"But why is this different from any other falsehood which the Rav prohibits?" the questioner asked.

Rav Sonnenfeld explained, "This is explicit in Kesuvos 75 on the verse, 'And of Tzion it shall be said, each and every man is born therein.' The Gemora learns from the redundancy of the word "man, each and every man" that one who yearns for Tzion is as one who was born there. We see clearly that any Jew who yearns for Tzion is actually considered as one who was born in Tzion! So to write of those who came up to Tzion out of longing for her holiness that they were native citizens is no lie at all: it is a declaration of the absolute truth!"

I saw this ruling from Rav Sonnenfeld in a slightly different context. It was a question regarding people who were not born in Eretz Yisroel and they were seeking permission from the courts to emigrate to Eretz Yisroel. The courts were only granting visas to those who were born in Eretz Yisroel. Rav Sonnenfeld ruled, based on our Gemora that not only is it permitted to testify that you were born in Eretz Yisroel, but one is obligated to do so. It is not regarded as a lie at all, since one who yearns to return to Eretz Yisroel is regarded as if he was born there.

The Kloizenberger Rebbe zt"l added the following: It is written that the lifespan of a person is seventy years. The Gemora in Shabbos (89b) states that the Heavenly courts do not administer punishment for the first twenty years of one's life. Consequently, it can be said that the seventy years do not begin until one is twenty years old. So too, it can be said regarding one who emigrated to Eretz Yisroel. The seventy years of his life begins only after he lives in Eretz Yisroel.

This can be proven from Rashi's commentary on the following verse [Breishis 16:3]: So Sarai, Avram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, at the end of ten years of Avram's dwelling in the land of Canaan, and she gave her to Avram her husband for a wife. Rashi writes: This tells us that the time they dwelled outside of Eretz Yisroel does not count in the calculation.

Read more!

Transferring Inheritance Away From Yishmael

Shmuel said to Rav Yehudah (Kesuvos 53a): “Smart one! Do not be present when an inheritance is being transferred (away from the rightful heir) even when it is from a bad son to a good son, because one never knows what offspring will come forth from him (the bad son) and certainly when the transfer is from a son to a daughter (even though the transfer is valid, it should not be condoned).”

It is written in Parshas Chaye Sarah [24:10]: And the servant took ten camels of his master's camels, and he went, and all the best of his master was in his hand. Rashi comments that Avraham wrote a gift deed to Yitzchak for everything he owned, so that they would hasten to send him their daughter.

The Daas Zkeinim asks: The Gemora in Eruvin states that Avraham fulfilled the entire Torah including the Rabbinical obligations, such as eruv tavshilin. How could Avraham transgress this prohibition of transferring the inheritance away from the rightful heir; Yishmael and the sons of Keturah should have been the inheritors?

The Mizrachi answers: Avraham was permitted to do this because he was told by Hashem [Breishis, 21:12]: For in Yitzchak will be called your offspring.

The Maharal in Gur Aryeh answers: It was permitted because Sarah had told Avraham [ibid, v. 10]: For the son of this handmaid shall not inherit with my son, with Yitzchak. Sdei Chemed explains: Would Avraham heed Sarah’s words and violate a Rabbinical prohibition? Rather, the explanation is as follows: Since Hashem agreed with Sarah and He told Avraham [ibid, v. 12]: Whatever Sarah tells you, hearken to her voice, Avraham was given permission to transfer all his possessions to Yitzchak.

The Yefeh Toar answers that there is no transgression whatsoever when a father gives his possessions away during his lifetime; the prohibition is only when he transfers his property immediately prior to his death.

Maharsha (Sanhedrin 91a) answers: Yishmael and the children of Keturah were not fit to inherit Avraham. This is because Yishmael was the son of a slavewoman and Keturah was a pilegesh, and not an ordinary wife.

Rav Elyashiv challenges this explanation: Yishmael is referred to in the Torah as Avraham’s son; how can the Maharsha say that he was not an actual son?

The Oholei Yitzchak answers the original question: Our Gemora explains the rationale for this prohibition. One should not transfer an inheritance away from the rightful heir even when it is from a bad son to a good son, because one never knows what offspring will come forth from him (the bad son). Avraham knew through ruach hakodesh that no good offspring will ever come out from Yishmael, and therefore, there is no prohibition to give all his possessions to Yitzchak.

Similarly, the Chasam Sofer explains the verse in this week’s parsha. It is written [ibid, 21:11]: But the matter greatly displeased Abraham, concerning his son. Rashi explains literally: Avraham was displeased because Sarah told him to send Yishmael away. The Chasam Sofer explains: Avraham didn’t want to send him away because he was concerned on the account of this prohibition. How could he chase Yishmael away and give all his possessions to Yitzchak if Yishmael is the rightful heir, and perhaps, Yishmael will have some good offspring. Sarah saw through ruach hakodesh that there will be no good offspring coming from Yishmael, and Hashem told Avraham to listen to the words of Sarah.

Read more!

SORAH WAS AN AYLONIS - Yevamos 80 - Daf Yomi

The Torah relates that Sorah died at the age of 127. Rashi notes that the Torah mentions “years” after each component of her age (“100 years and 20 years and 7 years”) in order to teach that each of these units of her life had a unique significance. At the age of 100, Sorah was just as free of sin as she had been when she turned 20, as the Heavenly Court doesn’t punish a person for his sins until he turns 20. Although a person doesn’t receive punishment, his transgressions are still considered sins – as evidenced by the fact that somebody under the age of 20 is still required to bring a sacrifice in order to atone for his transgressions – so how can Rashi write that a person who turns 20 is free of all sins?

Reb Oizer Alpert cites the Brisker Rov who answers that the Gemora in Yevamos (64b) states that Sorah was an aylonis – a woman who is unable to have children. Such a woman never develops the physical signs of adulthood. The Gemora in Yevamos (80a) rules that when a woman turns 20 without becoming physically mature, she is declared an aylonis and legally considered to be an adult from that time onward. Therefore, although sins which are committed before a person turns 20 are indeed considered sins even if they aren’t punishable at that time by the Heavenly Court, the transgressions of Sorah were indeed not considered sins, as she was legally viewed as a minor until she turned 20!

Rashi additionally writes that Sorah was as beautiful at the age of 20 as she had been at the age of 7. In what way is this comparison considered praiseworthy, as a woman is typically expected to be considered prettier at 20 than she was at 7? We may similarly answer by noting that the Gemora in Yevamos (80b) lists the signs commonly associated with an aylonis, all of which are features traditionally viewed as being ugly. The Gemora in Sanhedrin (49b) states that women in these early generations were able to give birth as young as 8. As this was the age at which their bodies began to develop and mature, this was also the age at which an aylonis began to exhibit signs of ugliness. Although most women are expected to be prettier at age 20 than they were at age 7, Sorah became a full-fledged aylonis at age 20, so Rashi notes that she was nevertheless just as beautiful as she had been at age 7 before her condition developed!

Read more!