Avodah Mailing List

Volume 41: Number 11

Tue, 07 Feb 2023

• 1. Re: taker but not giver? (Akiva Miller)
• 2. Re: Tachanun issues (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Keeping Well Away From Sheker (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 4. Midvar Sheker - Peripherals (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 5. Re: taker but not giver (Meir Shinnar)
• 6. Keeping Well Away From Sheker - And Another Thing (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 7. Re: taker but not giver (Micha Berger)

.
R' Meir Shinnar wrote:
> Ignoring for a moment moral issues, but on practical consequences;
> ... They called in Rav Moshe Tendler for advice, who told them Rav
> Moshe's position. In Russia, if word got out a Jew did not treat
> non Jews on shabbat, the entire Jewish community of that town would
> be wiped out. Therefore, heter of darche shalom clearly applies

R' Micha Berger responded:
> Except that R Aharon Lichtenstein's argument that "darkhei
> shalom" isn't about "practical considerations" is pretty compelling.
> ... Rambam (Hilkhos Melahim 10:12): ... For it says, "Hashem is good
> to all, and His Mercy is on all that He made." ...
> Darkhei Shalom is nothing less fundamental than the fulfilment of
> emulating the Borei and following the ways of the Torah.

It seems to me that the views in the first paragraph demonstrate that
practical considerations will justify medical procedures that would
otherwise constitute Chilul Shabbos.

R Micha's response surely shows the importance of good relations with our
non-Jewish neighbors, but does that argument rise to the level of
justifying Chilul Shabbos?

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230203/7b3ca2c9/attachment-0001.htm>

.
R' Joel Rich asked:

> Any sources on the reasoning of not saying tachanun at mincha
> on the day before a day we don?t say it?

I don't remember where I saw it, but there was a footnote in a sefer on
Aveilus which referenced a posek who held that an aveil should not be shatz
at mincha on Erev Shabbos, but *could* on Shabbos mincha.

The logic, it seems, is that there is a certain joy and excitement PRIOR to
an event which is much smaller when the event is leaving or has passed. We
see this in the common practice of skipping tachanun *prior* to a bris
mila, but saying it *afterward*

> Any sources on the reasoning why ... the days of not saying
> tachanun are not aligned 100% with laminatzeach and keil erech apaim?

If I knew why we skip them at all, then I could answer you better. But I
don't know why we skip them, other than a guess that these tefilos are
simcha-averse (whatever that might mean), and that tachanun is
simcha-averse to a greater degree (i.e., gets skipped even for a small
simcha), and lam'natze'ach is simcha-averse to a lesser degree (i.e., gets
skipped only for a larger simcha).

Somewhat relevant: Some say Tehillim daily, according to a set schedule,
such as going through the whole sefer over the course of a week, or over
the course of a month. In fact, most Tehillims are labelled to show which
are said on day N. Curiously, those who do this end up saying certain
chapters on a given day, even though that chapter was skipped in Shacharis.
The simplest example is Tehillim 6, a.k.a. Tachanun, which is said on the
first day of the month, which is always Rosh Chodesh. (Bonus question: On
the last day of the month, does one need to repeat #145-150, given that he
already said them at Shacharis? Enquiring minds want to know!)

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230203/5a53e579/attachment-0001.htm>

Rbt ChL and R ZS, if I have properly understood them, seem to be
interpreting the Issur of Midvar Sheker Tirchak [Shavuos 31a ShA ChM 28] in
a narrow sense, that it is limited to providing the appearances of an
actual substantial procedural step that provides energy to neutralise the
litigants claim.


Therefore, they understand, that if one says the absolute unvarnished truth
without reflecting on the actual case being litigated then as R ZS writes
*it is not a devar sheker at all, because he is not even indirectly
implying that he confirms the employer's specific factual claims.*

R ZS takes a step further, writing *One may even declare they believe the
boss because that does not imply actual knowledge, so it's not a devar
sheker.*

Rbt ChL wrote *by coming and testifying as to the character of the boss
they are [not?] giving the co-worker any form of false impression* did the
word NOT somehow get omitted or have I not understood the meaning?

I assume *testifying* means in BD, but I do not believe BD would ever seek
nor admit such testimony. On the other hand if it is not in BD, then WHY
are they offering an opinion at all?


I wonder however, if the Issur of MidShTirChak is broader than that; that
it not only reflects upon strengthening the position on one litigant, but
is a directive to avoid doing anything that distorts or interferes with the
case, including demoralising and weakening the resolve of the litigant.
Which is clearly happening in the pretense of the Gemara Shavuos.

I think we see support for the broader interpretation from the Halacha
regarding the need that both litigants appear as equals before the BD
because the spirit of a litigant can be weakened if they appear in shabby
clothes whilst the other appears in expensive clothing.

In this vein I believe that the arguments raised by Rbt ChL and R Z S, that
it is permitted to support and offer positive character references, are not
significant - what is significant is the context and the impression they
are designed to create or that can reasonably be expected they may create.
Accordingly, if the tone of the expressed support conveys a message that
one litigant is right, in my example the boss who wishes to dismiss a
worker who he claims is derelict, is rightly to be be believed as a more
credible individual than the worker, it seems very likely that this will
demoralise the worker and put him at a disadvantage, and is prohibited.

The famous story of the money the ReShash placed in his Gemara and forgot
about and then claimed that it had not been repaid because he had not made
a note in his accounts - springs to mind. When the ReShash did some time
later discover the money in his Gemara and realised his mistake, the fellow
said to the ReShash, no one will believe you, they will simply say that you
have had pity on me but I am indeed a crook.

There is perhaps another consideration - the Gemaras example, which occurs
in BD, avoids the issues that the Chafets Chaim would prohibit. However,
making a claim to the general public, within the context of an ongoing
dispute, about believing one party over another, or even just providing
personal comment about one litigants integrity would be prohibited by so
many of the prohibitions outlined by the CHCh in his introduction.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230205/156089b0/attachment-0001.htm>

Rbt ChL says ? There are lots of cases in halacha where there is a conflict
between truth and some other value ? that is true but we are not discussing
that, in those cases there is no negative impact upon anyone; we are
discussing where that distortion will have a negative impact upon someone
and EVEN if our distortion helps them avoid saying a lie and swearing a
false oath.

I think this falls into that which Chazal said, You have no business in
those matters that are concealed from you ? when the King was advised that
he would die because he did not marry and have children and the Kings
defence that he foresaw his children would be Reshaim was rebuffed. You do
as you are instructed. Do not think you can make better decisions than HKBH.

As for Shlomo HaMelech distorting the truth by threatening to cut the baby
- I do not understand Rbt ChL response ? Shlomo haMelech would presumably
have been dispensing din Melech ? But how does that exempt him from Midvar
Sheker Tirchak? Is it only a problem in BD?

R ZS wrote ? another example of distortion, Moshe's continuing pretense to
Par'oh that all he wanted was a three-day expedition into the desert, with
the clear implication (though never explicitly stated) that then we'd
return to work.
It is not a problem to say, it is raining cats and dogs; similarly when MR
said to P we just want 3 days and I promise we are coming back to be your
slaves ? it was an obvious euphemism and P understood quite well what was
going to happen.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230205/65bb1483/attachment-0001.htm>

Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 17:25:05 -0500
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>

> On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 05:15:03PM -0700, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote:
>> Ignoring for a moment moral issues, but on practical consequences;
>> ...        They called in Rav Moshe Tendler for advice, who told them
>> Rav Moshe's position. In Russia, if word got out a Jew did not treat
>> non Jews on shabbat, the entire Jewish community of that town would be
>> wiped out. Therefore, heter of darche shalom clearly applies

> Except that R Aharon Lichtenstein's argument that "darkhei shalom" isn't
> about "practical considerations" is pretty compelling.

> Rambam (Hilkhos Melahim 10:12):
...
> Darkhei Shalom is nothing less fundamental than the fulfilment of
> emulating the Borei and following the ways of the Torah.

> ...
>> (Note that ben Azzai holds that the most important verse in the torah --
>> more than ve'ahavata lere'achca camocha -- love your neighbor as yourself
>> -- is ze Sefer toldot Adam -- this is the book of generations of man --
>> that we are all human.

> And Ben Azzai is given last word.
...

I fully agree with Micha, R Lichtenstein and Rav Wolbe about ikkar
hadin. However, no one who follows R Lichtenstein would have supported
the position of those who thought that the ambulance service should
not serve non Jews on shabbat -- or the positions of the "rabbanim"Joel
rich cited. Therefore, rav Tender was reminding them that even if one
had a more restrictive notion of darche shalom -- their position was
not tenable.

I would add that Joel Rich's rabbanim go further than the RCBC and raises
other issues -- the "rav" said he would do it for a "frum Jew" -- not
just a Jew. There is a famous peak of the hazon ish that in our time,
we save all Jews -- even non religious Jews. I have seen literature that
some haredi rabbanim now disagree with the hazon ish. It seems that Joel
rich's "rabbanim" are part of that crowd -- and therefore deserve even
more opprobrium.

Meir Shinnar

It is also important to consider WHY the boss wants his other workers to
proclaim their support
Let's say one or a couple of them would object, would they fear some type
of retaliation?
Lets say some would issue a declaration saying they are disappointed that
this matter has become an issue and is not being resolved via proper
channels, which would be a veiled condemnation of both parties or whoever
it is that is not taking the proper channels
Lets say some would compose a note declaring that they consider both
parties to be equally credible, how would the boss react to that?

My point being, the boss certainly wants to gain some leverage here in
order to win the case either because he is concerned he may lose the battle
or because he wants it closed more rapidly or more quietly.
Whatever it is - is that not a Sheker that HKBH wants us to keep well away
from?

I think BeLaAz we call that An Abuse of Power, no?



Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230206/5646719a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sat, Feb 04, 2023 at 09:31:21PM -0700, Meir Shinnar via Avodah wrote:
> > Except that R Aharon Lichtenstein's argument that "darkhei shalom" isn't
> > about "practical considerations" is pretty compelling.

> > Rambam (Hilkhos Melahim 10:12):
...
> > Darkhei Shalom is nothing less fundamental than the fulfilment of
> > emulating the Borei and following the ways of the Torah.

> > ...

> I fully agree with Micha, R Lichtenstein and Rav Wolbe about ikkar
> hadin. However, no one who follows R Lichtenstein would have supported
> the position of those who thought that the ambulance service should
> not serve non Jews on shabbat...

I was viewing my point differently.

R Lichestein's argument is compelling. There is no way to understand
the Rambam as talking about "darkhei shalom" as a peace-keeping thing.
Similarly when "darkei shalom" is used in other contexts. Like we
don't give a kohein the first aliyah as a survival strategy. (And so on
through Gittin.)

So, it seems to me that our being taught as kids that "darkhei shalom"
was permission to violate Shabbos because otherwise an anti-semite may
someday kill one of us is simply part of the problem. Chazal's idiom is
being misinterpreted because the people speaking can't believe Chazal
would give such value to doing what's right when it comes to nakhriim.

There is no reason to concede the point about darkhei shalom while
fighting about bone marrow donation. It's all the same error.

On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 02:06:00PM -0500, Akiva Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R Micha's response surely shows the importance of good relations with our
> non-Jewish neighbors, but does that argument rise to the level of
> justifying Chilul Shabbos?

I don't understand the question. I didn't raise a new consideration. I
am pointig out the the very consideration already under discussion in
hilkhos Shabbos.

The halakhah is that we are mechalel Shabbos for darkhei shalom. Since
darkhei shalom means emulating the One Who shehashalom shelo, and
fulfilling vekhol nesivoseha shalom, then yes, of course, the halakhah
is saying that having peaceful relations rises to the level of being
dokheh Shabbos.

Although our original topic was bone marrow donation on a weekday, no?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The thought of happiness that comes from outside
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
Author: Widen Your Tent      the value of one's will and the freedom brought
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook


------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)