“Distance yourself from falsehood.”
It is well known that honesty is one of the most important character traits and its antithesis, falsehood, is one of the most undesirable. The Sefer Hachinuch speaks very strongly about how disdainful it is to lie: “falsehood is abominable and disgraceful in everyone’s eyes, there is nothing more disgusting than it,... Therefore the Torah exhorts us to greatly distance ourselves from falsehood, as it says, 'distance yourself from falsehood.' ” He then explains that the Torah does not use the language of ‘distancing’ with regard to any other negative mitzvo which indicates its severity. Moreover, this teaches us that we should distance ourselves from even the slightest possibility of falsehood. Given the severity of lying, it is worthwhile to clarify what is included within the prohibition of 'midvar sheker tirchak'.
It is instructive to analyze the following scenario: Reuven owes Shimon money and the date for repayment has already passed. Shimon phones Reuven to request his money, but Reuven’s wife answers the phone. Reuven does not want to speak to Shimon but he also does not want his wife to lie and say that he is not home when he really is. Therefore Reuven steps just outside his house and instructs his wife to tell Shimon that Reuven is not home - this is technically true, Reuven is now not in the house, even though he could speak to Shimon if he so desired. One may think that this does not constitute falsehood because no false words were spoken. Is this indeed the case?
The Gemara in Nedarim discusses a case in which a man was owed some money so he brought the borrower before Rava’s Beis Din and said to him: “Pay me back.” The borrower responded: “I already paid you.” Rava said to the borrower: “In that case, you must swear an oath that you have given him the money.” The borrower went to get his cane, hid the money he owed inside its hollow, and leant on the cane as he returned to the courtroom. He said to the lender: “Hold this cane in your hand,” ostensibly in order to free his own hands to take hold of the Torah scroll. He then took a Torah scroll and swore that he had already given the money into the lender’s hand. The lender, incensed at the man’s chutzpah, broke the cane. Suddenly all the money inside spilled to the ground and it emerged that he had indeed sworn the technical truth!”
The borrower was obviously guilty of terrible midos but did he actually commit a genuine transgression? The Gemara concludes that he did because an oath taker must adhere not only to the plain definition of his words, but also to the meaning they are meant to convey as well. Consequently, he was guilty of swearing falsely by taking an oath that was technically truthful but deceptive .
We learn from here that saying words that are technically true does not mean that a person can deceive others by saying true words with a misleading message. Therefore, it would seem that Reuven’s strategy of standing outside the house does not help avoid the transgression of ‘midvar sheker tirchak.” The words that he is not home may be true but the message is not - Shimon is not interested in the technical location of Reuven; he wants to know if Reuven is present so that Shimon can speak to him. Thus, by saying that he is not present is a misleading message. One may argue that the case in Nedarim was that of an oath, but that in day to day life, perhaps it is allowed to deceive others on condition that words we say are technically true.
The Gemara in Shevuos disproves this theory: The Gemara discusses a number of cases that involve a transgression of 'midvar sheker tirchak'. One is the case where a talmid chacham claims that someone owes him money but he does not have any witnesses to support his claim. Accordingly he tells his talmid that the 'borrower' is clearly lying so he suggests a plan to influence the borrower to admit to the truth. He asks his talmid to come with him to court so that he would appear to be a witness to the loan. The borrower, seeing the prospective witness will realize that he can not escape from the truth and will admit that he does indeed owe the money. The Gemara says that the talmid transgresses, ‘midvar sheker tirchak’ by his actions . In this case, the talmid did not even say anything - he merely walked in with his Rebbe and sent an unsaid message to the borrower that he was a witness to the loan. Moreover, in this case, there is no oath being taken and nevertheless it is an example of falsehood. This proves that even if a person does not even say anything but his actions imply a false metsius then he is considered to be lying. This is all the more so the case where a person says words that are technically true but are also misleading .
However, if we analyze one of the most famous incidents in the Torah it would seem that saying technically truthful words is allowed. When Yaakov Avinu pretends to be his brother, Esav, Yitzchak asks him for his identity and he answers, “I am Esav your firstborn.” Rashi explains that he meant by this, “It is I who bring this to you, Esav is your firstborn.” Consequently his words were technically true although Yitzchak could only understand their simple meaning - that he was claiming to be Esav. This would seem to strongly question the premise that has been thus far established. My Rebbi, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that Yaakov’s deft wording in and of itself did not justify lying to Yitzchak. Rather, the commentaries explain that Yaakov was justified in deceiving Esav because Esav himself was a trickster and it is allowed to use deceit in order to overcome a deceitful person . Why then did Yaakov need to resort to the 'word games'? The Orchos Tzaddikim writes that even when it is permissible to lie it is still nonetheless preferable to say words that are technically true . As a consequence, Yaakov did not want to release false words from his lips.
Nonetheless we should not be mistaken into thinking that saying words that are technically true justifies misleading others when there is no valid justification to do so and it constitutes a clear violation of midvar sheker tirchak. It is very important to educate our children on this point so that they realize that the prohibition to lie is not avoided by clever wording . Moreover, it is necessary for us to clarify the gedarim of this easily misunderstood mitzvo. The Chinuch stresses that Hashem is a ‘G-d of Emes’ and that bracho only comes to a person who strives to emulate Hashem. May we all succeed in living lives of genuine emes.
Showing posts with label Mishpatim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mishpatim. Show all posts
Sunday, February 12, 2012
COMPLETE KINDNESS - MISHPATIM
In Parshas Mishpatim the Torah instructs us with regard to lending money to our fellow in need. The Torah states: "When you lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act toward him as a creditor; do not lay interest upon him. If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him. For it alone is his clothing, it is his garment for his skin - in what should he lie down? - so it will be if he cries out to Me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate. "
On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to chesed (kindness) from these passukim : This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:
"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the prohibition of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim (angels) in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.
"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.
Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us that one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo. Consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level and therefore is judged in a more lenient manner.
We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos . One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.
One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees, but the giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires. We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.
On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to chesed (kindness) from these passukim : This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:
"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the prohibition of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim (angels) in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.
"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.
Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us that one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo. Consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level and therefore is judged in a more lenient manner.
We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos . One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.
One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees, but the giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires. We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
COMPLETE KINDNESS - MISHPATIM
In Parshas Mishpatim the Torah instructs us with regard to lending money to our fellow in need. The Torah states: "When you lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act toward him as a creditor; do not lay interest upon him. If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him. For it alone is his clothing, it is his garment for his skin - in what should he lie down? - so it will be if he cries out to Me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate. "
On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to chesed (kindness) from these passukim : This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:
"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the prohibition of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim (angels) in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.
"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.
Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us that one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo. Consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level and therefore is judged in a more lenient manner.
We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos . One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.
One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees, but the giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires. We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.
On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to chesed (kindness) from these passukim : This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:
"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the prohibition of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim (angels) in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.
"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.
Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us that one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo. Consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level and therefore is judged in a more lenient manner.
We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos . One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.
One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees, but the giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires. We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
EMES AND SHEKER - MISHPATIM
“Distance yourself from falsehood.[1]”
It is well known that honesty is one of the most important midos and that it’s antithesis, falsehood, is one of the most undesirable. The Chinuch speaks very strongly about how disdainful it is to lie: “falsehood is abominable and disgraceful in everyone’s eyes, there is nothing more disgusting than it, and curses come to the home of those who love it.. Therefore the Torah exhorts us to greatly distance ourselves from falsehood, as it says, ’distance yourself from falsehood’[2]” He then explains that the Torah does not use the language of ‘distancing’ with regard to any other negative mitzvo which indicates its severity. Moreover, this teaches us that we should distance ourselves from even the slightest possibility of falsehood. Given the severity of lying, it is worthwhile to clarify what is included within the prohibition of ‘midvar sheker tirchak‘.
It is instructive to analyze the following scenario: Reuven owes Shimon money and the date for repayment has already passed. Shimon phones Reuven to request his money, but Reuven’s wife answers the phone. Reuven does not want to speak to Shimon but he also does not want his wife to lie and say that he is not home when he really is. Therefore Reuven steps just outside his house and instructs his wife to tell Shimon that Reuven is not home - this is technically true, Reuven is now not in the house, even though he could speak to Shimon if he so desired. One may think that this does not constitute falsehood because no false words were spoken. Is this indeed the case?
The Gemara in Nedarim discusses a case in which a man was owed some money so he brought the borrower before Rava’s Beis Din and said to him: “Pay me back.” The borrower responded: “I already paid you.”
Rava said to the borrower: “In that case, you must swear an oath that you have given him the money.”
The borrower went to get his cane, hid the money he owed inside its hollow, and leant on the cane as he returned to the courtroom. He said to the lender: “Hold this cane in your hand,” ostensibly in order to free his own hands to take hold of the Torah scroll. He then took a Torah scroll and swore that he had already given the money into the lender’s hand. The lender, incensed at the man’s chutzpah, broke the cane. Suddenly all the money inside spilled to the ground and it emerged that he had indeed sworn the technical truth!”
The borrower was obviously guilty of terrible midos but did he actually commit a genuine transgression?
The Gemara concludes that he did because an oath taker must adhere not only to the plain definition of his words, but also to the meaning they are meant to convey as well. Consequently, he was guilty of swearing falsely by taking an oath that was technically truthful but deceptive[3].
We learn from here that saying words that are technically true does not mean that a person can deceive others by saying true words with a misleading message. Therefore, it would seem that Reuven’s strategy of standing outside the house does not help avoid the transgression of ‘midvar sheker tirchak.” The words that he is not home may be true but the message is not - Shimon is not interested in the technical location of Reuven; he wants to know if Reuven is present so that Shimon can speak to him. Thus, by saying that he is not present is a misleading message. One may argue that the case in Nedarim was that of an oath, but that in day to day life, perhaps it is allowed to deceive others on condition that words we say are technically true.
The Gemara in Shevuos disproves this theory: The Gemara discusses a number of cases that involve a transgression of ‘midvar sheker tirchak’. One is the case where a talmid chacham claims that someone owes him money but he does not have any witnesses to support his claim. Accordingly he tells his talmid that the ‘borrower’ is clearly lying so he suggests a plan to influence the borrower to admit to the truth. He asks his talmid to come with him to court so that he would appear to be a witness to the loan. The borrower, seeing the prospective witness will realize that he can not escape from the truth and will admit that he does indeed owe the money. The Gemara says that the talmid transgresses, ‘midvar sheker tirchak’ by his actions[4]. In this case, the talmid did not even say anything - he merely walked in with his Rebbe and sent an unsaid message to the borrower that he was a witness to the loan. Moreover, in this case, there is no oath being taken and nevertheless it is an example of falsehood. This proves that even if a person does not even say anything but his actions imply a false metsius then he is considered to be lying. This is all the more so the case where a person says words that are technically true but are also misleading[5].
However, if we analyze one of the most famous incidents in the Torah it would seem that saying technically truthful words is allowed. When Yaakov Avinu pretends to be his brother, Esav, Yitzchak asks him for his identity and he answers, “I am Esav your firstborn.” Rashi explains that he meant by this, “It is I who bring this to you, Esav is your firstborn.” Consequently his words were technically true although Yitzchak could only understand their simple meaning - that he was claiming to be Esav. This would seem to strongly question the premise that has been thus far established. My Rebbi, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that Yaakov’s deft wording in and of itself did not justify lying to Yitzchak. Rather, the commentaries explain that Yaakov was justified in deceiving Esav because Esav himself was a trickster and it is allowed to use deceit in order to overcome a deceitful person[6]. Why then did Yaakov need to resort to the ’word games’? The Orchos Tzaddikim writes that even when it is permissible to lie it is still nonetheless preferable to say words that are technically true. As a consequence, Yaakov did not want to release false words from his lips.
Nonetheless we should not be mistaken into thinking that saying words that are technically true justifies misleading others when there is no valid justification to do so and it constitutes a clear violation of midvar sheker tirchak. It is very important to educate our children on this point so that they realize that the prohibition to lie is not avoided by clever wording[7]. Moreover, it is necessary for us to clarify the gedarim of this easily misunderstood mitzvo. The Chinuch stresses that Hashem is a ‘G-d of Emes’ and that bracho only comes to a person who strives to emulate Hashem. May we all succeed in living lives of genuine emes.
WHEN SHEKER IS EMES
The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a wedding where the chassan asks his friend of his opinion about the kallah. Beis Hillel argues that he should not say the brutal truth about the kallah, rather he should praise her even if he does not really believe in what he is saying. We learn from here there are times when it is permissible and even correct to lie. A friend recently pointed out to me one area in which there is a common tendency amongst people to be ‘honest’ in a situation where it would be kinder to hide the truth.
Very often a person may be telling over a dvar Torah, story or a piece of good news and he will be interrupted by the listener who proudly informs him that he has already heard it before. Consequently the speaker feel somewhat deflated that he was not able to share useful information. It would seem from the Gemara in Kesubos that it is permissible to lie in such a case and pretend that we have never heard this before, thereby enabling the speaker to derive pleasure from being the source of new information. Moreover, it would seem that one should lie in such an instance. There is a ‘maaseh rav’ that supports this argument. Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzensky zt”l was once in a meeting with other Rabbeim when a bachur suddenly came in and told him a piece of good news. Rav Chaim Ozer showed great joy and thanked th bachur for being the source of such good news. A few minutes later a different bachur entered and told over the same information, unaware that Rav Chaim Ozer had already been told. Nonetheless, Rav Chaim Ozer pretended that he had not heard it before and warmly thanked the bachur. This happened again a number of times. The Rabbeim with him asked him why he persisted in acting as if he had never heard the news. He explained that each bachur would gain great pleasure from being the person who could tell him this pleasant news and that it would deflate them if he would tell them that he already knew it. We learn from here that there are times when hiding the truth can be the right way to act.
[1] Mishpatim, 23:1.
[2] Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvo 74.
[3] Nedarim, 25a, based on the translation and explanation of Reb Howard Jackson Shlita.
[4] Shevuos, 30b.
[5] See also the Maharal’s explanation of the episode with Avraham and Sarah in which Hashem is meshaneh for darchay shalom. The Maharal explains that although Hashem’s words were technically true, Chazal nonetheless describe them as constituting a shinui because their message was misleading. (Vayeira, 18:13, Gur Aryeh, Os 40.
[6] See Emes Le Yaakov, Toldos, 27:12. It is important to be aware that this principle should not be used without prior clarification from a competent halachic authority. It is quite easy to be moreh heter and decide that anyone against us constitutes the kind of person that we are allowed to deceive.
[7] It is important to note that this concept also teaches that there are times when we may say words that are technically inaccurate but their message is not misleading. For example, in a place where weddings regularly start an hour later than the announced time, it does not constitutes sheker to call the chupa for 7.00pm even though it will really begin at 8.00pm. This is a delicate area in halacho and it is advisable to learn the details of ‘midvar sheker tirchak so that one can know what is permissible and forbidden.
It is well known that honesty is one of the most important midos and that it’s antithesis, falsehood, is one of the most undesirable. The Chinuch speaks very strongly about how disdainful it is to lie: “falsehood is abominable and disgraceful in everyone’s eyes, there is nothing more disgusting than it, and curses come to the home of those who love it.. Therefore the Torah exhorts us to greatly distance ourselves from falsehood, as it says, ’distance yourself from falsehood’[2]” He then explains that the Torah does not use the language of ‘distancing’ with regard to any other negative mitzvo which indicates its severity. Moreover, this teaches us that we should distance ourselves from even the slightest possibility of falsehood. Given the severity of lying, it is worthwhile to clarify what is included within the prohibition of ‘midvar sheker tirchak‘.
It is instructive to analyze the following scenario: Reuven owes Shimon money and the date for repayment has already passed. Shimon phones Reuven to request his money, but Reuven’s wife answers the phone. Reuven does not want to speak to Shimon but he also does not want his wife to lie and say that he is not home when he really is. Therefore Reuven steps just outside his house and instructs his wife to tell Shimon that Reuven is not home - this is technically true, Reuven is now not in the house, even though he could speak to Shimon if he so desired. One may think that this does not constitute falsehood because no false words were spoken. Is this indeed the case?
The Gemara in Nedarim discusses a case in which a man was owed some money so he brought the borrower before Rava’s Beis Din and said to him: “Pay me back.” The borrower responded: “I already paid you.”
Rava said to the borrower: “In that case, you must swear an oath that you have given him the money.”
The borrower went to get his cane, hid the money he owed inside its hollow, and leant on the cane as he returned to the courtroom. He said to the lender: “Hold this cane in your hand,” ostensibly in order to free his own hands to take hold of the Torah scroll. He then took a Torah scroll and swore that he had already given the money into the lender’s hand. The lender, incensed at the man’s chutzpah, broke the cane. Suddenly all the money inside spilled to the ground and it emerged that he had indeed sworn the technical truth!”
The borrower was obviously guilty of terrible midos but did he actually commit a genuine transgression?
The Gemara concludes that he did because an oath taker must adhere not only to the plain definition of his words, but also to the meaning they are meant to convey as well. Consequently, he was guilty of swearing falsely by taking an oath that was technically truthful but deceptive[3].
We learn from here that saying words that are technically true does not mean that a person can deceive others by saying true words with a misleading message. Therefore, it would seem that Reuven’s strategy of standing outside the house does not help avoid the transgression of ‘midvar sheker tirchak.” The words that he is not home may be true but the message is not - Shimon is not interested in the technical location of Reuven; he wants to know if Reuven is present so that Shimon can speak to him. Thus, by saying that he is not present is a misleading message. One may argue that the case in Nedarim was that of an oath, but that in day to day life, perhaps it is allowed to deceive others on condition that words we say are technically true.
The Gemara in Shevuos disproves this theory: The Gemara discusses a number of cases that involve a transgression of ‘midvar sheker tirchak’. One is the case where a talmid chacham claims that someone owes him money but he does not have any witnesses to support his claim. Accordingly he tells his talmid that the ‘borrower’ is clearly lying so he suggests a plan to influence the borrower to admit to the truth. He asks his talmid to come with him to court so that he would appear to be a witness to the loan. The borrower, seeing the prospective witness will realize that he can not escape from the truth and will admit that he does indeed owe the money. The Gemara says that the talmid transgresses, ‘midvar sheker tirchak’ by his actions[4]. In this case, the talmid did not even say anything - he merely walked in with his Rebbe and sent an unsaid message to the borrower that he was a witness to the loan. Moreover, in this case, there is no oath being taken and nevertheless it is an example of falsehood. This proves that even if a person does not even say anything but his actions imply a false metsius then he is considered to be lying. This is all the more so the case where a person says words that are technically true but are also misleading[5].
However, if we analyze one of the most famous incidents in the Torah it would seem that saying technically truthful words is allowed. When Yaakov Avinu pretends to be his brother, Esav, Yitzchak asks him for his identity and he answers, “I am Esav your firstborn.” Rashi explains that he meant by this, “It is I who bring this to you, Esav is your firstborn.” Consequently his words were technically true although Yitzchak could only understand their simple meaning - that he was claiming to be Esav. This would seem to strongly question the premise that has been thus far established. My Rebbi, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that Yaakov’s deft wording in and of itself did not justify lying to Yitzchak. Rather, the commentaries explain that Yaakov was justified in deceiving Esav because Esav himself was a trickster and it is allowed to use deceit in order to overcome a deceitful person[6]. Why then did Yaakov need to resort to the ’word games’? The Orchos Tzaddikim writes that even when it is permissible to lie it is still nonetheless preferable to say words that are technically true. As a consequence, Yaakov did not want to release false words from his lips.
Nonetheless we should not be mistaken into thinking that saying words that are technically true justifies misleading others when there is no valid justification to do so and it constitutes a clear violation of midvar sheker tirchak. It is very important to educate our children on this point so that they realize that the prohibition to lie is not avoided by clever wording[7]. Moreover, it is necessary for us to clarify the gedarim of this easily misunderstood mitzvo. The Chinuch stresses that Hashem is a ‘G-d of Emes’ and that bracho only comes to a person who strives to emulate Hashem. May we all succeed in living lives of genuine emes.
WHEN SHEKER IS EMES
The Gemara in Kesubos discusses the case of a wedding where the chassan asks his friend of his opinion about the kallah. Beis Hillel argues that he should not say the brutal truth about the kallah, rather he should praise her even if he does not really believe in what he is saying. We learn from here there are times when it is permissible and even correct to lie. A friend recently pointed out to me one area in which there is a common tendency amongst people to be ‘honest’ in a situation where it would be kinder to hide the truth.
Very often a person may be telling over a dvar Torah, story or a piece of good news and he will be interrupted by the listener who proudly informs him that he has already heard it before. Consequently the speaker feel somewhat deflated that he was not able to share useful information. It would seem from the Gemara in Kesubos that it is permissible to lie in such a case and pretend that we have never heard this before, thereby enabling the speaker to derive pleasure from being the source of new information. Moreover, it would seem that one should lie in such an instance. There is a ‘maaseh rav’ that supports this argument. Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzensky zt”l was once in a meeting with other Rabbeim when a bachur suddenly came in and told him a piece of good news. Rav Chaim Ozer showed great joy and thanked th bachur for being the source of such good news. A few minutes later a different bachur entered and told over the same information, unaware that Rav Chaim Ozer had already been told. Nonetheless, Rav Chaim Ozer pretended that he had not heard it before and warmly thanked the bachur. This happened again a number of times. The Rabbeim with him asked him why he persisted in acting as if he had never heard the news. He explained that each bachur would gain great pleasure from being the person who could tell him this pleasant news and that it would deflate them if he would tell them that he already knew it. We learn from here that there are times when hiding the truth can be the right way to act.
[1] Mishpatim, 23:1.
[2] Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvo 74.
[3] Nedarim, 25a, based on the translation and explanation of Reb Howard Jackson Shlita.
[4] Shevuos, 30b.
[5] See also the Maharal’s explanation of the episode with Avraham and Sarah in which Hashem is meshaneh for darchay shalom. The Maharal explains that although Hashem’s words were technically true, Chazal nonetheless describe them as constituting a shinui because their message was misleading. (Vayeira, 18:13, Gur Aryeh, Os 40.
[6] See Emes Le Yaakov, Toldos, 27:12. It is important to be aware that this principle should not be used without prior clarification from a competent halachic authority. It is quite easy to be moreh heter and decide that anyone against us constitutes the kind of person that we are allowed to deceive.
[7] It is important to note that this concept also teaches that there are times when we may say words that are technically inaccurate but their message is not misleading. For example, in a place where weddings regularly start an hour later than the announced time, it does not constitutes sheker to call the chupa for 7.00pm even though it will really begin at 8.00pm. This is a delicate area in halacho and it is advisable to learn the details of ‘midvar sheker tirchak so that one can know what is permissible and forbidden.
CHESED B'SHLEIMUS - MISHPATIM
In Parshas Mishpatim the Torah instructs us with regard to lending money to our fellow in need. The Torah states: "When you lend money to My people, to the poor person who is with you, do not act toward him as a creditor; do not lay interest upon him. If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him. For it alone is his clothing, it is his garment for his skin - in what should he lie down? - so it will be if he cries out to Me, I shall listen, for I am compassionate.[1]"
On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to the chesed from these passukim[2]: This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:
"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the issur of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.
"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.
Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely[3] - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us a big chiddush; one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo, consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level an therefore is judged in a more lenient manner according.
We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos[4]. One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.
One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees but he giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires.
We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.
[1] Mishpatim, 22:24-26.
[2] Sichos Mussar, p.191-197.
[3] The Gemara cites the example of Yehuda who began the Mitzvo if saving Yosef but did not complete it - he was punished by losing his wife and two sons!
[4] Bava Basra, 9b.
On superficial analysis these Mitzvos seem to be fairly straightforward and easy to understand, however Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l derives a very important insight about the Torah's attitude to the chesed from these passukim[2]: This passage is dealing with a person who fulfills the great kindness of helping his friend by lending him money, and yet the Torah gives him a number of Mitzvos to ensure that he perform this chesed in the most optimum way and not diminish its effect. It is instructive to analyze these passukim more carefully to note their common theme:
"Do not act toward him as a creditor." Rashi, based on the Mechilta, explains that this means that if the lender knows that the borrower is, at present, unable to pay back the loan, then the lender should not make him feel pressured about it, rather he should behave as if the loan never took place, so as not to embarrass the borrower. "Do not lay interest upon him." This refers to the issur of lending money with interest (ribbis). Rav Shmuelevitz brings a number of Maamrei Chazal that emphasize the seriousness of lending with interest; for example he brings a Medrash that for every sin there are Malachim in shamayim who try to find a merit for the sinner, the one exception to this case being that of ribbis. Rav Shmuelievitz points out that the severity for lending with interest is difficult to understand. It is clear that even one who lends with a small amount of interest, is doing a great chesed to the borrower who is in urgent need of money immediately and is prepared to pay the extra interest at a later date. Nonetheless the Torah treats this person very strictly.
"If you take your fellow's garment as security until sunset, you shall return it to him." When the borrower is unable to pay back the loan the lender is permitted to take his personal items as collateral to ensure payment of the loan. However, he must return the items when they are needed by the borrower. For example, clothing is needed in the daytime, therefore the lender may only keep it in the night and must return it in the day so that the borrower can use it. This law seems to nullify the whole function of collateral, for if the borrower can still use it when he needs it, he will be far less motivated to pay back the loan. Nonetheless, the Torah demands that the lender respect the borrower's basic needs.
Rav Shmuelevitz explains that the common denominator of these laws is that they stress the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible, without lessening the effect of the chesed. Consequently, even though it is a great Mitzvo to lend someone money, the lender must be extremely careful not to diminish the effect of his kindness through pressuring the borrower in any fashion. Rav Shmuelevitz says further that the greater a person's appreciation of the importance of chesed, the more strictly he is treated when he fails to act according to his recognition. Thus, one who lends and yet charges interest, is treated particularly harshly because he appreciates the value of helping the borrower, and nonetheless he chooses to charge him with interest.
Rav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita derives a similar lesson from a very puzzling Gemara. The Gemara says that a person who begins a Mitzvo but does not complete is, is punished very severely[3] - this seems difficult to understand - there is no such punishment for one who does not perform a Mitzvo at all, and yet one who at least begins a Mitzvo is punished so badly! Rav Sternbuch answers that this Gemara teaches us a big chiddush; one who starts a Mitzvo demonstrates that he has an appreciation of the value of the Mitzvo, consequently, if he fails to complete it, he is treated more harshly because of his heightened appreciation of the need for the Mitzvo. In contrast, one who does not even begin the Mitzvo is not punished because he is on a lower level an therefore is judged in a more lenient manner according.
We learn from the Mitzvos relating to lending money that when a person is doing a chesed for his fellow it is essential that he strive to maximize the positive effect of his chesed and not let it be tainted in any way. This applies in many instances in our daily lives; very often a person is approached to do some kind of favor; he may agree to do it, but with a reluctance that makes the person in need feel uncomfortable about inconveniencing him. Rather, the giver should strive to be as positive as possible about helping his friend. This greatly enhances the actual positive benefit at results, because, as well as being helped, the person in need is not made to feel guilty about his request. Similarly when one gives tzedoko he can do it with a smile or with a sour face. Chazal tell us that one who gives with simcha, receives no less than 17 brachos for his Mitzvo, whereas one who gives unenthusiastically only receives 6 brachos[4]. One does a chesed with a lack of enthusiasm greatly diminishes the effect of his kindness.
One final example is when one asks someone else to do a chesed in a particular way and he agrees but he giver may not take care to do it according to the requirements of the one in need. For example, a wife may ask her husband to clean the house of the mess that has accumulated. He may well have a different conception of a 'tidy' house from that of his wife and only tidy up according to his assessment of what is required. In truth, however, he knows that his wife would like him to clear up according to her level of tidiness. In order to do this chesed properly he should strive to do it in the manner that she requires.
We have seen that the Mitzvos with regard to lending teach us the importance of doing chesed in as complete a manner as possible. May we all merit to help others in the most effective way possible.
[1] Mishpatim, 22:24-26.
[2] Sichos Mussar, p.191-197.
[3] The Gemara cites the example of Yehuda who began the Mitzvo if saving Yosef but did not complete it - he was punished by losing his wife and two sons!
[4] Bava Basra, 9b.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
