[Avodah] Your Father Instructed that You Must Forgive Us

[Micha Berger]

R' Jonathan Sacks' take on the subject. It doesn't answer the question,
but I figured that if people were interested in the topic, it might
appeal.

-micha

Covenant And Conversation
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
Office of the Chief Rabbi

The White Lie

Is it permitted to tell a white lie? If a murderer is at large,
brandishing a gun, and his intended victim takes refuge in your house,
are you obligated to tell the truth when the would-be killer knocks on
your door and asks, "Is he here"? Immanuel Kant, the greatest philosopher
of modern times, said Yes. We should always tell the truth, whatever
the circumstances and consequences. Judaism says No. Not only is it
permitted to tell a white lie to save a life. It is also permitted to
do so for the sake of peace.

The sages derived this from two episodes, one in this week's sedra. Jacob
has died. The brothers fear that Joseph will now take revenge for the
fact that they sold him into slavery. They devise a stratagem:

"They sent word to Joseph, saying, 'Your father left these instructions
before he died: 'This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to
forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating
you so badly.' Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the G-d
of your father.' When their message came to him, Joseph wept."

There is no evidence that Jacob ever said the words attributed to him. The
sages therefore assumed that what the brothers said was a lie. They
concluded that "It is permitted to change [to tell a white lie] for the
sake of peace." They derived the same principle from a second source
as well.

When three visitors came to Abraham in his old age and said that in a
year's time Sarah would have a child, Sarah laughed, saying to herself:
"After I am worn out and my husband is old, will I now have this
pleasure?" G-d tells Abraham that Sarah disbelieves: "Why did Sarah laugh
and say, 'Will I really have a child, now that I am old?'" Tactfully,
He omits reference to Sarah's remark about her husband being old. This
too served the sages as proof of the rule.

Both sources are necessary. If we only had the evidence of Joseph's
brothers, we could not infer that what they did was right. Perhaps they
were wrong to lie. And if we only had the evidence of G-d's words to
Abraham, we could only infer that a half-truth is permitted [G-d does
not say anything false; He merely omits some of Sarah's words], not an
actual falsehood. Putting them together, the rule is established. Peace
takes precedence over truth.

To understand a civilization, it is necessary not only to know
the values and virtues it embraces, but also the order of priority
among them. Many cultures value freedom and equality. The difficult
question is: which takes precedence? Communism values equality more than
freedom. Laissez-faire capitalism values freedom more than equality. They
share the same ideals, but because they assign them different places in
the ethical hierarchy, they result in completely different societies.

Truth and truthfulness are fundamental values in Judaism. We call the
Torah "the law of truth." The sages called truth the signature of G-d. Yet
truth is not the highest value in Judaism. Peace is. Why so? For this,
there are two reasons.

The first is the extraordinary value Judaism attributes to peace. The
nineteenth century historian, Sir Henry Sumner Maine, said: "War is as old
as mankind. Peace is a modern invention." He had much evidence to support
him. Virtually every culture until modern times was militaristic. Heroes
were mighty men of valour who fought and often died on the field of
battle. Legends were about great victories in war. Conflict (between the
gods, or the elements, or the children of light against the children of
darkness) was written into the human script.

Against this, the prophets of ancient Israel were the first people
in history to see peace as an ideal. That is why the words of Isaiah,
echoed by Micah, have never lost their power:

"He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many
peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears
into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor
will they train for war anymore."

This vision of a world at peace was not centuries but millennia ahead
of its time.

At the same time, Judaism took a more subtle view of truth than did
the philosophers of antiquity. In logic, a sentence is either true or
false. There is no third alternative. In Judaism, by contrast, truth
is many-faceted and elusive. Of the disputes between the schools of
Hillel and Shammai, the Talmud says, "These and those are the words
of the living G-d." Some believe that, though now the law is in accord
with the school of Hillel, in the Messianic Age it will follow the view
of Shammai. Ultimate truth forever eludes us. Maimonides held that we
can only know what G-d is not; not what He is. "If I could know G-d,"
said one sage, "I would be G-d."

There is such a thing as truth in the eye of the beholder. The school
of Hillel held that one should always say at a wedding, "The bride is
beautiful and gracious." But what if she isn't, asked Shammai? Will you
tell a lie? In the eyes of her husband, she is beautiful, answered Hillel.

Truth matters, but peace matters more. That is Judaism's considered
judgement. Many of the greatest crimes in history were committed by
those who believed they were in possession of the truth while their
opponents were sunk in error. To make peace between husband and wife
(Abraham and Sarah) and between brothers (Joseph and Jacob's other
sons) the Torah sanctions a statement that is less than the whole
truth. Dishonesty? No. Tact, sensitivity, discretion? Yes. That is an
idea both eminently sensible and humane.