[Avodah] Keeping Well Away From Sheker

[Chana Luntz]

Apologies all - for some reason my email program decided to send my reply to
this when I was only part way through (and hadn't deleted the parts of the
digest below) - and RMB approved it without being aware I was only part the
way through. So please ignore the previous posting and look at this one
instead.

RMGR writes:

<Shavuos 31A
A student whose teacher said to him: You know I can be trusted with even
millions of dollars - I need your help because Peloni owes me $10,000 but I
have only one witness so I can only compel him to make an oath but I am
afraid he will make a false oath. So, not only will I not get my money but I
will have caused him to lie and make a false oath. You can help me by coming
to the Beis Din - you will not provide testimony, Heaven forbid - but by
creating the impression that I have two witnesses the defendant will admit
the truth and we will be able to come to terms and resolve this matter. This
will be a Win WIn situation.
This is prohibited, as per the Passuk: ?Distance yourself from a false
matter.?
This is Paskened by the Tur and ShA ChM 28m Rama I assume this means that if
one?s boss wants his workers to support him in a claim against a poor
performing or even derelict worker, which they, the co-workers, are in fact
unable to corroborate other than by relying on the sterling character of the
boss who they know very well and trust implicitly, who might also be their
father uncle or brother, and this worker is difficult to sack because he is
protected by union workplace regulations etc., they are not permitted to
indicate in any way their support of their boss in this dispute even if this
will just prompt the derelict worker to admit and accept the severance
package offered by the boss.
I ask this because a Rov suggested the cases are not identical>>

I confess that seems the way to me too.  As you have described it, the cases
do not seem to me to be the same thing at all. The case in Shavuos 31a and
the Shulchan Aruch is where he is creating a false impression for his bal
plugta - if anything it is a form of geneivas daas - he is deliberately
making the bal plugta think he has two witnesses when in fact he doesn't.
Whereas the case you have described is nothing of the kind.  Nobody is
deceiving the bal plugta.  All the co-workers are doing are testifying as to
the extent to which they have found the boss to be honest, ie giving him a
character reference.  Obviously they cannot say they have found the worker
poor performing or derelict when they haven't, that indeed would be a breach
of m'dvar sheker (or maybe in fact giving false testimony).  But nothing you
have said indicates to me that by coming and testifying as to the character
of the boss they are giving the co-worker any form of false impression.  

<< and that in general [his example] if a Yeshivah or Kollel is in dispute
with a member or associate, the students and Chavei Kollel are allowed to
express their support for the institution as long as they do not expressly
condemn the Bar Plugta, notwithstanding that their statement or expressed
support indicates that they believe the institution is correct and the other
party is wrong.>>

In fact, I can't see why they can't do that either.  There doesn't seem
anything wrong in saying that they have worked with the boss and his
character has always seemed to them exemplary and totally honest, and they
don't know the co-worker well enough to say the same about him, so naturally
they tend to believe the boss.  They can't make up stories about the
co-worker if they have no idea, but they can say what they think.  This is
not a halachic situation where you need two witnesses or one witness and an
oath, and character references don't come into it.  Unlike the Shevuot case,
where the only point of being there standing with the one real eid is if one
has eidus too.

<<Another related issue is that Shlomo HaMelech, in suggesting he would cut
the baby in half, seems to be in violation of this Passuk and the Gemara
that prohibits creating a fake situation to encourage or frighten the
litigant to admit and concede the truth.>>

There are lots of cases in halacha where there is a conflict between truth
and some other value - such as shalom - and it is accepted that truth is
allowed to bend, despite the pasuk - that is precisely Beit Shammai's
objection to kala naeh v'chassida - what if she isn't.  And Beit Hillel's
retort that one is allowed to effectively lie and tell someone they have got
a great bargain from the marketplace when they haven't.  Also this of Aharon
and making peace, and Ya'akov's effective lie/misrepresentation to Yitzchak.
The discussions go on and on.  This is an interesting one, as it is not one
of the classics discussed - but then, Shlomo haMelech would presumably have
been dispensing din Melech, not halacha (that was for the Sanhedrin) so it
might be closer to ensuring the shalom of the realm. 

>Meir G. Rabi

Regards

Chana