[Avodah] Keeping Well Away From Sheker

[Rabbi Meir G. Rabi]

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.htm>