On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 9:46 PM, <a href="mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com">kennethgmiller@juno.com</a> <<a href="mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com">kennethgmiller@juno.com</a>> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
</div>I suspect that the answer will vary depending on the specific situation. We are not necessarily opposed to "doing away with human intervention", but rather that some situations have rules which must be followed. And in some situaitons, those rules are more flexible than in other situations.<br>
<br>
To put it another way: No, our ultimate goal is emphatically NOT to uncover the "truth". Rather our goal is to follow the rules, wherever they may take us.<br>
<br>
My evidence of this is that there are many situations where the Beis Din is obligated to ignore certain testimony, even though that testimony could be critical in determining the truth. There are many people, for example, who are disqualified from being witnesses, even though their words might contain the information needed to rescue the falsley accused, or to punish the not-yet-caught. Some might say that the Beis Din does have the authority to listen to such testimony for the purpose of exonarating an innocent person (or maybe they do not have such authority, I really don't know) -- but I doubt very much that under normal circumstances Beis Din would be allowed to punish someone based on the testimony of someone whose edus is passul.<br>
<br><br>
Akiva Miller</blockquote></div><br>AIUI, we do not follow "TRUTH" when it would lead to harm. Rav Chessed v'emes implies that Chessed precedes [and perhaps supercedes] emes. Thus we do not always chekc for nega'im [e.g. on chulo Shel Mo'ed or for a chassan] as an act of Chessed [at least that is how I see it]<br>
<br>That does not mean we deny truth, rather we intentionally IGNORE it at times.<br><br>Lemashal: Surry and Yitzi are sister and brother. Each accuse each other of breaking Ima's favorite serving platter. Ima and Abba IGNORE the facts of who started it in order to quell the fight and sibling rivalry. The truth is not so much denied, but set aside for a higher purpsoe- in this case Shalom Bayyis between the siblings <br>
<br>Thus Akiva is correct in that truth is not always the highest calling. I guess Din, Emes v'Shalom need to be balanced ina a kind of triangular or pyramid way.<br><br>That said, I think it is wrong to make up stories or rationalizations to explain away difficulties in understanding. Sometimes it is important to say: "From a purely objective level it should be X but for practical or spiritual reasons we have chosen Y instead. " I hate to see Torah and Yiddishkeit reduced to playing fast and loose with the facts.<br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>