העורך Editor

Or what is the source in the Torah forbidding Jews from uttering lies?

It’s commonly assumed lying is forbidden from the verse מדבר שקר תרחק, and so hold Semag (Asin 107) and Semak (226). Chafetz Chaim’s foreword to the Laws of Lashon Hara says so too, but he doesn’t supply proof. But perhaps the verse refers, as it seems from context, only to Dinim and Dayanim:

לא תטה משפט אבינך בריבו. מדבר שקר תרחק ונקי וצדיק אל תהרג כי לא אצדיק רשע. ושחד לא תקח כי השחד יעור פקחים ויסלף דברי צדיקים.

It is at least debatable if there are Torah laws against pride and anger, too (contemporary Mussar books discuss this).

Rabbi Yerucham Fishel Perle on Rabbenu Sa’adya Gaon (Aseh 22) writes:

… ומעתה מה שתמה הרשב”ץ ז”ל איך אפשר שלא יהי’ לנו מ”ע בדבור אמת לא ידענא מקום קושיא כלל. דודאי בדברים שבין אדם לחבירו יש לנו כמה אזהרות בתורה. בדיינים כתיב מדבר שקר תרחק. ובעדים כתיב לאו דלא תענה וגו’. ובאונאת דברים כתיב לא תונו. ובגניבת הדעת כתיב לא תגנבו וכתיב לא תכחשו ולא תשקרו איש בעמיתו. אבל בדברי שקר זולת זה שהם פטומי מילי בעלמא. אף דמדה מגונה ודבר גנאי הוא לדבר בם. מכל מקום על כל פנים לית בהו איסורא מן התורה כלל. ואפילו מדרבנן נראה דלא אסרום. כמו שנתבאר. ואם כן אין כאן שום גמגום על מוני המצות שלא מנו עשה זו דמדבר שקר תרחק. דלא קאי אלא אדיינים.

Kesubos 17a is not clear proof, see Tosafos there, but lies seem included in “Devarim Beteilim”, just like Leitzanus.

Unfinished.

If you enjoyed the “Practical Guide to Speaking with an Atheist“, please ask your friends to subscribe, so they can enjoy it, too!

(And don’t forget to speed things up with a separate email.)

Sincerely,

The Editor

See Chiddushim Ubiurim on Beitza 15b “ואם הותיר”. And see there 18b from the Mishna in Shabbos, “ואם נתרפא נתרפא”.

Whenever Mashgichim (and those influenced by them) speak of past generations’ sins (which are numerous and mentioned everywhere), there is the tired, obligatory disclaimer:

Just as the pluperfect Roshei Yeshivos of old would tell our perfect teachers who in turn would tell us when we were sitting in your place a thousand times, and as we have bored you with a million times, we are not, in fact, discussing the students of Rabbi Akiva or the Shevatim. We are speaking to and of ourselves, handily using them כאדם שמקלל עצמו ותולה קללתו באחרים. And we aren’t speaking of Biblical personalities, but repeating Chazal, who teach us the ways of life; they too merely using our inherently perfect primogenitors as poor paradigms.

So, to drill deeper, when we mention these angels’ names, we refer not to the discarnate giants themselves, Tzaddik forfend, but to these Platonic Ideals made flesh elsewhere, in lesser, fallen specimens; those who do, in fact, you know… SIN.

Is it clear yet, or should I say it once more, for those who only perk up the third time a thing is said?

Ugh. The end.

While, indeed, the Torah’s message is central, not the facts employed (and the same, as Yeshayahu Leibowitz said, goes for the science), the message itself includes that humans tend to sin, with some degree of malice – all of them. Even if they didn’t sin today, they sinned yesterday, and עברה גוררת עברה, slight Meizid leads to some large Shogeg. The very greatness of the individuals amplifies the lesson we cannot rely on ourselves and must be forever vigilant and precede prayer to escape the evil inclination.

And we cannot relate to angels, so we cannot learn anything at all from them if they are “angels”, and us “donkey” shadows.

No matter how much the sin is “explained” (the person had good intentions, etc.), even if this is the case, there must still be some degree of sinfulness remaining, otherwise, why is it mentioned against them, and/or why were they punished? (And don’t we, too, often have good intentions? Except, we are partially deceiving ourselves beneath the ingenious justifications, the same way they did.)

The big problem is, this Mussar nonsense prevents us from improving upon the past…!

In our own lives, we understand decision-making can only be performed by those individuals paying the price for those decisions’ results. It is only when it comes to the state, this axiom vanishes.

Grandparents, for example. If the father decides to punish his son by withholding his father’s presence and/or presents from his son, grandpa has no say in the matter, and not only due to Chinuch obligations. Who potentially pays the price of a spoiled child, father or grandfather?!

In the family, this is clear (although this is harder for people with an authoritarian streak to live by). This is clear, too, when it comes to allowing the US or UN or people abroad generally to interfere with the internal governance of foreign states (such as US Jews in Israeli matters).

So why is it any less clear the state has no right to educate my child, for instance? Unlike private owners, who win or lose based on results, the government’s thugs pay virtually no price in any arena, ergo they ought to get no say on any question, including energy, roads, security, diplomacy, arbitration, etc.

Thomas Sowell: “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

In other words, the very notion of distant government is absurd.