X hits on this document

Word document






52 / 157

embarrassed by an erroneous halakhic ruling he had made. In order to cover up his shame, he consciously fabricated a legal decision by his mentor Rava in support of his position, which he knew to be wrong (Cf. Tosafot, Rosh and Nimukei Yosef, s.v. Garsinan,” ad loc.)! Rashi, Avoda Zara 58a, s.v. demei” (cf. Tosafot, ad. loc., s.v. Ikla”) indicates that Rava, too, presumably lied about a previous ruling to cover his shame. R. Levi Ibn Haviv, Resp. Maharalbah, sec. 147, s.v. u-bar min dein” [Lemberg, 1865; p. 59 column 4], citing Rashi, suggests that such misrepresentations of halakha are permitted, to avoid shame. See also R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, Birkei Yosef, H.M. sec. 12, no. 12; R. Elijah David Rabinowitz-Teomim, Resp. Ma’aneh Eliyahu, sec. 5; R. Malachi haKohen, Yad Malakhi, Kelal 663, pp. 168b-169b; Sedei Hemed, Kelalim, Khaf, no. 8; and Shin, no. 28; Sefer Beit Aharon, III (Brooklyn NY: Deutsch Printing and Publishing, 1955), kelal Omer Davar beShem Omro,” siman 17, pp. 416ff. Interestingly, R. Abraham Isaac haKohen Kook, Igrot haRe’iya, II, no. 694 (28 Sivan 5674), and R. Elijah David Rabinowitz-Teomim, ibid., suggest creative explanations, such that no misrepresentation of halakha was involved. See also R. Abraham David Horowitz, Resp. Kinyan Torah beHalakha, VII, Y.D. sec. 74, no. 3.

(c) Likewise, the Talmud in Berakhot 27b records that R. Joshua lied about his position regarding the obligation to recite ma’ariv so as not to publicly contradict R. Gamliel, the Nasi. A similar situation occurred between R. Nahman and Ula (Bava Kama 12a). R. David haKohen Sakali, Resp. Kiryat Hana David, I, Hiddushim veLikutim, sec. 37, no. 2, and R. Ezekiel Landau, Tsiyyun leNefesh Haya, Berakhot 27b, end of s.v. “Amad,” record such misrepresentations as perfectly legitimate—even though there was little more than a bit of unpleasantness and honor at stake. See, however, R. Joseph Hayyim, Ben Yehoyada, Berakhot 27b and Resp. Aderet Tiferet, note 123. As to why the issue of lying per se (“mi-dvar sheker tirhak”) is not an issur, see R. Chaim Kanievsky, Masekhet Kutim 1:14, Me-taher note 30. See also infra, Addendum, Part 6.

(d) The Talmud in Berakhot 63a further recounts that the Israeli court, in an attempt to reassert its sole authority in determining the calendar, sent two young scholars to Babylonia to R. Hanina, who persisted in fixing the length of years and months. To undermine the authority of R. Hanina, these young colleagues forbade that which he permitted and permitted that which he forbade. Many authorities maintain that the young scholars paskened falsely and purposely misrepresented halakha to this end. See R. Menahem Azarya de Fano, Resp. Rama miFano, end of sec. 108, s.v. ve-anahnu”; R. Samuel Eliezer Edels, Hidushei haMaharsha, ad loc.; R. Hayyim Palagi, Hafeits Hayyim, sec. 19, no. 22; R. Hayyim ben

Document info
Document views169
Page views170
Page last viewedFri Oct 21 15:07:14 UTC 2016