X hits on this document

Word document

NOT FOR CIRCULATION WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED - page 63 / 157

353 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

63 / 157

ibid.; R. Chayim Hirschensohn. ibid.; and R. Joseph Elijah Henkin, ibid. In Darkei Hora’a, ibid., R. Chajes specifically takes issue with the contention of R. Moses Sofer (responsum to R. Chajes published in Darkei Hora’a, ibid. and surprisingly absent from Resp. Hatam Sofer) that one may “strengthen” a biblical prohibition which is based only upon a negative commandment by claiming that it also violates a positive commandment. [Regarding the view of R. Sofer, see: Jacob Katz, haHalakha beMetsar (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 5752), p. 79, and notes 27 and 29; also Jacob Katz, Halakha veKabbala (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 5744), pp. 377-8.] Other authorities, though, agree with Hatam Sofer provided there will be no practical halakhic consequence (e.g., no new obligation of lashes). Under such conditions, these scholars maintain that one may even upgrade a rabbinic prohibition to a biblical one. See Resp. Rashba, I, sec. 43; the commentary of R. Elijah Mizrahi to Exodus 12:16, s.v.Afilu al yedei aherim” at end; R. Moses haKohen Ashkenazi, cited in Birkei Yosef, ibid.; Taharat haMayyim, Ma’arekhet Het, no. 42; R. Aron Maged, Sefer Beit Aharon, VII, s.v.Ein le-esor ha-mutar,” sec. 4, pp. 576-577. According to R. Meir Dan Plotski of Ostrova, Klei Hemda al Moa’dei haShana, I, Rosh haShana, sec. 13, only the promulgation of a new rabbinic ordinance in the guise of a biblical one violates bal tosif; but not the upgrading of an old rabbinic ordinance. In any case, should a new obligation of lashes result from the upgrading, then bal tosif may well have been violated; see Sedei Hemed, Pe’at haSade, Ma’arekhet haAleph, no. 75. We note in passing that R. Sofer’s position is somewhat surprising in light of his own strong stance elsewhere against all forms of lying; see Resp. Hatam Sofer, VI, sec. 59. Even in cases where the lying is permitted to maintain peace (“me-shanim mi-penei ha-shalom,” Yevamot 65b), R. Sofer, citing the commentary of Nahmanides to Genesis 18:13, allows only ‘halving’ truths, not outright lying. In this regard , see also R. Zerah Warhaftig, Perushim al haTorah, Or haMizrah, 48:3-4 (Nissan 5763), pp. 109-118 – see especially p. 111 s.v Avikha tsiva. Cf. Addendum, Part 6.

Part 6: Misrepresenting Halakha May Violate the Prohibition of Lying.

The issue of lying has arisen at several points in this paper, in particular with reference to ziyyuf haTorah and misrepresentation of halakha; see text at notes 124 and 228. For general halakhic discussions of the prohibition of lying and possible exceptions, see R. Hayyim Palagi, HeHafeits Hayyim, sec. 19, “Devar Emet”; Sedei Hemed, Kelalim, Khaf, no. 8 and Shin, nos. 27-28; R. Reuben Margaliot, “Shetika leHakhamim,” in Azkara (volumes of remembrance to R. Abraham Isaac haKohen Kook), ed. R. Judah Leib haKohen Fishman (Maimon), III, (Jerusalem: Mossad haRav Kook, 5749), pp. 211-220—reprinted in R. Reuben

Document info
Document views353
Page views354
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 17:03:48 UTC 2016
Pages157
Paragraphs741
Words67521

Comments