(c) Apr 18 2001 RashiYomi Inc. MY COLLECTED & INDEXED MAIL JEWISH POSTINGS-Ver #1
Individual Postings 1st appeared(& were copied in html form) on the Email List Mail Jewish

From: rhendel@mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 19:38:58 -0400
Subject: Truth and History

Both Meir Shinar and Chana Luntz raise interesting points in Vol27n1 on
whether history should be given in full detail or have deliberate
omissions and coverups--the main purpose being avoidance of Leshon
Harah.

I would like to supplement this discussion with 3 halachic categories
which may give a framework into which these comments fit:

* The Biblical commandment(s) against LaShon Harah (Bad Talk, Slander)
are well known (e.g. Deut 24:9, Lev19:16).  By contrast there is no
explicit Biblical commandment against lying EXCEPT in Judicial matters
(e.g. Ex 20:7, Ex 23:1, Ex 23:7, Ex 23:8).

True there is a commandment to IMITATE G-D--just as he is truthful so
should we be--but the real Biblical emphasis is on avoiding slander not
on telling truth. Indeed, the Talmud notes that G-d Himself 'lied' to
avoid hurting someone elses feelings( Cf Gen 15: 12 vs 13---G-d omitted
Sarah's statement 'He (My husband) is old..how can we have children').

In fact I once heard the Rav, Rabbi Soloveitchick, contrast Judaic
values with Kantian ones: "In philosophy, truth is THE ideal. By
contrast Judiasm has a concept of lying for the sake of Peace" Indeed
Peace is one of G-d's names while Truth is only his seal.

So my first point is that Peace and avoiding slander are the important
moral norms to us not Truth.

* My second point is that there is one place where Truth is important..
in Judicial process. I once heard Rabbi Berman ask the Rav after a
Gemarrah Shiur, "But Rabbi Solveitchick, if most Jewish court cases are
settled by compromise then why should we emphasize the Code of Law (The
shulchan Aruch)." The Rav Responded, "Because a judge shouldn't effect a
compromise till he knows the true verdict--the compromise must be built
around truth".

* My third point is that based on Ex 20:3, there are many prohibitions
(one can find them in the Idolatry Laws in Rambam) prohibiting praising
idolaters or giving them credit or allowing them to think that their god
has done something for them.

The above three principles now suggest a convenient approach to history:

* PERSONAL INCIDENTS: If I go to a wedding I must say the bride is
beautiful (even if she isn't). Similarly if I record the wedding in a
history book I should so record it. Truth in this instance has no value
in halacha. Shinar and Luntz might retort, "Well why include them in the
history" and that is fine but I have no objection to putting them in

* IDOLATROUS INCIDENTS: The application of the prohibition of praising
idolaters to modern times depends of course on whether any legal
authority considers people today idolators. All I am saying is that if
they are idolators, don't praise them--if we don't consider them
idolaters we should not take away credit from them

* JUDICIAL PROCESS: This seems very specific. But I have in mind here
ANY concept over which there is DISPUTE. Take Chana's example of
learning secular studies (and the citations about "My Uncle--the
Netziv"). Well in this case "secular studies in the Yeshiva" is an issue
of dispute. It is not personal and it is not idolatrous ( I mean
really...those who oppose it have to admit there are two sides). So my
position would be that history must be completely accurate here.

I believe this three fold approach: Lying for personal----hiding
achievements of idolators----and being completely accurate in matters of
legitimate dispute may help our understanding of all the controversies
related so far

Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.d.;ASA; RHendel @ mcs drexel edu