|
COPYRIGHT 1993 American Jewish Congress
Introduction
The value of truth permeates the fabric of Judaism both legally and philosophically. Legally, at least three times the Torah mentions the imperative to tell the truth and refrain from lying: 1) "You shall not bear false witness" (Exodus 20:13); 2) "Keep far from a false matter" (Ex. 23:7); and 3) "Neither shall you deal falsely nor lie to one another" (Leviticus 19:11). The Prophets continue to admonish the people to speak the truth, as in: Jer. 9:2-6 and Zach. 8:16. Philosophically and theologically as well, truth is deemed of the utmost importance. It is viewed as God's insignia (Jer. 10:10, Yoma 69b). The Torah is called "Truth" (Proverbs 23:23); one of the thirteen attributes ascribed to God is truth (Ex. 34:6). Likewise, in Proverbs 12:22, King Solomon admonishes: "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but they who deal truly are His delight." The Talmud declares that liars are one of the four classes of people who will not be admitted to the Divine presence in the world to come (Sanhedrin 103a). Later authorities, such as Rabbenu Bahya, Rav Saadiah Gaon and Maimonides, continued to extol the virtues of truth.(1)
Given all of the above, as well as countless other examples found in Jewish tradition of the importance of truth, it would seem that it is an absolute, supreme principle in Judaism. However, there are other ethical imperatives in Judaism which are, in fact, often found side by side with truth. An example is peace (shalom), as in: "Love the truth and peace" (Zach. 8:19), and "On three pillars the world is sustained: On truth, on justice and on peace" (Pirkei Avot 1:18). The problems arise when two or more of these principles come into conflict.(2)
The question can be addressed from both philosophical and legal perspectives. From a philosophical outlook, the question is: which one of the purposes of truth-telling is primary - the social or the moral? The former is to ensure the smooth functioning of society, which is possible only when there is complete confidence in communication; the latter is to safeguard one's own moral integrity.(3) As is often the case with a legal/ philosophical issue, the black and white answer is not to be found, and both philosophical aspects of truth-telling are vital, neither yielding totally to the other.
To help clarify the issues, the problem can be broken down into specific components. The qualifications of truth that can be addressed include:
1) Circumstance - Is it always imperative to speak the truth, as is required by a witness, or may one choose to remain silent? Is the issue one of refraining from lying or, rather, of an obligation to speak the truth? If one does lie, is there a difference between a spontaneous, one-time lie or a formulated, oft-repeated lie, either by the individual or society? If it is sometimes permitted to lie, might it also sometimes be required?
2) Context - Does it matter if the lie was said in a judicial or social setting? Does Ex. 23:7 ("keep far from a false matter") refer only to legal matters, as its context would imply,(4) or to nonjudicial matters as well?(5)
3) Result - Is it relevant if the results of the lie are harmful? benign? beneficial?
4) Method - Does it matter how a lie is told? If only a portion of the facts are related, is that considered a lie? If the statement has two meanings (although the listener may understand only one), is that a lie? Does mental reservation or insincerity about a promise constitute a lie? Is exaggeration a lie?
5) Motive - Is it permissible to lie if there is an underlying "legitimate" motivation, e.g., ultimately to uphold the truth? keep peace? prevent financial loss or acquire financial gain? preserve another's dignity?
In order to explore these and related questions, it is appropriate to study historical examples, both Biblical and rabbinic, of lying (or at least the appearance thereof), as well as rabbinic statements which define when one could, should, or should not lie, together with the later commentators' reactions to all of the above.
In the Bible one can find at least a dozen examples of apparent lying, concealing of truth or half-lying. The motivation for these lies may include: protecting life; maintaining peace between brothers; maintaining peace between husband and wife; acquiring something that was rightfully one's own from an evil person; or protecting a sick person from bad news. Many post-Talmudic commentators differ on how to interpret these stories. Some are more willing to accept the idea that the forefathers, prophets, and even God Himself, as it were, lied, while others go through strenuous contortions to remove any stigma of a lie. They may have done so because the idea of these lies per se leaves a bad taste in their mouths, or for fear of setting what they felt was bad precedent. It is crucial, therefore, also to look at how the Talmudic and Midrashic sources do exactly that - use some of these stories as precedent for when one could or should lie. In addition, it is important to evaluate if a lie has been dismissed because of an attitude towards the speaker, i.e., a forefather, or because of the lie itself.
The approach that will be used here in an attempt to incorporate and organize these sources will be a topical one; Biblical, Talmudic and post-Talmudic commentaries will be brought to bear on each.
Pikuah Nefesh (Saving a Life)
The most serious conflict that can confront truth telling is that of pikuah nefesh - saving a life. It is not entirely obvious that, based on the principle that all commandments, save three,(6) may (or must) be violated to save a life, one may lie to save life. The above stated principle clearly applies to prohibitions that are solely between man and God. It is not so clear that this always applies to violations which affect another person.(7) I have found no outright statement in the Talmud or elsewhere permitting lying in such circumstances, but a number of specific laws, as well as interpretations of Biblical narratives, would seem to indicate this as a legitimate motive.
One of the first instances in the Torah of what appears to be lying is the following:
And there was a famine in the land, and Abram [later his name was changed to Abraham] went down to Egypt . . . and it came to pass when he was come near to enter Egypt that he said to Sarai [later changed to Sarah] his wife: . . . say, I pray thee, you are my sister that it may be well with me for your sake (Gen. 12:10-14).
At first glance it seems that Abraham is asking Sarah to lie about their relationship in order for him to gain some benefit. Radak (R. David Kimhi, 12th- 13th centuries, Provence) accepts this as a request to lie, not for material benefit, but to save his life. He understands the statement "that it may be well with me" to mean that Abraham would be left alive. Based on the concept that one is not permitted to rely on a miracle in order to save his life, and the Radak's opinion that preservation of life prevails over the competing moral imperative of not lying, Abraham was permitted, perhaps even required, to lie in order to save his life.
Ramban (Moses ben Nahman, Nahmanides, 1194-1270, Spain) understands the scenario differently. Agreeing that one may lie to save a life, he remarks that Abraham should have put greater faith in God's ability to protect him, and says that it is for this sin that he and his descendants were punished with the Egyptian bondage. Generalizations to practical halakhah cannot be drawn from this criticism, however, because Abraham is here being held to a higher standard than are average people.
The Ba'al HaTurim (Jacob Ben Asher, 1270?-1340),(8) while agreeing that Abraham was permitted to lie and to say that Sarah was not his wife in order to save his life, even permits an extension to the lie. Once they were lying, they might as well do so in such a way that there is also material benefit; therefore, Abraham asked Sarah not only to deny that they were husband and wife, but also to say that she was his sister. Thus, the Ba'al HaTurim understands the phrase, "that it may be well with me," to refer to material benefit (in agreement with Sforno and Rashi, and unlike Radak and Ramban), and thus he allows the extension of a permitted lie for additional, less compelling, motives.
This scenario of Abraham and Sarah claiming to be brother and sister is re-enacted later for Avimelech, although there Abraham states the "lie" on his own, without consulting with Sarah (Gen. 20:1-18), and, again, in the next generation, with the players this time being Isaac, Rebecca, and (a new?) Avimelech (Gen. 26:7-12). Again, in these stories, Radak justifies the lies as being for the sake of saving a life.
In all of the Bible there is only one example in which it seems that God is instructing someone to tell a lie. Depending on how it is interpreted, this may also be a case of pikuah nefesh, saving a life. This occurs soon after God rejects Saul as king, and dispatches Samuel to anoint David in his place. The text says:
And the Lord said unto Samuel: "How long will you mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel. Fill your horn with oil and go, I will send you to Yishai of Beit-Lehem [Bethlehem], for I have provided Me a king among his sons." And Samuel said: "How can I go? If Saul hears it he will kill me." Whereupon the Lord said: "Take a heifer with you and say |I am come to sacrifice to the Lord'" (I Samuel 16:1-2).
On the surface it appears that, in response to Samuel's fearing for his life, God suggests a subterfuge.(9) The Hovot Halevavot(10) understands that this was not considered a lack of faith. Rather, God viewed this caution as praiseworthy, and suggested a lie. Thus, according to the Hovot Halevavot, in order to avoid a danger to life it is permissible, and perhaps even imperative, to lie. Additionally, Radak offers numerous proofs that even a prophet on a mission from God has a right - more, an obligation - to worry for his safety and not to rely on supernatural protection.(11) As will be seen below, one opinion in the Talmud suggests another rationale, one with more general applicability, for this lie.(12)
The incident involving Elisha the prophet and Ben-Hadad is often brought as a source in discussions regarding truth-telling to dying patients. II Kings relates:
And...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
