Just because one does not know the reason, does not permit one to suspect others of anything but the best. And thus I know that no matter the situation, it has only occurred for the best of reasons and the purest of intentions. It is common in life to encounter situations where one is not sure of why the other person chose to go about his actions in a particular way. What was his intent? Why did he not clarify it? At this point in time, it is upon us to answer kindly. His intent was only the best. Why did she not tell me of the party she was holding? She did not wish to distract me from studying for my final exams, and if she had told me, it would have made me feel bad that I could not come. Some things are not given to us to know; therefore, we choose our own endings.
~
Once a man went from the Upper Galilee (in northern Israel) to work for an employer in the south for three years.
On the eve of Yom Kippur of the third year, he said to his employer, "Give me my wages, and I will go home and support my wife and my children."
The employer said to him, "I do not have any money to pay you."
"Give me fruit instead," said the worker.
"I have no fruit," answered the employer.
"Give me land," said the worker.
"I do not have any land," answered the employer.
"Give me animals," said the worker.
"I do not have any animals," answered the employer.
"Give me quilts and pillows," said the worker.
"I do not have any quilts and pillows," answered the employer.
The worker packed his bags and went home, disappointed.
After the holiday, the employer traveled to the worker's home with the man's wages and with three donkeys. One was laden with food, the second with drinks, and the third with delicacies.
When he arrived, after they had eaten and drunk together, the employer gave the worker his wages and all the other gifts, and said to him, "When you asked me for your wages, and I told you that I did not have any money, did you think that was the truth?" "I thought," answered the worker, "that you had obtained merchandise at a bargain price, and had spent all your money."
The employer said to him, "When you asked me for animals, and I told you that I did not have any animals, what did you think was the truth?"
"I thought," answered the worker, "that they were rented out to others."
The employer said to him, "When you asked me for land, and I told you that I did not have any land, what did you think was the truth? "
"I thought, " answered the worker, "that the land also was rented out to others."
The employer said to him, "When you asked me for fruit, and I told you that I did not have any fruit, what did you think was the truth? "
"I thought, " answered the worker, "that the fruit had not yet been tithed."
The employer said to him, "And after you asked me for quilts and Pillows, and I told you that I did not have any, what did you think was the truth?"
"I thought, " answered the worker, "that you had given away all Your Possessions to the beis Ha-mikdash by making a vow of hekdesh [pledge to the Temple]."
The employer said, "I swear to you that that is exactly what happened. I had promised away all of my possessions because of Hurkanos, my son, who did not wish to learn Torah. And when I came to my friends in the south, they annulled my vows. And just as You Judged me favorably, so may G-d judge you favorably."
~Shabbos 127b (Source for translation here)
12 comments:
See Rambam, Peirush Hamishna, Avos 1:6 - if we don't know the person, we judge his action favorably. If we know he's a tzadik and he does something which appears to be bad we must assume if it was good, even if it is extremely hard to justify it as good. If we see a rasha doing something good, we must look for a way to assume he was doing something bad.
Bottom line, lekaf zechus doesn't mean "favorably" as we commonly translate it, it means "according to his known behavior" which includes assuming he did something bad in certain situations.
Meh. "If we see a rasha doing something good, we must look for a way to assume he was doing something bad?!"
I don't believe anybody has the right to call anyone else a rasha, hence there is no way that anyone can deem anyone to be doing anything bad.
There is a quote of R' Kook's on page 427 of An Angel Among Men which expresses that concept perfectly. I don't have the book on me now, so I can't give you the quote, but perhaps you will be able to read it on your own time.
Always one of my favorite gemaros.
R'ybs aiui understood dan lkaf zchut to refer to previous action but it doesn't mean that we suspend kapdeihu vchashdeihu for our interactions with the person in the future.
KT
Joel Rich
I don't believe anybody has the right to call anyone else a rasha, hence there is no way that anyone can deem anyone to be doing anything bad.
Well, look up the Rambam. For example, think about someone who was mumar lechalel shabbos bifarhesia (in the old days when they were real mumars, not tinok shenishba). In more contemporary situations, take a guy who is in seruv because he refused to give his wife a get. Or a child molester. Odds are what the Rambam said about resha'im would apply to them.
Look at it this way: if the apikores in the book The Yeshiva was seen giving money to a raggedy-looking person, we are not supposed to think he was giving charity, we're supposed to think he was paying off gambling debts or buying drugs.
That last part- that's ridiculous! Aside from which, I don't know which apikores you are referring to. Do you mean Tsemakh Atlas? And whatever Rambam may or may not so, I refuse to believe it applies in contemporary society. No one should be so arrogant as to presume they know a person well enough to determine that he is wholly a rasha. In the case of a child molester, we protect children from him, but even then, if it is possible, we try to believe well of him. The attitude you take simply fractures our already fractured society that much further.
In the case of a child molester, we protect children from him, but even then, if it is possible, we try to believe well of him.
===================
Chana,
See my earlier note which makes exactly this point.
KT
Joel Rich
BTW,
You might want to listen to this shiur:
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/734331/Rabbi_Daniel_Z._Feldman/Dan_Likav_Zechus
KT
Joel Rich
Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman
Dan Likav Zechus
Article Date: Wednesday May 06, 2009
www.YUTORAH.org
why is the choice to judge favorably or not favorably? how about just don't judge?
Chana,
Let's take very specific examples.
1) Where the Beis Din rules unanimously (23-0) that someone is chayav misah. The din is, he's guilty but we cannot kill him. Because we did not kill him, does that mean we should be dan lekaf zechus" that he didn't do something bad? Obviously not!
2) Where the beis din asked such detailed questions (see Sanhedrin 40a) to make the witnesses testimonies conflict in some minute detail of the surrounding area - what color something was or what shape. The dayanim are quite confident that the described act took place, yet they don't want to punish him with the strict punishment, they are allowed, and to some opinion encouraged, to ask such detailed questions (bedikos) to trip up the witnesses. Again, they know the guy did it. There too we may not be punishing him, but he is a rasha.
3) There are certain cases (Sanhedrin 37 and Shavuos 34) where, for example, 2 men went into a room and one came out bloddy, and the other man is holding a bloody knife. We may not be allowed to prosecute the man with the knife because no witnesses were in the room, but the umdena tells us that one guy attacked the other. It is ludicrous to suggest (in most cases) that we're forced to say the bleeding man tried to commit suicide and the other man took the knife from him to save him. Sometimes we do say it. But we certainly we do not say it all of the time.
2nd thing - I was referring to Chaikl's girlfriend's father - wasn't he called Bentzye the Apikores? Or was he the Apostate? (I lent my copy to someone so I can't check it up)
Post a Comment