Eating bread in the market and regarding disgrace and invalidating testimony
Is there a prohibition on a person putting themselves in a state of self-degradation (say, like eating a loaf of bread in the market)? Likewise, is someone who humiliates themselves disqualified from testifying? In addition, is there a prohibition on putting yourself in a state where you would be disqualified from testifying? And finally, is it permissible nowadays to eat a loaf of bread in the market?
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
Eating bread in the market is a matter of social norm. When one sits at tables on the sidewalk and eats, it is very acceptable and I see no problem with it. Where it is not acceptable, there is a prohibition against putting oneself in a contemptible position (although there is no source or warning for this from the Torah). Indeed, the contemptible are also ineligible to testify. See, for example, Shulchan Aruch, 337-18:
17.
Whoever is neither in the Bible nor in the Mishnah nor in the way of the land, is considered wicked and disqualified to testify from their words. Therefore, testimony is not given to the people of the land, and testimony is not accepted from him, unless it is considered that he engages in the mitzvot and acts of kindness and practices righteous ways and has a way of the land, even though he is a people of the land and is neither in the Bible nor in the Mishnah. It is found that says: Every 18th is considered kosher, until he disqualifies. And every people of the land is considered disqualified, until he confirms that he walks in the way of the righteous. And whoever accepts testimony from God before he has this presumption, or before witnesses come and testify that he practices the mitzvot and the way of the land, is a layman, and will have to give judgment, for he is wasting a portion of Israel according to the wicked (Tor in the name of Maimonides).
18.
The despised are disqualified from testifying in their words; and they are the people who walk and eat in the market in front of all the people, and such as those who walk naked in the market while engaged in vile work, and the like, who do not observe modesty, all of whom are as important as a dog and do not observe false testimony. And in general, those who accept charity from idolaters in public, despite the fact that He allowed them to eat in the wilderness, discrediting themselves and not fearing, all of these are disqualified from their words.
Regarding the prohibition of introducing oneself to disqualify testimony, this should be discussed. Is there a prohibition on marrying and thus being disqualified from testifying to one's wife's relatives? Clearly, there is a prohibition on committing offenses, but not because of the disqualification for testimony. This is only a consequence. It is true that there is an obligation to testify, and therefore it should be discussed that introducing oneself to disqualify testimony is prohibited because it introduces oneself to rape, which prevents one from performing a mitzvah.
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
Why is there a prohibition on self-deprecation (you wrote even though there is no source for this)? There is also no point in prohibiting self-deprecation, because someone who self-deprecates will not listen to such prohibitions anyway. Beyond that, I remember stories about people from the Moral Movement who used to self-deprecate in order to break the measure of pride – was that a prohibition? Also, would it be correct to say that anyone who self-deprecates is disqualified from testifying? Or is this just an indication that he is not careful about lying, but in the case where there is a truth to the disparagement, perhaps we should say that he is not disqualified from testifying?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
I wrote that I do not know the source, but from the Rambam (Pihamsh Refa 3 of the Sahadrin) it is implied that this is probably a prohibition from the common sense. Novohardok's stories (requesting nails at a pharmacy) are indeed problematic, and on the face of it it is forbidden to do so (also due to blasphemy. What will they say about yeshiva students?). Although sometimes a return to repentance justifies a prohibition (see the Shafa on the words of the Rambam, who is a Baal Teshuvah until he returns to the same place and is in his power and does not pass. And the Shafa was precise, even though it is forbidden for a person to put himself in a situation that will lead to a prohibition, if this necessitates repentance then it is permissible. Although its accuracy is not necessary, and so on). And perhaps Novohardok relied on such a perception.
The question of whether someone who humiliates himself is disqualified due to bodily disqualification or due to fear of lying should be discussed (I don't remember any clear evidence at the moment. Usually, this is examined in light of the question of whether his testimony is accepted as a woman's testimony to allow her to testify, where anyone who is not suspected of lying is accepted. We need to check whether they wrote about this). Simply put, it doesn't seem to be a fear of lying. Why think that someone who humiliates himself is not afraid of lying, like a wicked Dahms? It seems more like he is like an ordinary wicked person (although he certainly does not deserve flogging and does not fall within the category of wickedness that is disqualified from the rabbinical court. He was probably disqualified by the rabbis. This is another indication that there is no fear of lying here). He is also brought up in the context of the issue that deals with the wicked. And in any case, the truth will not be useful (and the N.A.M. should disqualify the young men of Novohardok from testifying).
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
From the wording of the Shulchan Arba that you cited above, it is implied that he is saying that the very fact that they do not observe shame is a clear sign that they also do not observe false testimony (" The despicable are disqualified from testifying about their words; and they are the people who walk and eat in the marketplace in front of all the people, and such as those who walk naked in the marketplace while engaged in vile work, and the like, who do not observe shame, all of which are as important as a dog, and they do not observe false testimony").
There is also logic in such an argument, since people refrain from giving false testimony, in part, because if they give false testimony and are caught, it will bring great disgrace to them, and therefore it deters them from lying. But a person who cares less about being disgraced, the issue of the disgrace of false testimony will deter him less.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Right. What's the question?
——————————————————————————————
Asks:
So, if there is a truth to self-deprecation, and in general, the person who is depreciating himself, if it were not for the truth, would have refrained from depreciating himself, it seems that it is not possible to say about such a person that he is suspected of lying, and therefore the Novohardok boys are qualified to testify (which is not as you said earlier).
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Indeed, if the defamation is the basis for a false suspicion, then it is likely that in the case of Novohardok it will not exist.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer