Q&A: A Sin for the Sake of Heaven in Matters of Faith and Belief
A Sin for the Sake of Heaven in Matters of Faith and Belief
Question
Hello Rabbi,
There is room to wonder whether, in matters of faith and belief, one can make use of the paradigm that “a sin for the sake of Heaven is great” [for example, telling the public that a certain belief is incorrect so that it will be easier for them to accept another belief that is more important than it]. Seemingly, there is a clear distinction between using this paradigm regarding practical prohibitions, whose truth is only by virtue of their having been commanded, where if one needs to violate a practical prohibition in order not to violate a greater command, it makes sense to do so, and matters of faith and belief, which are true in themselves (and in your wording on this site, “facts”), where it does not seem reasonable to give up one fact for the sake of another.
May he enlighten our eyes, and so may the master continue in peace.
By the way, I have just now seen the wording of Maimonides at the beginning of chapter 6 of the Laws of Marriage, where he wrote:
If one betroths on condition that, if the condition is fulfilled, she is betrothed, and if it is not fulfilled, she is not betrothed, whether the condition was made by the man or by the woman, etc. And seemingly it is explicit in his words that a condition made by the woman is effective.
However, one who examines all of Maimonides’ words later on (which are examples of this rule) will see that he mentions only a condition made by the man. Apparently, Maimonides calls a condition stated by the man for the woman’s benefit “whether it was by the woman,” meaning at the woman’s request, not that she is actually the one making the condition, and this still requires further examination.
Answer
About a condition made by the man for the woman’s benefit, I noted this in a halakhic ruling that I wrote, and I was asked about it a few days ago. Indeed, that is correct. I have not found a situation in which the woman herself makes the condition.
As for “holy lies,” you are presenting the halakhic aspect of the discussion. In my opinion, the halakhic discussion has no significance. One should not make use of this, especially nowadays—not because of a halakhic prohibition, but because it is a lie, and because it is almost never effective and usually also harmful. See Column 21.
Your view regarding a condition made by the woman was known to me, and I was also the one who corresponded with you about it a few days ago, and I only meant to comment on the wording of Maimonides, since his words seemingly are explicit on this issue.
But I understand that in practice you do not think there is a proof from Maimonides’ words, as I concluded in my remarks.