Q&A: Concealing Halakhic Information
Concealing Halakhic Information
Question
In a class before Purim, you mentioned the idea that every rule is relative, and how important it is to remember that despite all the Jewish laws, the truth is often beyond the rules and strictures, etc.
I then asked you about the ruling in the Shulchan Arukh that if someone who is not a Torah scholar thinks something is forbidden even though it is actually permitted, there is an idea not to undermine his belief. The thinking behind this seems to be that such prohibitions create some kind of protection.
You completely rejected that and said you do not agree with that idea at all. You cited a Talmudic passage about it that I do not remember right now, and I’d be glad if you could remind me. You said that in your view, if there is something that the masses are needlessly stringent about, a Torah scholar is obligated to publicize that. So my question is whether you have any statement or interesting thoughts connected to the subject of laws—prohibitions that preserve humanity in general, or the individual in particular, from a sense of chaos, where everything is possible.
I am asking myself whether this might be connected to a halakhic meta-topic related to the category of “be killed rather than transgress.” That is, if we translate “be killed rather than transgress” into the idea of red lines for a system, a society, or even a person with respect to himself—whether there is some philosophical or conceptual statement on the matter. The rules in these Jewish laws are numerous and, it seems to me, mixed together with considerations like public violation and desecration of God’s name. What intrigues me is understanding the decrees behind the decree, so to speak—the boundaries we would not cross even in a case of saving a life. In other words, the collision between the rule “and live by them, and not die by them” and the rule “be killed rather than transgress,” when it applies.
In psychology there are two concepts: one is the life drive and the other is the survival drive. The life drive is connected to the senses and their eruption, whereas the survival drive is connected to boundaries and restraint. For some reason it seems to me that these two concepts may be connected to “be killed rather than transgress,” to the whole issue of laws and the need for them, and on the other hand to “let him wear black and do what his heart desires,” which is a topic my group is dealing with. What do you think?
Answer
I do not remember the discussion, but perhaps I cited the Talmudic passage in Menachot, where the ruling is brought that one fulfills the obligation of Torah study with the morning and evening recitation of Shema, and the Sages disagreed whether this may not be said in front of an ignoramus, or whether it is actually a commandment to say it in front of him. As a rule, nowadays (unlike in the period of the Sages), it is not right to act esoterically—that is, to conceal halakhic information—in any direction: neither toward leniency nor toward stringency. In the end, everything comes out, and then trust in the halakhic ruling is undermined. Today one must be careful to present a correct and reliable picture to everyone, and if someone is mistaken, he should be corrected.
I think that guarding against a sense of chaos should not be done by hiding information, but by dealing with it directly and explaining how complex information and disputes should be handled. It should be explained that the fact that there are disagreements, and that the world is not black and white, should not create a sense of chaos. That is the situation, and one must cope with it. Personally, I would be far more troubled by a black-and-white world with no degrees of individual freedom. But that is of course my personal taste.
Your question about “be killed rather than transgress” seems to me unrelated. Clearly there are red lines, and these Jewish laws describe them. I am also willing to accept that this changes from generation to generation. But what does that have to do with a sense of chaos?
Rabbi Elai’s instruction—let him go to a distant place, wear black, and do what his heart desires—is indeed a good example of dealing with a complex issue. And indeed here too, most halakhic decisors and commentators conceal the real picture. They explain it as though this were an ordinary halakhic override rule (like a positive commandment overriding a prohibition, and the like), which of course is not correct and does not come close to the plain meaning of the Talmudic passage. However, as a matter of Jewish law, I believe the law does not follow Rabbi Elai (see the Rosh and Rif on Moed Katan 16). Here too, I prefer to stick to the true and straightforward interpretation of the passage, and discuss it on its own terms.
Discussion on Answer
It seems to me that, simply speaking, it is forbidden to say this in front of an ignoramus because he may allow himself to be lenient and not study.
In the period of the Sages they concealed information so as not to expose the public to confusing things (for example: they wanted to hide away the book of Ecclesiastes). Today there is no possibility of concealment, because all information is visible and exposed to everyone.
And why is it only with Shema that one fulfills the obligation of study—is it because that is from the Torah? And what about the Song at the Sea in the morning?
And what about two Jewish laws? To change them every day? Every day needs something different, no?
I actually thought of the Song of Songs. Fine, they could have taken it out of the canon—it would have been considered external—but why hide it away?
It is not specifically Shema. The intent is a chapter in the morning and a chapter in the evening, except that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai came to be lenient and say that even with Shema, which one says anyway, one fulfills the obligation. “Two Jewish laws every day” is not an actual ruling; it is only written that one who reviews them is guaranteed that he is a son of the World to Come. And I do not know where you got the idea that these must be different Jewish laws each day.
Because it is confusing, since it looks like nothing more than a love poem.
Everything I wrote here is explicit Talmudic passages.
Different Jewish laws—from simple logic. As I always say, study is not worth much without action. Action is the main thing.
You wrote above: “one fulfills the obligation of Torah study with the morning and evening recitation of Shema, and the Sages disagreed whether this may not be said in front of an ignoramus, or whether it is a commandment to say it in front of him. As a rule, nowadays (unlike in the period of the Sages), it is not right to act esoterically (to conceal halakhic information).”
Why is it forbidden to say this in front of an ignoramus?
Why in the period of the Sages was it permitted to conceal halakhic information? Is there another example?