Rabbi Natan Slifkin asked a thoughtful question in a post yesterday that at first glance seems like a no brainer. Should one always tell the truth under all circumstances?
It would certainly seem so. What can be more important than Emes – the Hebrew word for truth? If anyone should answer yes to that it should be me. The word ‘Emes’ is in the very title of my blog. And yet my answer is no. Sometimes the truth is counterproductive and harmful it should be avoided. I am absolutely certain of that, too. The only question is how to determine when to ‘lie’ and when not to.
Rabbi Slifkin actually remains perplexed about this issue and has yet to resolve it – as he mentioned in a subsequent post, today.
This issue is at the heart of one of the more controversial events of the last few years. The publication of the book The Making of a Gadol by Rav Nosson Kamenetsky. That book was banned. Why? Because it told the truth of history. Which in the minds of some people involved some unflattering information about a Gadol. While it is debatable whether that information actually was unflattering, the surviving members of that family felt it was. And that the information in that book had no real value or purpose other than to smear the good name of that Gadol.
If I recall correctly it was (among other things) about Rav Aharon Kotler (RAK) reading secular books in his youth; and about letters to his Kallah. The family felt it was beneath the dignity of their ancestor, a man of such stature high - to mention he that he ‘wasted’ his time reading a book by a secular novelist. IT was also thought inappropriate to publicize his private writings to his bride. Needless to say, most of us would think lees of RAK for that. But his family did not agree with that sentiment. And they won the day. The book was banned.
That ban was wrong for two reasons. First, as noted, it would not be unflattering to the vast majority of people that found this out about a Gadol like RAK. And second, even if it might somehow be considered beneath his dignity, the fact that he did so and still became the Gadol HaDor to the vast majority of non Chasidic Jews is a tribute rather than something to be ashamed of. Overcoming ones failings is something we can all learn from and be inspired by. This was Rav Kamenetsky’s contention. But it fell on deaf ears. His book was banned.
To me, that was a clear case of where the truth must be told. Because it doesn’t fit the iconic family narrative about RAK being born holy from the womb,does not mean the truth should not be told. A lie of omission is still a lie. That some may interpret it only in negative terms should not be the deciding factor preventing so many others from reading it and being inspired by it.
The criticism of Rav Kamenetsky‘s book is precisely the same reason Rabbi Nosson Scherman gives for not writing anything even slightly negative in biographies published by his company, Mesorah Publications (ArtScroll). He believes that saying anything but flattering things about the life of a a Gadol is counterproductive to his goal of inspiring the reader about the greatness of the subject of the bio. Being born holy from the womb is pretty much how most of the ArtScroll bios read.
Rabbi Scherman has admitted that the truth of history doesn‘t matter to him if there is anything negative about it. He will therefore not publish that truth. He is only interested in inspiring his readers about the greatness of that Gadol.
But just as was the case with the Rav Kamentesky’s book, so too is this the case here. What is negative to one person is positive to another. And more importantly even if it might be seen as negative, overcoming adversity to become great is far more inspiriting that being born great.
These are obvious situation where truth outweighs a lie.
Sometimes the truth must be told even though there will be devastating consequences. Even a truth that will have the kind of collateral damage that is irreversible. What if someone is discovered to be a pedophile that has sexually abused children? Should that truth be made public?
The clear answer to that is yes. It absolutely should. Public safety demands it. Public safety depends on that kind of information. But it comes at a very high price. The family of that pedophile will suffer irreparable harm. Their reputations will be ruined. Unmarried children will have an almost impossible task getting married. The damage done to that family is incalculable! They will never be the same.
But what choice is there? Keeping something like that secret is an invitation to disaster – allowing that pedophile to continue his predation causing even greater harm to his victims than to members of his family when he exposed to the public.
So if that’s the case, why should anyone ever lie? The answer is that if indeed there is nothing at all to be gained, and the truth can hurt someone, there is every reason to lie. Under those circumstances why tell the truth if it can only harm them?
The problem lies (no pun intended) in whether there is indeed nothing to be gained even if that is not so obvious. Just to cite one example. If someone has a terminal illness that has no cure, what is gained by telling them that? It will surely depress him. How is that knowledge going to benefit him over the last days or weeks of his life? On the other hand one might say that a person has a right to know something as important as his immediate demise so that he can put his affairs in order. Is that enough of a benefit to tell him the truth? Is taking away any hope of a cure a worthy sacrifice for that? I’m not sure I know the answer to that.
I don’t think there is any question that when telling the truth gains absolutely nothing at all and can only hurt someone, it should be kept hidden. But one has to be sure that is the case. How to be sure is the $64,000 question.