The Truth And Nothing But The Truth in Interpersonal Halacha מדבר שקר תרחק

ByR' קלמן Flaks

Interpersonal Halacha

Part 1: The Truly Amazing Value of Emet- Truth

שבת נ״ה א

אמר רבי חנינא: חותמו של הקדוש ברוך הוא אמת.

Shabbat 55a

what did the Elders, i.e., the Sages of that generation, do that was considered a sin? Rather, say: God will enter into judgment with the Elders because they did not protest the sinful conduct of the princes. The Gemara relates: Rav Yehuda was sitting before Shmuel when this woman came and cried before Shmuel about an injustice that had been committed against her, and Shmuel paid no attention to her. Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with the verse: “Whoever stops his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard” (Proverbs 21:13)? He said to him: Big-toothed one, your superior, i.e., I, your teacher, will be punished in cold water. The superior of your superior will be punished in hot water. Mar Ukva, who sits as president of the court, is responsible for those matters. And from where is it derived that this responsibility is incumbent upon the house of the Exilarch? As it is written: “House of David, so says the Lord: Execute judgment in the morning, and deliver him that is robbed out of the hand of the oppressor, lest My fury go forth like fire, and burn so that none can quench it because of the evil of your doings” (Jeremiah 21:12). The Exilarch is a direct descendant of the house of David. With regard to the issue of reprimand, it was related that Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Simon: Let the Master reprimand the members of the house of the Exilarch, as Rabbi Simon had some influence over them. Rabbi Simon said to him: They will not accept reprimand from me. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Let my master reprimand them even if they do not accept it. As Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Never did a promise manifesting a good attribute emerge from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and He later retracted it and rendered it evil, except with regard to this matter, as it is written: “And the Lord said to him: Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark [tav] upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry on account of all the abominations that are done in her midst” (Ezekiel 9:4). The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the angel Gabriel: Go and inscribe a tav of ink on the foreheads of the righteous as a sign so that the angels of destruction will not have dominion over them. And inscribe a tav of blood on the foreheads of the wicked as a sign so that the angels of destruction will have dominion over them. The attribute of justice said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, how are these different from those? He said to that attribute: These are full-fledged righteous people and those are full-fledged wicked people. The attribute of justice said to Him: Master of the Universe, it was in the hands of the righteous to protest the conduct of the wicked, and they did not protest. He said to that attribute: It is revealed and known before Me that even had they protested the conduct of the wicked, they would not have accepted the reprimand from them. They would have continued in their wicked ways. The attribute of justice said before Him: Master of the Universe, if it is revealed before You that their reprimand would have been ineffective, is it revealed to them? The Holy One, Blessed be He, retracted His promise to protect the righteous and decided that those who failed to protest would also be punished. And that is the meaning of that which is written: “Slay utterly old and young, both maid, and little children, and women; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at My Sanctuary” (Ezekiel 9:6). And it is written in that same verse: “Then they began with the elderly men who were before the house.” Rav Yosef taught: Read not: My Sanctuary [mikdashi], rather: Those sanctified to Me [mekudashai]. These are people who observed the whole Torah in its entirety from alef through tav. And immediately: “And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lies toward the north, and every man with his weapon of destruction in his hand; and one man among them was clothed in linen, with a writer’s inkwell by his side; and they went in and stood beside the bronze altar” (Ezekiel 9:2). The Gemara asks: Was there a bronze altar in the Temple in the time of Ezekiel? Already in the days of Solomon there was only a stone altar. Rather, this should be understood as a figure of speech. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Begin from the place where they recite songs of praise before Me. This is a reference to the Levites in the Temple whose musical instruments are made of bronze. And who are the six men mentioned here? Rav Ḥisda said: Fury, Wrath, and Rage, and Destroyer, and Breaker, and Annihilator, six angels of destruction. The Gemara asks further: And what is different about the letter tav,that it was inscribed on the foreheads of the righteous? Rav said: Tav is the first letter of the word tiḥye, you shall live, indicating that the righteous shall live. Tav is also the first letter of the word tamut, you shall die, indicating that the wicked shall die. And Shmuel said: The letter tav is the first letter of the word tama, ceased, indicating that the merit of the Patriarchs has ceased and will not help the wicked. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The letter tav is the first letter of the word taḥon, will have mercy, indicating that due to the merit of the Patriarchs God will have mercy on the righteous. And Reish Lakish said: The letter tav is the last letter of the seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as Rabbi Ḥanina said: The seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is truth [emet], which ends with the letter tav. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: The letter tav teaches that these are people who observed the entire Torah from alef through tav. With regard to the statement that the merit of the Patriarchs has ceased, the Gemara asks: From when did the merit of the Patriarchs cease? Rav said: From the days of the prophet Hosea, son of Beeri, as it is stated: “And now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of My hand” (Hosea 2:12). Israel will no longer be saved by the merit of the Patriarchs. And Shmuel said: The merit of the Patriarchs ceased since the days of Hazael, as it is stated: “And Hazael, king of Aram, oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz” (II Kings 13:22). And it is written there: “And the Lord was gracious to them, and had compassion on them, and turned toward them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and would not destroy them; neither has He till now cast them away from His presence” (II Kings 13:23). That was the last time that the merit of the Patriarchs was mentioned. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The merit of the Patriarchs ceased since the days of Elijah the Prophet, as it is stated: “And it came to pass at the time of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the Prophet came near and said, Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, let it be known this day that you are God in Israel, and that I am Your servant, and that I have done all these things at Your word” (I Kings 18:36). By inference: Let it be known this day and not afterward because the merit of the Patriarchs will cease today. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The merit of the Patriarchs ceased since the days of Hezekiah, as it is stated: “For the increase of the realm and for peace without end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice; from now and forever the zeal of the Lord of hosts performs this” (Isaiah 9:6). That is to say, from this point on, the merit of the Patriarchs will not protect Israel, leaving only the zeal of the Lord. The Gemara continues its discussion of punishment in general and the relationship between a person’s actions and the punishments meted out against him in particular: Rav Ami said: There is no death without sin; were a person not to sin, he would not die. And there is no suffering without iniquity. The Gemara adduces proof to these assertions: There is no death without sin, as it is written: “The soul that sins, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him” (Ezekiel 18:20). A person dies only because of his own sins and not because of some preexistent sin. And there is no suffering without iniquity, as it is written: “Then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with strokes” (Psalms 89:33).

משנה אבות א׳:י״ח

(יח) רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, עַל שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים הָעוֹלָם עוֹמֵד, עַל הַדִּין וְעַל הָאֱמֶת וְעַל הַשָּׁלוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (זכריה ח) אֱמֶת וּמִשְׁפַּט שָׁלוֹם שִׁפְטוּ בְּשַׁעֲרֵיכֶם:

Pirkei Avot 1:18

(18) Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say: on three things does the world stand: On justice, on truth and on peace, as it is said: “execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates” (Zechariah 8:16).

ספר המדות, אמת, חלק ראשון א׳

(א) א. מִי שֶׁרוֹצֶה לְדַבֵּק אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּהַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ, עַד שֶׁיֵּלֵךְ בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ מֵהֵיכָל אֶל הֵיכָל וְיִרְאֶה אֶת הַהֵיכָלוֹת בְּעֵינֵי הַשֵּׂכֶל, יִשְׁמר אֶת עַצְמוֹ מִלּוֹמַר שֶׁקֶר אֲפִלּוּ בְּטָעוּת.

(מג) מג. עַל־יְדֵי אֱמֶת נִצּוֹל מִלָּשׁוֹן־הָרָע גַּם תְּפִלָּתוֹ נִתְקַבֵּל. גַּם כְּשֶׁדָּנִים אוֹתוֹ לְמַעְלָה, דָּנִים אוֹתוֹ לְפִי זְכֻיּוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ.

(מט) מט. מִי שֶׁשּׁוֹמֵר אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְדוֹבֵר תָּמִיד אֱמֶת, כְּאִלּוּ עָשָׂה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ וְאֶת הַיָּם וְאֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בָּם.

(ט) ט. מִי שֶׁהוּא אִישׁ אֱמֶת, אֲזַי הוּא מַכִּיר בְּאַחֵר, אִם אַחֵר דּוֹבֵר שֶׁקֶר אִם לָאו.

Sefer HaMiddot, Truth, Part I 1

(1) 1. One who wants to attach himself to the Blessed G-d, to the extent that he can traverse with his thoughts from heichal to heichal (chamber to chamber), and to see the heichalos (chambers) with the eyes of intellect, must guard himself from saying falsehood, even by mistake.

Pniney Halacha (אמירת האמת) :
The more we understand the reality of the world, the more we can progress. But the central problem that reality is deep and complex, and there are deep levels which are hard for our intellect to understand, so we all suffer from a degree of lack of knowing the truth. And so there sometimes appears to us a gap between what we feel is good and what we feel is right. The more we recognize the true reality, the less the gap between what is good and what is right will be. And thus we will be more true, and there will be more good for us in life
The more truth is precious to us, we will be willing to sacrifice pleasures for it, the closer we will come to the Middah of Hashem and to understanding of the world, as it says "and you should go in his ways".

Likutey Maharan 1:51:
There May be many lies, but there is only one truth.
If we find ourselves in a web of complications, we are far from the truth.
The more simply we approach life, the clearer are perspectives are, the closer we are to truth. The closer we are to One, to God, the more we can see that all these truths are one.
(From Crossing the Narrow Bridge)

Part 2: The Source And Severity of Deception

ויקרא י״ט:י״א

(יא) לֹ֖א תִּגְנֹ֑בוּ וְלֹא־תְכַחֲשׁ֥וּ וְלֹֽא־תְשַׁקְּר֖וּ אִ֥ישׁ בַּעֲמִיתֽוֹ׃

Leviticus 19:11

(11) You shall not steal; you shall not deal deceitfully or falsely with one another.

שמות כ״ג:ז׳

(ז) מִדְּבַר־שֶׁ֖קֶר תִּרְחָ֑ק וְנָקִ֤י וְצַדִּיק֙ אַֽל־תַּהֲרֹ֔ג כִּ֥י לֹא־אַצְדִּ֖יק רָשָֽׁע׃

Exodus 23:7

(7) Keep far from a false charge; do not bring death on those who are innocent and in the right, for I will not acquit the wrongdoer.

משלי י״ב:כ״ב

(כב) תּוֹעֲבַ֣ת יְ֭הוָה שִׂפְתֵי־שָׁ֑קֶר וְעֹשֵׂ֖י אֱמוּנָ֣ה רְצוֹנֽוֹ׃

Proverbs 12:22

(22) Lying speech is an abomination to the LORD, But those who act faithfully please Him.

Shaarey Teshuvah: 3:184: The stain caused by false speech on the purity of the soul is greater then even stealing because truth is a critical component of the purity of the soul.

בראשית ג׳:א׳-ה׳

(א) וְהַנָּחָשׁ֙ הָיָ֣ה עָר֔וּם מִכֹּל֙ חַיַּ֣ת הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָׂ֖ה יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־הָ֣אִשָּׁ֔ה אַ֚ף כִּֽי־אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹהִ֔ים לֹ֣א תֹֽאכְל֔וּ מִכֹּ֖ל עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן׃ (ב) וַתֹּ֥אמֶר הָֽאִשָּׁ֖ה אֶל־הַנָּחָ֑שׁ מִפְּרִ֥י עֵֽץ־הַגָּ֖ן נֹאכֵֽל׃ (ג) וּמִפְּרִ֣י הָעֵץ֮ אֲשֶׁ֣ר בְּתוֹךְ־הַגָּן֒ אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹהִ֗ים לֹ֤א תֹֽאכְלוּ֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ וְלֹ֥א תִגְּע֖וּ בּ֑וֹ פֶּן־תְּמֻתֽוּן׃ (ד) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הַנָּחָ֖שׁ אֶל־הָֽאִשָּׁ֑ה לֹֽא־מ֖וֹת תְּמֻתֽוּן׃ (ה) כִּ֚י יֹדֵ֣עַ אֱלֹהִ֔ים כִּ֗י בְּיוֹם֙ אֲכָלְכֶ֣ם מִמֶּ֔נּוּ וְנִפְקְח֖וּ עֵֽינֵיכֶ֑ם וִהְיִיתֶם֙ כֵּֽאלֹהִ֔ים יֹדְעֵ֖י ט֥וֹב וָרָֽע׃

Genesis 3:1-5

(1) Now the serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild beasts that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say: You shall not eat of any tree of the garden?” (2) The woman replied to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the other trees of the garden. (3) It is only about fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said: ‘You shall not eat of it or touch it, lest you die.’” (4) And the serpent said to the woman, “You are not going to die, (5) but God knows that as soon as you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like divine beings who know good and bad.”

Shabbat 51a:
Jerusalem fell because the city was lacking Anshey Emunah- truthful men.

Part 3: When is falsehood prohibited?
1) Any form of falsehood (verbal or nonverbal) which results in hurting or damaging others is prohibitted.
2) Yaakov and Chezky were telling friends about a camp outing. Yaakov told a story about a midnight intruder to their campfire!
Chezky interrupted him and said: Stop making up stories. There was no midnight intruder.” Yaakov answered, “Leave me alone! What difference does it make?"
Yaakov has violated the prohibition of “Midbar Sheker Tirchak
(Journey to Virtue p. 92), as it says "Guard your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit" (Tehillim 34:1).

ירמיהו ט׳:ד׳

(ד) וְאִ֤ישׁ בְּרֵעֵ֙הוּ֙ יְהָתֵ֔לּוּ וֶאֱמֶ֖ת לֹ֣א יְדַבֵּ֑רוּ לִמְּד֧וּ לְשׁוֹנָ֛ם דַּבֶּר־שֶׁ֖קֶר הַעֲוֵ֥ה נִלְאֽוּ׃

Jeremiah 9:4

(4) One man cheats the other, They will not speak truth; They have trained their tongues to speak falsely; They wear themselves out working iniquity.

Shavuot 30b: From where do we know that one may not take a student with you to court to make it look like you have an extra witness, even when you know you are right? From "Midvar Sheker Tirchak".

בבא מציעא מ״ט א

רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר מה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, לו) הין צדק והלא הין בכלל איפה היה אלא לומר לך שיהא הן שלך צדק ולאו שלך צדק אמר אביי ההוא שלא ידבר אחד בפה ואחד בלב ...אמרו מי שפרע מאנשי דור המבול ומאנשי דור הפלגה הוא עתיד ליפרע ממי שאינו עומד בדיבורו.

Bava Metzia 49a

If that half is canceled as well, then why does he need the collateral that he is holding? The lender clearly took the collateral to enable him to collect at least part of his debt after the Sabbatical Year. Rather, do we not conclude from it: What is the meaning of the statement: The Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is saying? It means that the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the entire loan. And what is the meaning of: The Sabbatical Year abrogates the loan, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying? It is referring to that half of the loan that he did not take on the basis of collateral. And they disagree with regard to this: As Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that a down payment effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with the entire amount of the transaction, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that a down payment effects acquisition of merchandise commensurate with its value. Apparently, the amoraic dispute parallels the tannaitic dispute. The Gemara rejects that parallel: No, what is the meaning of the statement: The Sabbatical Year does not abrogate the loan, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is saying? It is referring to that half of the loan that he took on the basis of collateral. This indicates by inference that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: The Sabbatical Year also abrogates that half of the loan that he took on the basis of collateral. The Gemara asks: Then why does he need the collateral that he is holding? The Gemara answers: He requires it as a mere reminder to increase the likelihood that the loan will be repaid, and it does not prevent cancellation of a loan. § The Gemara relates: Buyers gave money to Rav Kahana to purchase linen. Ultimately, the price of linen increased. Rav Kahana came before Rav to ask his opinion. Rav said to him: Give them a quantity of linen equivalent in value to the money that you received, and concerning the rest, your verbal commitment is merely a statement, and reneging on a verbal commitment that was unaccompanied by an act of acquisition does not constitute an act of bad faith. The Gemara comments: This is as it was stated: There is an amoraic dispute with regard to reneging on a verbal commitment that was unaccompanied by an act of acquisition. Rav says: It does not constitute an act of bad faith. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It constitutes an act of bad faith. The Gemara raises an objection: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: What is the meaning when the verse states: “A just ephah, and a just hin, shall you have” (Leviticus 19:36)? But wasn’t a hin included in an ephah? Why is it necessary to state both? Rather, this is an allusion that serves to say to you that your yes [hen] should be just, and your no should be just. Apparently, it is a mitzva for one to fulfill his promises. Abaye says: That verse means that one should not say one matter with his mouth and think one other matter in his heart. It is prohibited for one to make a commitment that he has no intention of fulfilling. Rav Kahana made his commitment in good faith and reneged due to changed circumstances. That is not prohibited. The Gemara raises an objection. Rabbi Shimon says: Even though the Sages said that when one party takes possession of a garment, the other party acquires a gold dinar, but when one party takes possession of a gold dinar, the other party does not acquire a garment, in any case, that is what the halakha would be. But the Sages said with regard to one who reneges on a transaction where one party pulled the gold dinar into his possession: He Who exacted payment from the people of the generation of the flood, and from the people of the generation of the dispersion, and from the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and from the Egyptians in the Red Sea, will in the future exact payment from whoever does not stand by his statement. And one who negotiates, where the negotiation culminates with a statement in which he commits himself to acquire the item, did not acquire the item without a formal act of acquisition. But with regard to one who reneges on his commitment, the Sages are displeased with him. Apparently, one who reneges is considered to have acted in bad faith. The Gemara explains: This matter is a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 83a): There was an incident involving Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya, who said to his son: Go out and hire laborers for us. His son went and allocated sustenance for them, as part of their employment terms, without specifying the type of sustenance. And when he came to his father, his father said to him: My son, even if you prepare for them a meal like the feast of Solomon during his era, you will not fulfill your obligation to them, as they are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and due to that status they are deserving of any meal that they want. Rather, this is what you should do: Before they begin engaging in their labor, go out and say to them: Your employment is on the condition that you have the right to claim from me only the customary meal of bread and legumes. The Gemara asks: And if it enters your mind that reneging on a verbal commitment unaccompanied by an act of acquisition constitutes an act of bad faith, how did Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya tell his son to renege? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; it is different there in that case, as the laborers themselves do not rely on the son. What is the reason they do not rely on the son? It is due to the fact that they know that he relied on his father giving his approval when committing to feed them. The Gemara asks: If so, then even if the laborers began engaging in their labor, they still would not rely on the son. Why then did his father instruct him specifically to tell them of the change before they began their labor? The Gemara answers: Once they began engaging in their labor they would certainly rely on the son’s commitment, as they would say: He must have come before his father and stated the conditions of their employment, and his father is amenable to those terms. Therefore, it was necessary to inform them before they began working. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan say this, i.e., that one who reneges on a verbal commitment acted in bad faith? But didn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who says to another: I am giving you a gift, is able to renege on his commitment? The Gemara asks: He is able to renege? It is obvious that he is able to renege, as in the absence of an act of acquisition no one can compel him to give the gift. Rather, it means: It is permitted for him to renege on his commitment. Apparently, one who reneges on a verbal guarantee is not considered to have acted in bad faith. Rav Pappa said: And Rabbi Yoḥanan concedes that in the case of a small gift one may not renege, as the recipients rely on him to fulfill his verbal commitment. By contrast, in the case of a large gift the recipients are aware that one might reconsider, and therefore they do not rely on his statement and do not assume that his decision is final. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable to say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to an Israelite who said to a Levite: You have a kor of first-tithe produce that is in my possession and that I separated from my produce, the Levite may render all or part of this kor teruma of the tithe for first-tithe produce that he has in another place. Granted, if you say that one is unable, i.e., it is not permitted for him, to renege, it is due to that reason that the Levite may render it teruma of the tithe for other produce. But if you say that one is able, i.e., it is permitted for him, to renege, why may he render it teruma of the tithe for other produce? The owner of the produce could renege, and in that case it will eventuate that he is consuming untithed produce, as the teruma of the tithe that he separated did not belong to him. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the Levite took the first-tithe produce from him and then deposited it with him, so that it already belongs to the Levite. The Gemara asks: If so, that this is the circumstance addressed in the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, say the latter clause of that halakha: If the owner of the produce gave the first-tithe produce to a different Levite, the first Levite has only a grievance against the owner, but not any legal claim. And if it enters your mind that this is a case where the first Levite took the first-tithe produce from the owner and then deposited it with him, why does the Levite have only a grievance against him? Once the first Levite pulled the produce into his possession it is his, and therefore, he has property in the possession of the owner of the produce. Rather, must one not conclude from it that this is a case where the Levite did not take the produce and deposit it? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that there was only a verbal commitment, and that proves that reneging on a verbal commitment constitutes an act of bad faith. The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who gave money as payment for sesame. Ultimately, the price of sesame increased, and the sellers reneged and said to him: We have no sesame; take your money. The buyer did not take his money, and the money was stolen. They came before Rava to adjudicate the case. Rava said to the buyer: Once they said to you: Take your money, and you did not take it, it is not necessary to say that their legal status is not that of a paid bailee. But my ruling is that their legal status is not even that of an unpaid bailee. The Sages said to Rava: But aren’t the sellers who reneged required to accept upon themselves the curse: He Who exacted payment? Rava said to them: Indeed, they must pay or accept the curse. Rav Pappi said that Ravina said to me: One of the Sages, and Rav Tavot is his name, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Zutra is his name, and he is one who even if they were to give him the entire expanse of the world he would not deviate from the truth in his speech, said to me: There was an incident in which I was involved. On that day, it was twilight on Shabbat eve, and I was sitting, and a certain man came and stood at the entrance. He said to me: Do you have sesame to sell?

רש"י על בראשית כ״ז:י״ט

(א) אנכי עשו בכורך. אָנֹכִי הַמֵּבִיא לְךָ וְעֵשָׂו הוּא בְּכוֹרֶךָ:

Rashi on Genesis 27:19

(1) אנכי עשו בכרך I AM ESAU THY FIRST-BORN — I am he that brings food to you, and Esau is your first-born. (2) עשיתי I HAVE DONE many things at different times כאשר דברת אלי ACCORDING AS THOU SPAKEST UNTO ME (3) שבה SIT — The word means to sit at the table and therefore it is translated in the Targum by אסתחר (from סחר to “go round” corresponding to the Hebrew סבב from which the term מֵסֵב to recline at, to sit round the table at a meal is derived).

Part 4: Shalom Vrs Emet

בראשית י״ח:י״א-י״ג

(יא) וְאַבְרָהָ֤ם וְשָׂרָה֙ זְקֵנִ֔ים בָּאִ֖ים בַּיָּמִ֑ים חָדַל֙ לִהְי֣וֹת לְשָׂרָ֔ה אֹ֖רַח כַּנָּשִֽׁים׃ (יב) וַתִּצְחַ֥ק שָׂרָ֖ה בְּקִרְבָּ֣הּ לֵאמֹ֑ר אַחֲרֵ֤י בְלֹתִי֙ הָֽיְתָה־לִּ֣י עֶדְנָ֔ה וַֽאדֹנִ֖י זָקֵֽן׃ (יג) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֑ם לָ֣מָּה זֶּה֩ צָחֲקָ֨ה שָׂרָ֜ה לֵאמֹ֗ר הַאַ֥ף אֻמְנָ֛ם אֵלֵ֖ד וַאֲנִ֥י זָקַֽנְתִּי׃

Genesis 18:11-13

(11) Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years; Sarah had stopped having the periods of women. (12) And Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “Now that I am withered, am I to have enjoyment—with my husband so old?” (13) Then the LORD said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh, saying, ‘Shall I in truth bear a child, old as I am?’

בראשית כ״ז:י״ח-י״ט

(יח) וַיָּבֹ֥א אֶל־אָבִ֖יו וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אָבִ֑י וַיֹּ֣אמֶר הִנֶּ֔נִּי מִ֥י אַתָּ֖ה בְּנִֽי׃ (יט) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יַעֲקֹ֜ב אֶל־אָבִ֗יו אָנֹכִי֙ עֵשָׂ֣ו בְּכֹרֶ֔ךָ עָשִׂ֕יתִי כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּ֖רְתָּ אֵלָ֑י קֽוּם־נָ֣א שְׁבָ֗ה וְאָכְלָה֙ מִצֵּידִ֔י בַּעֲב֖וּר תְּבָרֲכַ֥נִּי נַפְשֶֽׁךָ׃

Genesis 27:18-19

(18) He went to his father and said, “Father.” And he said, “Yes, which of my sons are you?” (19) Jacob said to his father, “I am Esau, your first-born; I have done as you told me. Pray sit up and eat of my game, that you may give me your innermost blessing.”

רש"י על בראשית י״ח:י״ג

(ב) ואני זקנתי שִׁנָּה הַכָּתוּב מִפְּנֵי הַשָּׁלוֹם, שֶׁהֲרֵי הִיא אָמְרָה וַאדֹנִי זָקֵן:

Rashi on Genesis 18:13

(1) האף אמנם means SHALL I REALLY BEAR? (2) ואני זקנתי I BEING OLD — Scripture (God) in relating her words to her husband alters them for the sake of peace, for she had said (v. 12) “my lord is old” (Genesis Rabbah 48:18).

כתובות י״ז א

כלה כמות שהיא ובית הלל אומרים כלה נאה וחסודה אמרו להן ב"ש לב"ה הרי שהיתה חיגרת או סומא אומרי' לה כלה נאה וחסודה והתורה אמרה (שמות כג, ז) מדבר שקר תרחק אמרו להם ב"ה לב"ש לדבריכם מי שלקח מקח רע מן השוק ישבחנו בעיניו או יגננו בעיניו הוי אומר ישבחנו בעיניו מכאן אמרו חכמים לעולם תהא דעתו של אדם מעורבת עם הבריות.

Ketubot 17a

One recites praise of the bride as she is, emphasizing her good qualities. And Beit Hillel say: One recites: A fair and attractive bride. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: In a case where the bride was lame or blind, does one say with regard to her: A fair and attractive bride? But the Torah states: “Keep you from a false matter” (Exodus 23:7). Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your statement, with regard to one who acquired an inferior acquisition from the market, should another praise it and enhance its value in his eyes or condemn it and diminish its value in his eyes? You must say that he should praise it and enhance its value in his eyes and refrain from causing him anguish. From here the Sages said: A person’s disposition should always be empathetic with mankind, and treat everyone courteously. In this case too, once the groom has married his bride, one praises her as being fair and attractive. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This is what they sing before brides in the West, in Eretz Yisrael: No eye shadow, and no rouge, and no braiding of the hair, and yet she is comparable to a graceful ibex. The Gemara relates: When the Sages ordained Rabbi Zeira, this is what they metaphorically sang with regard to him in his praise: No eye shadow, and no rouge, and no braiding of the hair, and yet she is comparable to a graceful ibex. On a related note, the Gemara relates: When the Sages ordained Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, this is what they sang to them: Anyone from people of this kind and anyone from people of that kind, ordain them for us. Do not ordain for us others, neither from those who corrupt [sarmisin] halakhot, nor from those who are worthless [sarmitin]. And some say: Not from those who provide only one-fifth [ḥamisin] of the reason for a halakha, and not from those whose knowledge is incomplete [turmisin]. The Gemara relates another instance of singing the praise of the Sages: When Rabbi Abbahu would come from the academy to the house of the emperor, the maidservants of the emperor’s house would go out to greet him, and this is what they sang to him: Master of his people and leader of his nation, candle of illumination, blessed is your arrival in peace. With regard to the mitzva of bringing joy to the bride and groom, the Gemara relates: The Sages said about Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai that he would take a myrtle branch and dance before the bride, and say: A fair and attractive bride. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak would base his dance on three myrtle branches that he would juggle. Rabbi Zeira said: The old man is humiliating us, as through his conduct he is demeaning the Torah and the Torah scholars. It is further related: When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak died, a pillar of fire demarcated between him and everyone else, and we learn through tradition that a pillar of fire demarcates only for either one person in a generation or for two people in a generation. Rabbi Zeira said: His branch [shotitei] was effective for the old man, as it is due to this mitzva that he fulfilled so enthusiastically that he was privileged to receive this great reward. And some say that Rabbi Zeira said: His nonsense [shetutei] was effective for the old man. And some say that he said: His method [shittatei] was effective for the old man. Rav Aḥa would place the bride on his shoulders and dance. The Sages said to him: What is the ruling? Is it permitted for us to do so as well? He said to them: If brides are comparable for you to a beam, fine, but if not, no, you may not. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: It is permitted to look at the face of a bride throughout all seven days of the wedding celebration, in order to endear her to her husband, whose appreciation of her beauty will be thereby enhanced. The Gemara notes: And the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion, as it is prohibited to look at any married woman, even a bride. § The Sages taught: One reroutes the funeral procession for burial of a corpse to yield before the wedding procession of a bride. And both this, the funeral procession, and that, the wedding procession, yield before a king of Israel. They said about King Agrippa [Agrippas] that although he was not required to do so, he rerouted his entourage before the wedding procession of a bride, and the Sages praised him for doing so. The Gemara asks: The Sages praised him; is that to say by inference that he did well in yielding? But didn’t Rav Ashi say: Even according to the one who said with regard to a Nasi who relinquishes the honor due him that his honor is relinquished, i.e., he may do so, with regard to a king who relinquishes the honor due him, his honor is not relinquished. As the Master said that the meaning of the verse “You shall place a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) is that his awe shall be upon you. The Torah established that the subjects’ awe is an essential component of kingship and it is not the prerogative of the king to waive it. The Gemara answers: It was at a crossroads that he encountered the wedding procession, and the fact that he yielded to the bride was not obvious to onlookers. Therefore, the honor due the king was not compromised. The Sages taught: One suspends the study of Torah to attend the removal of a corpse for burial and to attend the entry of a bride into the wedding canopy. The Sages said about Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, that he would suspend the study of Torah to attend the removal of a corpse for burial and to attend the entry of a bride into the wedding canopy. In what case is this statement said? In a case where there are not enough people with him, i.e., accompanying the corpse, to satisfy all his needs, i.e., to appropriately honor him. However, if there are enough people with him to satisfy all his needs, one does not suspend Torah study. The Gemara asks: And how many people constitute all his needs? Rav Shmuel bar Eini said in the name of Rav: Twelve thousand men and six thousand additional men each sounding a shofar to herald the approaching funeral procession. And some say: Thirteen thousand men and, among them, six thousand men sounding a shofar. Ulla said: All his needs means a crowd large enough so that the men in the funeral possession form a partition stretching from the gate of the city [abbula] until the cemetery. Rav Sheshet, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan, said: The number of people required for taking of the Torah from the Jewish people with the death of a Torah scholar is equivalent to the number present at its giving to the Jewish people. Just as its giving took place with six hundred thousand men present at Sinai, so too, the taking of the Torah at the funeral of a Torah scholar is with six hundred thousand men. The Gemara notes: This applies only to one who read the Bible and studied mishna, i.e., one who is a student of Torah, and consequently worthy of that honor.

יבמות ס״ה ב

וא"ר אילעא משום רבי אלעזר בר' שמעון מותר לו לאדם לשנות בדבר השלום שנאמר (בראשית נ, טז) אביך צוה וגו כה תאמרו ליוסף אנא שא נא וגו' ר' נתן אומר מצוה שנאמר (שמואל א טז, ב) ויאמר שמואל איך אלך ושמע שאול והרגני וגו' דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא גדול השלום שאף הקדוש ברוך הוא שינה בו דמעיקרא כתיב (בראשית יח, יב) ואדוני זקן ולבסוף כתיב ואני זקנתי:

Yevamot 65b

The Gemara addresses another case in which the court forces a man to divorce his wife who has not had children after ten years. If he said: You miscarried within the ten years of our marriage, and since less than ten years have elapsed since that time he should not have to divorce her, and she said: I did not miscarry, Rabbi Ami said: Even in this case she is believed, because if it is so that she miscarried she would not establish herself as barren through denying his claim. If she miscarried, and then miscarried again, and miscarried again, she has been established to be a woman who is prone to miscarriages, and her husband must divorce her so that he can have children with another woman. If he said she miscarried twice, and she said it occurred three times, Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar said: There was an incident of this kind that was adjudicated in the study hall and they said that she is believed, because if it is so that she had not miscarried a third time she would not establish herself as one who is prone to miscarriages. MISHNA: A man is commanded with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but not a woman. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that a woman is also commanded, as the verse states with regard to both of them: “And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). GEMARA: From where are these matters derived, that a woman is not obligated in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply? Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: The verse states: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the land and conquer it” (Genesis 1:28). It is the manner of a man to conquer and it is not the manner of a woman to conquer. Consequently, it is evident that the entire command, including the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, was given only to men and not to women. The Gemara raises a difficulty. On the contrary, the plural term: “And conquer it [vekhivshuha],” indicates that the two of them are included. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is written in the Torah without the letter vav, so that it can be read: And conquer it [vekhivsha], in the singular. Rav Yosef said: The proof is from here: “And God said to him: I am God Almighty, be fruitful and multiply [perei urvei]” (Genesis 35:11), which is in singular, and it does not state: Be fruitful and multiply [peru urvu] in the plural. The Gemara cites other statements made by Rabbi Ile’a in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. And Rabbi Ile’a said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: Just as it is a mitzva for a person to say that which will be heeded, so is it a mitzva for a person not to say that which will not be heeded. One should not rebuke those who will be unreceptive to his message. Rabbi Abba says: It is obligatory for him to refrain from speaking, as it is stated: “Do not reprove a scorner lest he hate you; reprove a wise man and he will love you” (Proverbs 9:8). And Rabbi Ile’a further said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: It is permitted for a person to depart from the truth in a matter that will bring peace, as it is stated: “Your father commanded before he died, saying: So you shall say to Joseph: Please pardon your brothers’ crime, etc.” (Genesis 50:16–17). Jacob never issued this command, but his sons falsely attributed this statement to him in order to preserve peace between them and Joseph. Rabbi Natan says: It is a mitzva to depart from the truth in order to preserve peace, as it is stated: “And Samuel said: How can I go, and Saul will hear and kill me” (I Samuel 16:2). God responded in the next verse that Samuel should say he went to sacrifice an offering, indicating that God commands one to lie in order to preserve peace. It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Great is peace, as even the Holy One, Blessed be He, departed from the truth for it. As, initially it is written that Sarah said of Abraham: “And my lord is old” (Genesis 18:12), and in the end it is written that God told Abraham that Sarah said: “And I am old” (Genesis 18:13). God adjusted Sarah’s words in order to spare Abraham hurt feelings that might lead Abraham and Sarah to quarrel. § It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that women are also included in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. It was stated that two amora’im, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, disagreed concerning this matter. One said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and one said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. The Gemara comments: Conclude that it was Rabbi Yoḥanan who said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as Rabbi Abbahu sat and said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, who were sitting across from him, turned their faces as an indication that they disagreed with this report of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, but did not want to explicitly contradict Rabbi Abbahu’s statement out of respect for him. And some say a different version of the incident, that it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba who said this statement, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi turned their faces. Rav Pappa said: Granted, according to the one who said that Rabbi Abbahu said it, it makes sense that due to the honor of Caesar’s court, where Rabbi Abbahu maintained close ties, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi did not say anything to him and merely hinted at their disagreement. However, according to the one who said that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said it, let them say to him explicitly: Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say this. In any event, it is clear that according to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka. The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached about this issue? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Asi said: There was an incident that came before Rabbi Yoḥanan in the synagogue of Caesarea involving a woman who wanted a divorce from her husband after ten years of childless marriage, and he said that the husband must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract. If it enters your mind to say that she is not commanded to be fruitful and multiply, what is payment for a marriage contract doing here? Why does she have a right to demand to be divorced and to receive the payment for her marriage contract? The Gemara responds: Perhaps that was in a case when she came to demand a divorce due to another claim, i.e., she wanted children for a reason other than the fulfillment of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Since this claim has merit, her husband must divorce her and pay her marriage contract. This is like the case of a certain woman who came before Rabbi Ami and requested a divorce due to her husband’s inability to father children. She said to her husband: Give me the payment for my marriage contract. He said to her: Go away, as you are not commanded to be fruitful and multiply and have no right to demand a divorce. She said to him: In her old age, what will be with this woman, i.e., if I have no children, who will take care of me when I grow old? Rabbi Ami said: In a situation such as this, we certainly force the husband to divorce and her and pay her marriage contract. The Gemara relates a similar incident: A certain woman came before Rav Naḥman and requested a divorce due to her husband’s inability to father children. He said to her: You are not commanded to be fruitful and multiply. She said to him: Does this woman not require a staff for her hand and a hoe for her burial? In other words, the woman said that she wanted children so that they could care for her in her old age and bury her when she would die. Rav Naḥman said: In a case such as this, we certainly force the husband to divorce her. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya’s sons, Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya, were twins, but one of them was fully developed after nine months of pregnancy and one was fully developed at the beginning of the seventh month, and they were born two months apart. Yehudit, the wife of Rabbi Ḥiyya, had acute birthing pain from these unusual deliveries. She changed her clothes to prevent Rabbi Ḥiyya from recognizing her and came before Rabbi Ḥiyya to ask him a halakhic question. She said: Is a woman commanded to be fruitful and multiply? He said to her: No. She went and drank an infertility potion. Eventually the matter was revealed, and Rabbi Ḥiyya found out about what Yehudit had done. He said to her: If only you had given birth to one more belly for me, i.e., another set of twins. As the Master said: Yehuda and Ḥizkiyya were twin brothers and became prominent Torah scholars, and Pazi and Tavi, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s daughters,

פסחים ג׳ ב:י׳-י״ב

ההוא ארמאה דהוה סליק ואכיל פסחים בירושלים אמר כתיב כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו כל ערל לא יאכל בו ואנא הא קאכילנא משופרי שופרי אמר ליה רבי יהודה בן בתירא מי קא ספו לך מאליה אמר ליה לא כי סלקת להתם אימא להו ספו לי מאליה כי סליק אמר להו מאליה ספו לי אמרו ליה אליה לגבוה סלקא אמרו ליה מאן אמר לך הכי אמר להו רבי יהודה בן בתירא אמרו מאי האי דקמן בדקו בתריה ואשכחוהו דארמאה הוא וקטלוהו שלחו ליה לרבי יהודה בן בתירא שלם לך רבי יהודה בן בתירא דאת בנציבין ומצודתך פרוסה בירושלים.

Pesachim 3b:10-12

With regard to the investigation of the priestly lineage, the Gemara relates: A certain gentile would ascend on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, claiming he was Jewish, and eat Paschal lambs in Jerusalem. He would then return home and boast about how he had tricked the Jews. He said: It is written: “This is the statute of the Paschal lamb; no foreigner may eat of it” (Exodus 12:43), and another verse says: “Any uncircumcised man shall not eat of it” (Exodus 12:48). And yet, I ate from the finest of the fine portions of the Paschal lamb. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him, in an attempt to thwart any repetition of this action: Did they feed you from the fat tail of the lamb? Do you really think they gave you the finest portion? The gentile was ignorant of the fact that the fat tail is sacrificed on the altar, not eaten. The gentile said to him: No. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira replied: If so, when you ascend there next time, say to them: Feed me the fat tail. The next year when he ascended, he said to the other members of the group he joined: Feed me from the fat tail. They said to him: The fat tail is offered up to God. They said to him: Who said that to you, to ask for that portion? He said to them testily: It was Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. They said: What is this incident that has come before us? Could Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira have told him to eat the fat tail? This matter must be investigated further. They investigated his background and found that he was a gentile, and they killed him. They sent a message to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Peace unto you, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, as you are in Netzivin and your net is spread in Jerusalem. Despite your distance from Jerusalem, you enabled us to apprehend a person who deceived us.

בבא מציעא ע״ה ב:ט״ו

מתני׳ השוכר את האומנין והטעו זה את זה אין להם זה על זה אלא תרעומת.

Bava Metzia 75b:15

MISHNA: With regard to one who hires artisans or laborers, and they deceived one another, they have nothing but a grievance against one another, and they have no financial claim against the deceptive party. If one hired a donkey driver or a potter to bring posts [piryafarin] for a canopy or flutes to play in honor of a bride or the dead, or if he hired laborers to bring up his flax from the retting tub, i.e., the container of water in which flax is placed in the first stage of the manufacture of linen, and likewise any matter that involves financial loss if not performed on time and the laborers reneged, if this occurred in a place where there is no other person to perform the task, he may hire replacements for a large fee at the expense of the first workers, or deceive them to get them to return to work.

ספר המדות, אמת, חלק ראשון

(ד) ד. שָׁרֵי לְהוּ לְצַדִּיקַיָּא לִסְגוּאֵי בְּרַמָּאוּתָא עִם רַמָּאֵי.

(ז) ז. עַל־יְדֵי אֱמֶת לא יָמוּת קדֶם זְמַנּוֹ הַקָּצוּב.

(יב) יב. תִּקּוּן לַפֶּה – שֶׁיִּתֵּן צְדָקָה.

(יג) יג. עַל־יְדֵי אֱמֶת הָעוֹלָם נִשְׁמָר מִכָּל הֶזֵּקוֹת.

(כב) כב. כְּשֶׁיֵּשׁ אֱמֶת יֵשׁ שָׁלום.

(לב) לב. מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר שֶׁקֶר, הַקָּדוֹשׁ־בָּרוּךְ־הוּא מוֹשִׁיעַ לוֹ בְּעֵת צָרָתוֹ גַּם בָּנִים יִהְיוּ לוֹ.

(מב) מב. מִי שֶׁדּוֹבֵר כְּזָבִים, הוּא אוֹבֵד.

Sefer HaMiddot, Truth, Part I

(2) 2. It is permissible to alter the truth for the sake of peace.

(3) 3. (Those who are included in the) grouping of liars cannot receive the Divine Presence.

(4) 4. It is permissible for the tzadikim to act with conniving with a swindler.

(5) 5. All who add, detract.

(6) 6. Through falsehood come thoughts of idolatry (t.n. See also item #28).

(7) 7. Through truth, one will not die before his allotted time.

(8) 8. From the breath (of the mouth) of a liar, the evil inclination is created, and when the Messiah comes, (then) there will be no falsehood. Consequently, there will be no evil inclination in the world.

(9) 9. Someone who is a person of truth (then he) can discern in another, whether the other is lying or not.

(10) 10. The indication of falsehood -- when the many do not agree with it. It is one of the three things that the Holy One Blessed be He hates.

(11) 11. A rich man who denies (that he is holding onto someone else's money) -- the conscience cannot bear it, and he becomes despicable in his own eyes.

(12) 12. A rectification for the mouth -- that he should give charity (t.n. See also #12. It is interesting to note that in the Hebrew alphabet the letter Peh -- mouth, is followed by the letter Tzadik -- the aspect of charity).

(13) 13. Through truth, the world is protected from all harm.

(14) 14. Through adulation, one comes to falsehood.

(15) 15. One who gives charity his reward is that he will merit to truth (t.n. See also above #12, and below #23, and Charity #31).

(16) 16. A liar hates humility (t.n. See also #46).

(17) 17. A person is recognized through his servants, whether he loves falsehood, for each is dependent on the other. Sometimes his servants fall into sin through that which he is a liar, and sometimes he falls into falsehood through his servants, that aren't proper.

(18) 18. When there is no truth, there is no kindness, also he cannot do [kindness] with people (t.n. See also #23).

(19) 19. Falsehood forestalls salvation, for falsehood exposes one's sins, in order that he not be saved.

(20) 20. The truth redeems from all troubles.

(21) 21. It is better for a man to die, than to live and be [considered] a deceiver in peoples' eyes.

(22) 22. When there is truth, there is peace.

(23) 23. Someone who is far from truth is far from charity (t.n. See #18. This is also explicitly taught in Likutay Moharan, Torah 251).

(24) 24. Through truth, the sign of the covenant (referring primarily to sexual purity. t.n.) is guarded.

(25) 25. Through truth, one merits to an everlasting name.

(26) 26. A husband and wife who are accustomed to saying lies, their children will be opposers (in general this would refer to opposition against chasidus -- anti-Breslov. t.n.), and also will violators of the covenant (referring primarily to sexual infractions. t.n.).

(27) 27. Falsehood comes through accepting upon one's self fear of people.

(28) 28. Through falsehood, one forgets the Holy One, Blessed be He (t.n. See also #34).

(29) 29. Someone who does not have trust (in G-d), he speaks lies, and through his falsehood, he cannot have real trust.

(30) 30. According to one's distance from truth, so one perceives a person who shuns evil as a fool.

(31) 31. One who wants to turn away from evil, and sees that there is no truth in the world, makes himself as a fool (because the world doesn't recognize the truth they will see his turning away from evil as foolery. t.n.).

(32) 32. Someone who does not lie, the Holy One Blessed be He saves him in the time of his trouble. Also he will have children.

(33) 33. Through pointless speech (/lies -- the Hebrew word "shuv" can mean either. The emphasis of this word is on open and blatant falsehood. t.n.), comes a smiting of the children.

(34) 34. One who is connected to aimlessness ('shuv' see the t.n. On the previous entry -- #33) comes to forgetfulness (t.n. See also #28).

(35) 35. Through falsehood one comes to promiscuity, and strengthens the hand of evildoers, not to repent.

(36) 36. Through falsehood, one will not be able to receive healing, even from many varied treatments.

(37) 37. One who speaks falsehood (the emphasis of this type of falsehood -'kuzuv' is not honoring an agreement. t.n.) falls by the sword, also he becomes a fool.

(38) 38. Through fear (of G-d), one comes to truth.

(39) 39. One who guards himself from falsehood, he is always victorious.

(40) 40. It is permissible to alter the truth in order to save oneself (t.n. See also #2).

(41) 41. One who loves falsehood ('kuzuv' -- see t.n. On #37), he disgraces the Tzaddik, and he also becomes disgraced.

(42) 42. One who speaks falsehood ('kuzuv' -- see t.n. On #37), he is lost (/destroyed).

(43) 43. Through truth, one is guarded from evil speech (lushon hura), and his prayer is accepted. Also, when he is judged above, he is judged according to his merits.

(44) 44. Through dreams, a person can know if his heart is true with his G-d.

(45) 45. Someone who keeps his word can be enterprising (make things happen).

(46) 46. Someone who doesn't have arrogance is saved from falsehood (t.n. See also #16).

(47) 47. Someone who guards himself laughter of ridicule, it is certain that he is a person of truth.

(48) 48. One who was a liar in a previous incarnation, through this, when he was reincarnated he was made to be left-handed (t.n. In the holy book Sichos HuRan -- the Conversations of Rabbi Nachman, this adage is quoted, and there Rabbi Nussun says that he had heard in the name of Rabbi Nachman that the left-handedness was an indication that in the previous incarnation the person was a conflict monger -- and there is a very lucid explanation given. t.n. It is interesting to note, that I found in a booklet on chirology, Khuchmas Hayad, page10, that on the palm of the left hand are engraved the lines that are incumbent on a person from his mazal and from his previous incarnation, and also hereditary illness in his family, and the right palm conveys if a person rectified his deeds and the happenings of his life, in the past, present, and future).

(49) 49. One who guards himself and speaks truth at all times, it is as if he made the heavens and earth, and the sea and all that is in them.

(50) 50. Falsehood is only with one's mouth, but not in writing (t.n. This refers only to the auxiliary detriments of falsehood, such as those listed in this entry, but it is still forbidden to write falsehood).

(51) 51. The Torah, the Prophets and the Sages spoke in the vernacular (t.n. See Rashi in Chulin 90b. The common language and expression spoken off the cuff can say things that are not. It must be noted however, that this is just referring to the superficial understanding, but on the deeper understandings of their holy words, they are absolutely exact and accurate. t.n.).

There is something else. I have had lots of discussions with big cheaters – insider trading, accounting fraud, people who have sold games in the NBA, doping in sports. With one exception, all of them were stories of slippery slopes. You look at the sequence of the events – you look at the end – and you say, my goodness, what kind of monster would do this? But then you look at the first step they took and say, I can see myself under the right amount of pressure behaving badly. Then they took another step, another step, and another step. Most organizations go down a slippery slope rather than having some vicious, vicious plan….
I will give you one example: doping in sports. Think about cycling. I talked to all kinds of cyclists who doped – not Lance Armstrong. One story was a guy who at some point got an address for a physician from one of his team members. He went to that physician – somebody with a white coat and a stethoscope – and that person gave him a prescription for the pharmacy. He went to the pharmacy, and he got EPO, which is a drug that increases the production of red blood cells. It is used for cancer treatment. His insurance paid for it because he had a prescription.
He got the injections. The first time he injected himself, he was thinking about it. But he said after that it just became part of his routine. It was just one of the many, many steps he was taking throughout the day – vitamins, do this, do this, do this. But after he started doing that, then he realized that everybody was doing it. Then they started doing it in public.
Then he moved to another team, and in that team, the people who were running the team were getting people to order what drugs they want in addition to EPO. Moving from just EPO to another drug was very simple. Later on, there was a shortage of EPO, but he knew some people from a Chinese cycling team, so they put him in touch with a factory that produces EPO, and he imported it. Then he started selling drugs. You could see how things go on.

When you are in the midst of it, you are in a very, very different mindset. In your mind, you are not a psychopath, and you are not cheating. You are doing what everybody else is doing, and it is true that you do not talk about it. But that is how things are getting done.