Parshas Naso 5785
- Torah Tavlin
- Jun 5
- 3 min read
שבועות דף לא.
"מדבר שקר תרחק"
If one owes $100 dollars, but the מלוה is claiming the loan is for $200, the לוה may not rationalize and say: If I am מודה to the $100 in ב"ד I will be considered a מודה במקצת and I will have to swear on the balance. If that happens, this מלוה will be allowed to make me swear (גלגול שבועה) about another outstanding loan I have with him and I don’t want to make that שבועה. So, I will deny the whole loan in ב"ד (כופר הכל) thus avoiding any שבועות, but I will admit to him about the $100 outside of ב"ד and pay him. The Gemara says, the לוה may not engage this ploy because of מדבר שקר תרחק. [ד"ה שלא] תוס' assumes that this לוה is not a גנב, because we are not permitting this ruse only because of מדבר שקר and not גניבה. So apparently his concern is that the מלוה will make him swear a גלגול שבועה about another fabricated loan and he will have to swear and deny this loan exists. This swearing in ב"ד, even truthfully, is something he wants to avoid. So, he plans to be a כופר הכל thus avoiding a שבועת מודה במקצת and the גלגול שבועה. If so, asks תוס', why do we need a case of a גלגול שבועה? If his only concern is not swearing in ב"ד, we should just ask: if a מלוה is demanding 200 may the לוה be a כופר הכל (and pay him outside) to avoid a שבועת מודה במקצת? Why add in the גלגול שבועה aspect at all? Tosfos answers that the לוה admits that he owes the second loan, but has been denying it to the מלוה in order to stall and buy time to raise the money. His only concern is that the גלגול will force him to swear truthfully that he owes the money and he will be pressured to come up with the money immediately, which he doesn’t have. This is what he is trying to avoid. On this the Gemara says, that although in the scheme of things he is not intending to steal, still מדבר שקר תרחק and he should not be a כופר הכל.
The [תד"ה שלא] רש"ש asks, why is the Gemara not addressing the fact that the לוה has been denying the other loan, and is being עובר, מדבר שקר תרחק on that point? The [חו"מ שאלה קלח'] שבות יעקב brings a שאלה: A דיין who was judging a case with 2 other judges, felt they were going to pasken wrongly. He inquired if he may say regarding the case "איני יודע", (recuse himself) thus requiring them to replace him and add 2 different judges to the ב"ד. Hopefully, theses 2 new judges will pasken correctly. Or, since saying איני יודע is not the אמת, this would not be permitted? The שבות יעקב paskens that he may say איני יודע in order to try to achieve a correct psak. Since we have a rule: מותר לשנות בדברישלום and דין is שלום, because the pasuk says: [זכריה] אמת, ומשפט שלום שפטו בשעריכם, to say איני יודע would be permitted.
The Gemara [יבמות סה:] brings: "א"ר אילעא, מותר לו לאדם לשנות בדבר שלום שנאמר, אביך צוה". Rashi explains that יעקב did not tell the שבטים to say this to יוסף, but they changed it on their own מפני השלום. The Gemara also brings [כתובות טז:] a מחלוקת between ב"ש and ב"ה: ת"ר כיצד מרקדין לפני הכלה? Bais Shamai says כלה כמות שהיא. But ב"ה says one should always say כלה נאה וחסודה. ב"ש asks why should this be allowed, the Torah says מדבר שקר תרחק? ע"ש.