Medvar Sheker Tirchok

I heard a most beautiful idea the past shabbos. My Rabbi had a great Rabbi and I luckily was invited to the shabbos meal. Now, it has escaped my mind a little bit, so any mistake is my own of course.

The discussion came to when a person could lie. The real discussion, which was beautiful was that Shal-m (peace) is superior to "fact" or "truth" sometimes. It overrides it. The obvious case is when Avraham is "lied" to about Sarah laughing. In fact he pointed out an amazing Rambam talking about Hilchos Channukah that the Rambam points out the whole Torah is for Shal-m, to achieve perfect peace (that part I dont remember well).

They then discussed "Me'dvar sheker Tirchok" (stay away from a lie). This is the source (primarily) for Loshon Hora (Chafetz Chaim explains all the d'oraisa laws broken, but this is a primary one of approx. 36 lav and asseh (i think)). Of course, the verse says "stay away from a lie", and yet Chazal tell us that Lashon Hora is when its TRUE! When its a lie its a WHOLE other issue and much much worse. So he explained (I think he heard it from another great Rabbi) that the sheker that is created is when this TRUTH is told it breaks and hides Shal-m (peace and unity) in the world.

These I think are beautiful concepts. In fact Rav Yehudah says that Zelophad is liable to a certain sin...another Rabbi (i think yochanan) challenges him saying: Either you said he did an aveirah that the Torah hides (doesnt mention his name) or you have just attributed an aveirah
that he never did. Now that is NOT a good situation lol. Thats in massechta Shabbos.... The point of course is that one shouldnt say anything at all. Rav Yehudah may be learning the pshat of Torah, but its possibly in violation of Halacha.


If you are wondering why I wont type "Shal-m" in full, in Shabbos 10a it lists one of Hashem's names as a name. There is a machlokes (arguement) as to whether it can be written (and in the gemara where it can or cant be said) - many people write it, but I choose not to. I mention it because, it will remind me of this concept as well and I think it ties in very well. That is, just as "Shal-m is more emes then emes" this is reflected as it is one of the names of G-d.