Volume 46 Number 25
                    Produced: Wed Dec 22 21:03:08 EST 2004


Subjects Discussed In This Issue:

Lateness to Shul/Dan l'chaf zechus (3)
         [Chana Luntz, Martin Stern, Martin Stern]


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chana Luntz <Chana@...>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 22:38:47 GMT
Subject: Lateness to Shul/Dan l'chaf zechus

Martin Stern writes:

>Similarly, someone might be late for a weekday minchah or ma'ariv
>because of an unexpected traffic jam. It is those who are persistently
>late, in the absence of specific crises, at every tefillah -shacharit,
>minchah, ma'ariv - weekday, shabbat, yom tov - that make it difficult
>to find some limmud zekhut (justification) other than lack of interest
>in davenning. This comes from the well known principle of Occam's razor
>that the most likely correct explanation is the one that explains the
>largest number of phenomena.

I don't think Occam's razor is the correct principle to apply when it
comes to the mitzvah of being dan l'chaf z'chus.

Lets go back to the basic sources.  There are various references to the
concept of being dan l'chaf zechus in the gemora eg the gemora in
Shevuos 30a derives the mitzvah from the pasuk b'tzedek tishpot amitecha
(Vayikra 19:15) and Rashi explains there that this is not speaking about
judging litigants but when one sees his chaver doing something that one
is able to explain to the side of averah, or to the side of merit one
must explain it to the side of merit and not suspect him of an averah.
In addition the gemora in Yoma 19b/Shabbas 97a states that one who
suspects people who are kosher of an averah will be aflicted physically
(the proof text is from Shmos 4 and Moshe Rabbanu who suspected that the
bnei Yisroel would not believe him and whose hand was then afflicted
with leprosy.

However the main sugya in relation to this concept can be found at
Shabbas 127a-b.

The gemora starts by stating in the name of Rabbi Asi in the name of
Rabbi Yochanan, that there are six things where a person eats the fruits
in this world but the principal remains for him in the world to come:
hospitality to guests, visiting the sick, mediating in prayer, coming
early to the beis medrish, raising his children to study torah and
judging his fellow favourably dan l'chaf zechus]

After an interlude, the gemora returns to the subject of judging
favourably: "Qur rabbis taught One who judges his fellow favourably is
himself judged [by Hashem] favourably."

It then goes on to tell several stories.

The first relates to a person who went down from the upper Galil and was
hired by ebody in the south to work for him for three years.  On erev
yom kippur the worker came to his employer and said "Give me my wages
that I can go and support my wife and children" to which the employer
replied, "I have no money".  SO he said to him "Give me produce".  The
employer replied, "I have none". He said to him "Give me land", "I have
none" "Give me animals", I have none", - " Give me pillows and bedding",
"I have none" So he put his belongings on his back and went home
despondant.  After the festival the employer took his wages in his hand
and three donkeys, one with food and one with drink and one with various
choice things and went to his house.  After they had eaten and drunk, he
said to him, at the time when you said to me, give me my wages and I
said I have none, what did you suspect of me?" The fellow replied "I
thought you had come across a cheap business deal and you had spent all
your money".  "When you said give me cattle and I said I had no cattle
of what did you suspect me? "I thought they may be hired out to others".
"When you said give me land and I said I had no land, of what did you
suspect me?" "I thought perhaps it has been leased to others" "And at
the time I said I had no produce, of what did you suspect me?" "I
thought perhaps they are not tithed".  "when I told you I have no
pillows or bedding of what did you suspect me?"  I thought you had
dedicated all your property to Heaven".  He said to him, by the Avodah,
it is indeed so, I had made a vow to dedicate all my property because
my son Hyrcanus would not occupy himself with Torah, but when I went to
my friends in the South the nullified my vow.  And as for you, Just as
you were judged me favourably, so Hashem judge you favourably".

The second story relates to a chassid who ransomed a jewish woman from
captivity and at the inn he made her lie at his feet and afterwards he
went down and immersed himself in a mikvah [which in those days one
would do after having sexual relations] and then learnt with his
talmidim. He said to them, at the time I caused her to lie at my feet,
of what did you suspect me?  They replied, perhaps there is one of us
whose character has not been fully checked out by the Rabbi.  When I
went down and toyvelled in the mikvah, of what did you suspect me?
Perhaps the trouble of the journey caused a nocturnal emission to the
Rabbi. And he said to them, "By the Avodah this is how it was and as for
you, Just as you were judged me favourably, so Hashem judge you
favourably"

The third story relates to R' Yehoshua and a Roman noblewoman from which
the scholars needed something, and again R' Yehoshua did what might on
the face of it seem to be suspicious things, taking off his tephilin and
closing the door and going to the mikvah afterwards and again there was
a completely innocent explanation (he took of his tephillin because he
was going into a tamei place, he secluded himself to discuss a necessary
matter of state, he went to the mikvah because a drop of spit from her
fell on his clothes).  And again he concluded the questioning with And
as for you, Just as you were judged me favourably, so Hashem judge you
favourably".

The point about all these stories is that Occam's razor would *not* lead
you to what in fact was the correct conclusion.  But rather it is a
positive mitzvah to assume what can amount to (especially in the case of
the first story) a pretty improbable set of scenarios.

Rather than the assumption of Occam's razor set out above, a truer case
of being dan l'chaf zechus in the case of the fellow who is repeatedly
late for minyan might be to suppose that perhaps, if one knew of no
other reason, he was involved in kosher meals on wheels and was out
delivering breakfasts and dinners to elderly people before coming to
shachris and mincha - the needs of such people making him always late.
And do you know that this is indeed not the case?

Martin further writes:

>As I remember, in the original posting, the lateness of the rabbis
>meant there was no minyan at the designated starting time and this was
>not just a matter of a few minutes. In any case, someone who has
>pointed out to him that he has done something wrong and reacts by
>saying that he would not correct that behaviour is, by definition, a
>meizid in that particular sin.

Not necessarily.  Lets take a different example.  Pikuach nefesh [saving
a life] is doche shabbas [pushes off the halachas of shabbas].  Let's
say I take somebody to hospital on shabbas.  And you, on seeing me
drive, tell me off afterwards for being mechallel shabbas.  I would be
perfectly correct to tell you that I would drive again in similar
circumstances.  But am I am meizid in hilchos shabbas?  No, it was
merely that when you told me off you did not appreciate all the
circumstances and therefore was incorrect as to the halacha, while I
behaved properly.  Nor would it seem am I obligated to set you right (at
least as evidenced from the stories of the gemora), and one might well
understand that if somebody was indeed involved in great chessed, they
are not going to want to go broadcasting it to some stranger who happens
to take upon himself to tell them off.

So too in the case of these Rabbis.  Getting to minyan early/on time is
a mitzvah, and we might even be able to deduce from the mishna in peah
that we say every morning and from the gemorra above a mitzvah in ben
adam l'chavero.  BUT, other mitzvahs may take precedence - eg, as the
mishna in peah says at the end talmid torah k'neged kulam [talmid torah
outweighs them all].  If the Rabbi in question was giving shiur and that
is why he was repeatedly late for minyan, is he a meizid?  I would say
not, rather, like the pikuach nefesh/shabbas case, he is exercising his
halachic judgement as to which mitzvah is required to take precedence.

Even if the reason that he is late is because he give shiur late at
night, and in order to have his head clear for the shiur, he feels he
needs to sleep in a bit, the mitzvah of talmid torah particularly talmid
torah b'rabim might well "trump" the mitzvah of getting to shul on time.

That is not to say that having a minyan is not an important mitzvah.  In
the time of the gemora and even as recently as 1950's Egypt they paid
people [so called "batlanim"] to do nothing but make sure they made the
minyan.  A minyan is a social service, and a community is required to
ensure that one has one, by paying people, if necessary.

To my mind, that is the explanation of Brachos 6b that you quoted,
regarding HKBH's anger.  The community is required to ensure that there
is a minyan in any sizeable town.  BUT, that does not necessarily speak
about any particular individual (other than the designated batlanim,
whose "job" it is to be on time for minyan).

Given all the halacha about the requirement to diminish one's tephilas
if they will interfere with the obligations one owes one's employer, and
the existance of numerous other mitzvahs ben adam l'chavero, for any
individual, I believe the correct intepretation of dan l'chaf zechus is
to assume that they were performing other mitzvahs that take precedence
or are of equal validity to the mitzvah of coming to shul (on time or at
all), and if you are not getting a minyan, maybe try paying some
batlanim.

Regards

Chana

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:53:24 +0000
Subject: Re: Lateness to Shul/Dan l'chaf zechus

I must admire Chana's erudition in quoting so many stories in favour of
being dan l'khaf zekhut. However they are not really relevant since they
all refer to one-off situations. Of course I would agree with her that
one should always try to be dan l'khaf zekhut by assuming extenuating
circumstances.

Thus if someone comes late occasionally to weekday shacharit, one might
assume that his alarm malfunctioned or his car would not start. If this
went on for several days one might suppose that one of the children was
not well and required his attention.

Similarly someone late for minchah or ma'ariv might have been caught in
an unexpected traffic jam as I suggested in my previous posting. If this
becomes regular, one might assume that he cannot leave work any
earlier. In none of these situations, individually, would Occam's razor
be a relevant consideration.

It is only those who are persistently late, in the absence of specific
crises, at every tefillah -shacharit, minchah, ma'ariv - weekday,
shabbat, yom tov - that make it difficult to find some limmud zekhut
(justification) other than lack of interest in davenning.

Unfortunately this attitude is all too widespread and its general
acceptance only makes matters worse. In an off-line communication,
someone wrote to me "I was trying to figure out what you meant by Bircat
HaShachar, then I remembered that the chazan says those brachos way at
the beginning of davening.  I think the last time I heard that was
Shavuos. I think most people would say that if you get there before
Yishtabach and you have enough time to catch up by Borchu, you are on
time." I hope he was being slightly facetious but, if not, such an
statement implies that he didn't really think anyone except a few
'meshugge frum' individuals ever came at the beginning and nobody else
would seriously consider trying to do so.

Martin Stern

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:26:13 +0000
Subject: Re: Lateness to Shul/Dan l'chaf zechus

on 16/12/04 10:38 pm, Chana Luntz at <Chana@...> wrote:
>> As I remember, in the original posting, the lateness of the
>> rabbis meant there was no minyan at the designated starting
>> time and this was not just a matter of a few minutes. In
>> any case, someone who has pointed out to him that he has
>> done something wrong and reacts by saying that he would not
>> correct that behaviour is, by definition, a meizid in that
>> particular sin.
>
> Not necessarily.  Lets take a different example.  Pikuach
> nefesh [saving a life] is doche shabbas [pushes off the
> halachas of shabbas].  Let's say I take somebody to hospital
> on shabbas.  And you, on seeing me drive, tell me off
> afterwards for being mechallel shabbas.  I would be
> perfectly correct to tell you that I would drive again in
> similar circumstances.  But am I am meizid in hilchos
> shabbas?  No, it was merely that when you told me off you
> did not appreciate all the circumstances and therefore was
> incorrect as to the halacha, while I behaved properly.  Nor
> would it seem am I obligated to set you right (at least as
> evidenced from the stories of the gemora), and one might
> well understand that if somebody was indeed involved in
> great chessed, they are not going to want to go broadcasting
> it to some stranger who happens to take upon himself to tell
> them off.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my definition of a
meizid. Someone who is driving a seriously ill person to hospital on
shabbat is not a meizid since he is doing the correct thing. The case,
as I thought I had described it, would have been of a person who
regularly drives a car on shabbat and, when his incorrect behaviour is
drawn to his attention, says that he knows that driving on shabbat is
forbidden but he does not care and will continue to do so.

> So too in the case of these Rabbis.  Getting to minyan early/on time
> is a mitzvah, and we might even be able to deduce from the mishna in
> peah that we say every morning and from the gemorra above a mitzvah in
> ben adam l'chavero.  BUT, other mitzvahs may take precedence - eg, as
> the mishna in peah says at the end talmid torah k'neged kulam [talmid
> torah outweighs them all].  If the Rabbi in question was giving shiur
> and that is why he was repeatedly late for minyan, is he a meizid?  I
> would say not, rather, like the pikuach nefesh/shabbas case, he is
> exercising his halachic judgement as to which mitzvah is required to
> take precedence.

Even if the mishnah in Peah states talmud torah k'neged kulam [talmud
torah outweighs them all], the halachah is that one stops learning to
perform a mitsvah that requires immediate attention such as accompanying
a dead person or rejoicing newlyweds. Why is attending shul on time so
that there should be minyan at the beginning of davenning any different?

As I remember the original posting the rabbi in question was not giving
a shiur, only learning on his own. In any case, even if the former were
the case, why could he not finish the shiur, and possibly start it,
slightly earlier to be able to be in shul for the beginning of
davenning. Of course, on occasion he might overrun but this should not
be the norm.

Martin Stern

----------------------------------------------------------------------


End of Volume 46 Issue 25