R ZS responded to my post, I repost his observations with mine interspersed:
I wrote:
MR – It is also important to consider WHY the boss wants his other workers
to proclaim their support, my point being that the boss realises this
information is not to the Din Torah, the BD does not ask for it and IF they
do it may only be reported in BD,
So the boss has asked for this because he is fairly certain this will
decompose and disturb his BaAl Din – just like presenting what appears to
be a second witness, the case of the Gemara.
R ZS wrote – His motives are irrelevant.
MR – Why are the motives irrelevant – is it not apparent that he feels his
argument needs to be buttressed by interference that provides absolutely no
illumination upon the facts of the case or the relevant Sevaros – that
would seem to be very much the meaning of the Gemara the Rebbe/Rosh
Yeshivah is seeking to create a false sense of evidence.
Even more so, do his motives not indicate that he is confident these
tactics will yield results he is looking for?
Indeed, it would seem to be even more a Sheker because the Rebbe/Rosh
Yeshivah is at least working within a framework of having evidence that BD
evaluates whereas the letter of support is entirely outside BD
considerations and designed to merely decompose the other litigant.
I suppose you might be suggesting that in for example the present debate in
E Yisrael, about changes to the High Court - are members of the public and
influential community identities not permitted to express their opinion?
Yes indeed but they are offering an opinion about the topic about the
substance of the Sevaros and counter Sevaros.
It is clearly prohibited to besmirch someones character in order to promote
a position.
And is not declaring that this litigant is to be trusted – besmirching the
integrity of the other litigant? No matter the protestations that one
speaks only of this fellows qualities?
When someone says, that is a silly Q because R Akive Eiger did not ask it.
Or why would anyone consider that an answer to RAE Kasheh if RAE himself
did not consider it – that is playing the man not the ball.
That would be a horrible example of MShT.
I think we need to recognise that MShT is not an evaluation about the
spoken or implied statement,
MShT is about the consequence, the outcome. If one wraps themselves in a
flag to declare their allegiance or wear Chassidishe or Litvishe Levush in
order to promote an image and gain acceptance and trust – is that not MShT?
R ZS – But now you have moved the goalposts.
MR – I am sorry if I did move the goalposts, I did not intend to and I do
not see why you think I did or intended to move them.
R ZS – If the employees don't really trust their employer and don't really
have confidence that whatever he says is true, then of course it would be
sheker for them to say they do.
MR – but we ARE NOT discussing Sheker we are evaluating MShT.
In the Gemara the Talmid has absolute faith and confidence in his Rosh
Yeshivah/Rebbe and it is precisely for this reason that it is Assur MShT –
the issue is NOT the outcome, it is the PROCESS.
R ZS – The presumption in your original scenario was that they honestly do
trust him; if so, there's no reason in the world why they should not say
so.
MR – that is only true PERHAPS if they are not weighing upon the other
litigant and compromising his position or eroding his confidence. And even
if they are not they are transgressing the terrible sin of reinforcing and
provoking the continuance of the Machlokes.
Even witnesses who are instructed to provide evidence can do so only in BD
if they offer that information outside BD they are violating so many
prohibitions listed in the ChCH.
R ZS – There is not even a slight smidgen of sheker in that. So long as
they don't say or imply that they have personal knowledge confirming his
allegations against their colleague, they are telling 100% emes, and are as
far away from sheker as it is possible to be.
The fact that it will harm their colleague and make his case harder to
argue should not be their concern at all; they have no more duty to him
than to the employer.
MR – their duty is EXCLUSIVELY to HKBH and they are not permitted to
provide any information unless sanctioned by BD and presented to the BD.
R ZS – Since they do trust him, they presumably agree that justice is on
his side, so not only are they practicing emes they are also promoting
tzedek. But even in pursuit of tzedek they must not pretend to have
personal knowledge that they don't.
MR – if the workers have witnessed with their own eyes that this worker
acted negligently, there is no Q that broadcasting that information is
LHara, which is the reporting of absolute truth, and it is prohibited to
report this because not all the conditions have been satisfied, in the main
they do not know if this event is enough to justify the boss sacking him.
Am I saying anything that is not obvious?
Best,
Meir G. Rabi
0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837