- This topic has 15 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
To what extent does one have to be ‘dan lecaff zechus’ before it boarders on naivity?
There was a case recently where a fellow was in the Far East on a business trip. He stayed in a famous Hotel , and one evening was seen by another ‘heimishe ‘ guy (an acquantance of his. Lets call him Moe) in the lounge having a drink with a woman.
He noticed Moe totally avoiding him while passing him by without saying a word.
The next morning he approached Moe and asked him why he didnt greet him the other night.
Moe respectfully told him that he didnt want to embarass him by acknowledging that he was having a drink with another woman. Laughingly, he responded by saying ‘that other woman happened to have been my wife'(which was true).
But what happens when you come across a similar situation where your SURE that the other individual is NOT THE SPOUSE,,?? Should we assume business , even if its unlikely? And should we make this an issue when one wants information about a shidduch?
Please share your thoughts, its always a dilema,,,
ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS ! illinio7 AND YANKY55 ARE CORRECT. THE BARDITCHEVER (AS PER JOSEPH)WENT THROUGH MENTAL HOOPS TO PROTECT ANY JEW. SO SHOULD WE! And i humbly suggest that you never say a word when coming to shiducchim. there are lengthy paragraphs in shmiras haloson what you can and cannot say in reference to shiducchim. check it out.
nameless,
ALWAYS ask a shaila. Never be bashful to do so. Better safe than sorry. Especially regarding giving information on a shidduch. It is never petty to do so.
Instinct is the worst barometer of all.
In all three cases, the answer given was one that exonerated the questioner completely, however unlikely it may have appeared to be.
Source: http://e-daf.com/index.asp?ID=377&size=1
(I would include the entire first story, but I am such a slow typist it would take me half an hour probably.)
We do see in the case of Gedalia ben Achikam that even though he did not have to accept as fact that the plotters were going to assassinate him, precautions should have been taken.
Gut Shabbos to all.
my rebbe always used to say “dan lchaf zechus but don’t be an idiot”
There was a story told of a man who was delivering a speech to a crowded audience. He was distracted by the sight of a woman in the front row engaged in a very animated discussion with the lady sitting next to her. She was contantly talking and gesturing with her hands. The man finished his speech, but was very ticked off at this rudeness. While speaking to people following the lecture, this same woman came up to him, and said,” I just wanted to tell you how much my mother and I enjoyed your lecture. My mom has been a fan of yours for many years and wanted to attend your lectures in person, but she is hearing-impaired, and this was the first time I was available to attend with her, so that I could repeat your lecture in sign language, and she could read my lips as I repeated what you were saying.”
There is ALWAYS a reason to be dan L”Z with most people.
there’s never a need to don l’kaf zchus for RESHOIM – so unless you’re sure the guy’s a rosho, you MUST be don him l’kaf zchus
oomis1105. Bad example. It was terribly rude of these women to ensconce themselves in the front row with the intent of speaking and gesticulating during the speech. In the least they should have consulted with the speaker first to determine that if will not bother him.
I like I Can Only Try’s version of that story better. It makes more sense. I thought this story was in The Other Side of the Story, which I read several eyars ago. Maybe I messed up on a a detail or two, but the gist is the same. Try’s version makes more sense, that they sat in the back and therefore the hearing-impaired lady could not read lips easily. It was not rude of them, but perhaps had they gotten there earlier they could have given the speaker a heads-up.
I’m sorry for offending anyone, but it WAS “terribly rude”.
I appreciate the “Kovod” this woman was bestowing her ailing mother, but at whose expense? At the expense of the speaker? What about at the expense of the people sitting aroung them? Did anyone think of that?
She had absolutely no shred of a right to do this unless she received permission from the speaker first, as well as permission from the people in her srroundings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.