A Matter of Opinion

Rav Huna was a learned and revered talmid chochom, yet he grappled with the harsh realities of poverty, straining to support his beloved family. Despite his profound wisdom and dedication to Torah study, the struggles of daily life loomed large, casting shadows over his household. His father, Moshe ben Itzri, stood in stark contrast to Rav Huna’s plight. Moshe was known as a man of considerable wealth for his affluence and status in the community. However, despite his financial success, he was cold-hearted when it came to extending support to his struggling son.

Years before, during the auspicious occasion of Rav Huna’s marriage, Moshe stepped forward to guarantee the payment of the kesubah of his daughter-in-law personally. With heartfelt commitment, he assured that should his son face the tragic fate of untimely death or the sorrowful path of divorce, the financial obligations outlined in the kesubah would be met. This covenant granted the bride a sense of security, knowing that payment could be collected from Moshe himself.

Abaye felt pained to see Rav Huna struggle. He thought of a temporary way to relieve Rav Huna’s plight: Rav Huna could divorce his wife, allowing her to collect the kesubah payment from her father-in-law, Moshe. Afterward, Rav Huna could remarry her. Although this plan was somewhat devious, it was technically permitted. Abaye contemplated who would have the courage to approach Rav Huna with such a bold idea. However, he soon discovered that Rav Huna was a kohen. If he divorced his wife, he would not be allowed to remarry her. This realization put an end to that idea. (Bava Basra 174b)

The Gemara questions how Abaye could even consider making such a suggestion to Rav Huna. While the advice would have benefited Rav Huna, it would have simultaneously caused Moshe Ben Itzri to suffer a loss. Someone who intervenes in another person’s situation, helping one individual while causing harm to another, is called a rasha arum, a cunning and wicked person. In this case, Abaye had no personal stake in the matter. Even while assisting a pauper at the expense of a wealthy man, one should refrain from getting involved in disputes that do not concern them. The Gemara answers that Abaye was allowed to get involved in this specific situation. The father should have been supporting his son without this ruse. Furthermore, Rav Huna was a scholar, and everyone had a mitzvah to support him. This is an exception to the warning against taking sides in issues irrelevant to the person.

HaRav Hillel Zaks, zt”l, the grandson of the Chofetz Chaim, provided a somewhat surprising ruling regarding the issue at hand. It is not permissible to offer unsolicited advice claiming that one Jewish-owned store is cheaper than another. While such a comment may not be classified as loshon hara, it implicates the advisor in a matter that does not concern them personally.

Stores are permitted to set their own prices within a specific range, and there is nothing inherently wrong with one store charging more than another for the same item. However, when someone advises a shopper that a particular store is less expensive, they influence that shopper to choose the cheaper option. This decision negatively impacts the more expensive store, as it will lose business due to that advice.

Importantly, the person offering this unsolicited advice stands to gain nothing from the situation. Therefore, it is inappropriate for someone to provide opinions on matters that do not concern them, regardless of the financial status of those involved. For instance, even if the storeowner is affluent and the shopper is less fortunate, the principle does not change.

Rav Huna was in need in the example provided, while Moshe ben Itzri was wealthy. Still, Abaye was only permitted to offer advice because Moshe ben Itzri should have anyway been supporting his own son, who was a scholar. According to HaRav Hillel Zaks, one may not post that a certain store is cheaper in a group chat. Even if someone on the group chat asked openly which store is more affordable, one can only reply privately.

HaRav Nissin Karelitz, zt”l, disagreed. He stated that one can offer unsolicited advice, indicating that one store is cheaper. Presumably, he would argue that we cannot directly compare this situation to Rav Huna’s. In that case, Abaye’s advice to Rav Huna would have been somewhat deceitful, as it would force Moshe Ben Itzri to pay a sum he would never have agreed to under normal circumstances. While it might technically be permitted, it would still be considered devious. In fact, the Mishna provides guidance on how to protect oneself from such scenarios. There is nothing dubious about advising someone on which store is cheaper.

Interestingly, the Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation recently published in its newsletter that one can offer unsolicited advice about pricing, specifically that one store is cheaper than another (Aderabba, VaYishlach Issue 15). On the other hand, In Journey to Virtue: The Laws of Interpersonal Relationships in Business, Home, and Society, Rabbi Ehrman also addresses this issue but rules differently. He rules that it is forbidden to state that a particular store is generally cheaper. Both publications do not indicate that this matter is subject to dispute.

While the newsletter is lenient, it advises against stating that a particular store is more expensive, as this could be considered loshon hara. They further caution that comparisons should be precise; for example, American flanken may be more costly than imported flanken. Commenting on the price of flanken without considering the country of origin could lead to inaccurate conclusions.

For practical rulings, one should seek guidance from their rav.