Class: Business Ethics 2 - Unethical Partner, Unethical Boss

For this week's Business Ethics lunch, I plan on looking at the following two cases; thoughts welcome:

1. Janet is an independent auditor who often uses the services of Bill's valuation practice to appraise shares and businesses. Janet eventually realizes that Bill's billings to his clients [although not to her] are fraudulently inaccurate. Assuming Bill won't listen to Janet's rebuke, is Janet obligated to part ways with Bill?

2. A religious school would like to hire Dror, a citizen of another country, to serve as receptionist. Sarah, the school's new office manager, contends that a Labour Market Opinion is required in order to legally hire Dror, but the school's CEO laughs and informs her that Dror's position will be considered "religious work" and therefore will be exempt from this requirement. Is Sarah obligated to endanger her job by protesting?

Among the sources related to these vignettes, here are two [for the first vignette] which I find fascinating:

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407-2
A member or firm engaged in a practice of public accounting to which another business or practice is related, or engaged in such related business or practice, shall be responsible to the Institute for any failure of a non-member who is associated with such related business or practice and who is under the member’s or firm’s management or supervision or with whom the member or firm shares proprietary or other interest in such related business or practice to comply with the rules of professional conduct.

R' Avraham Feigelstock, Toldot Chatam Sofer pg. 31b

ומאוד הזהירם שיהיו דוברי אמת בלבבם ויהי׳ תוכם כברם וירחקו במטחוי קשת מאנשי שקר ומרמה אף אם מבני תורה המה ודכירנא שסיפר לי אבא זצ"ל על ת"ח אחד שהי׳ גם עשיר ומחבר ספר אבל מינות נזרקה בו והי׳ בו גם מדות לבן להלבין פני חכמים ולצערן שאמר לו אביו הקדוש זצ״ל תאמין לי כי כל פעם אשר איש ההוא הולך מביתי מיד אני לוקח לי ספר מוסר ללמוד בו כי הבל פיו של אותו איש מטמא

He warned them repeatedly to speak honestly from the heart, to be the same inside and out, and to distance themselves an arrow's shot from people of lies and trickery – even if those are people of Torah. I remember that my father [Ktav Sofer] once told me of a Torah scholar who was also wealthy and the author of a religious text, but who had absorbed heretical ideas and who had the traits of Lavan, humiliating the sages and causing them pain. His holy father [Chatam Sofer] had told him, "Believe me: Whenever that man leaves my home, I take a book of ethical instruction to study, for that man's breath communicates impurity."

The importance of being earnest

[Posts I enjoyed recently: The Pesach Problem at A Mother in Israel and Pesach Money Saving Tips at Orthonomics]

I read a striking passage from Rav Klonymus Kalman Schapira’s Bnei Machshavah Tovah (Seder Emtza’ei v’Yesod –haChevra 15) the other day. It’s part of a great theme on asserting the nefesh [soul], rather than the sechel [intellect], in one’s life.

He wrote:
Guide yourself in simplicity and sincerity in all of your affairs, for sincerity is the rule of the nefesh over a person and his deeds. Cunning is the absence of nefesh, the reign of the sechel – and not the sechel which comes from the nefesh, but worldly sechel, the customs and situations of the world and its inhabitants. Fools call this ‘sechel’, and according to this sechel they act, speak, plot and conduct their lives.

Or in the Hebrew:

תנהג את עצמך בפשיטות ותמימות, בכל עניניך, כי תמימות היא ממשלת הנפש על האדם ומעשיו, וערמומית היא חוסר הנפש, וממשלת השכל, ולא השכל שלו שבא מן הנפש, רק שכל העולם, כלומר מנהגי ומצבי העולם ואנשיו שהטפשים קוראים לזה שכל וכפיהם עושים מדברים חושבים ומתנהגים.

And so Rav Schapira gives the following counsel for the way we should respond to people’s questions:

“Answer questions earnestly, as is in your heart, in sincerity and simplicity, and use your intellect only to determine that an answer is not incorrect. Even your intellect should be simple and earnest, a tool to serve the earnestness and simplicity of your heart, to help her and to bring her intent into action.

“And if you find that this answer will harm you, or there is some other reason you cannot give this answer, then say, ‘I don’t know,’ as the sages instructed, rather than bend and corrupt with a twisted answer, without earnestness and without simplicity.”

Or in the Hebrew:

ראשית כל תענה ברצינות (הערנסט) כאשר עם לבבך בתמימות ופשטות, ובשכלך תשמש רק להבחין אם אינך טועה בתשובה זו, אבל גם שכלך זה יהיה פשוט ורציני (הערנסט) מין כלי שמוש יהיה שכלך לשמש את רציניות ופשטות לבך לעזור לה ולהוציאה לפועל. ואם מצאת שתשובה זו תזיק לך, או מניעה אחרת בתשובתך, תאמר איני יודע כמצות חז"ל ולא תעקם ותעקל תשובה נפתולה בלא רציניות ובלא פשטות.

[I believe his “as the sages instructed” refers to Kallah Rabti 4:22, “‘Teach your tongue to say, ‘I don’t know,’ lest you lie and be trapped.”]

Golden advice.

Why it comes out backwards

[This week’s Haveil Havalim is here, at Jack’s new site]

Looking at אפיק בנגב over Shabbos, I saw a great quote from Rav Kook. [The book itself is a tribute to Rav Avraham Yitzchak Neriah z”l, one of the founders of Yeshivat haNegev and son of Rav Moshe Tzvi Neriah z”l.]

Rav Kook pointed out that the gemara (Shabbos 55a) says, "חותמו של הקב"ה אמת," "The seal of Gd is Truth." He added that since human beings are modeled after Gd, we, too, have that seal of Truth.

Rav Kook continued to say that just as a sealing ring’s mark is only visible after the ring is removed from the paper, so a human being’s mark on the world is visible only after ‘the ring is removed from the paper,’ after the person has passed on from this world.

I thought it was a beautiful extension of the gemara’s point, but the comparison of people and sealing rings did leave me with a disturbing thought: With a sealing ring, everything marked on the ring is reversed in its imprint.

So is that why so much of what I try to do comes out backward?

Betrayal and Bereishit

I’m preparing a parshah shiur for tomorrow, and I’ve chosen Bereishit and Betrayal as a theme.

I define “betrayal” as failure to honor a relationship of trust, whether that trust is natural to the relationship (ie family) or whether trust has been earned (ie by an act of kindness).

I am not including general deception here, like Avraham and Sarah hiding their relationship from Pharaoh. In adversarial relationships, one is not required to divulge all of his information.

So I just developed a quick list of the betrayals involving the Avot and Imahot (patriarchs and matriarchs); it’s a fascinating list:

• Avraham abandons his father and family (Bereishit 12)
• Hagar is elevated by Sarah, and then she abuses Sarah (Bereishit 16)
• Sarah first matches up Hagar with Avraham, and then evicts her (Bereishit 21)
• HaShem tells Avraham to slaughter Yitzchak, the son he had been promised as an heir (Bereishit 22)
• Avraham attempts to slaughter Yitzchak (Bereishit 22)
• Lavan and Rivkah’s mother renege on their pledge to send Rivkah to Yitzchak (Bereishit 24)
• Avimelech pledges protection for Yitzchak and Rivkah, but then they are mis-treated by Avimelech’s people (Bereishit 26)
• Esav reneges on his sale of the birthright to Yaakov [assuming this blessing is the same as the birthright Yaakov purchased] (Bereishit 27)
• Rivkah betrays Yitzchak’s and Esav’s trust in her, substituting Yaakov for Esav (Bereishit 27)
• Yaakov betrays Yitzchak’s trust in him (Bereishit 27)
• Rivkah betrays Yitzchak’s trust in her regarding her desire to send away Yaakov (Bereishit 27)
• Lavan and Leah betray Yaakov and Rachel with the substitution of Leah for Rachel (Bereishit 29)
• Lavan betrays Yaakov regarding his salary (Bereishit 30)
• Rachel takes Lavan’s terafim (Bereishit 31)
• Shechem betrays Dinah’s affection (Bereishit 34)
• Shimon and Levi betray the trusting relationship they affected with Shechem (Bereishit 34)

And then, of course, we start on the sale of Yosef, and Potifera’s scam, and Yosef’s concealment of his identity, etc.

I’m sure there are more I’m missing; please add.

Religion leads to immorality (Derashah Vaetchanan 5769)

Richard Dawkins, among others, has alleged that religion inspires immoral behavior.

Judging from the events of last week, I’d have to concede the point; numerous rabbis were arrested for involvement in money laundering, tax evasion and, allegedly, even organ marketing. Add those allegations to several scandals in the recent past, and the evidence certainly seems to indicate that religion – or, at least, Judaism - does not provide moral guidance.

The community knows it, too. This past Tuesday night, Borough Park, New York hosted an אסיפה, a gathering, of the chareidi community. The title was “A Legal Symposium,” and the goal was to discuss an American Jew’s obligation to obey the laws of the United States. Agudas Yisroel officials, chassidic rebbes and an attorney all agreed: A Jew is obligated to obey the law of the land. A Jew is obligated not to steal. A Jew is obligated to be honest.

A חידוש, what a novel idea! For this we needed an אסיפה? For this we needed a 'legal symposium?' Several years ago, Governor Ed Rendell cited his father as saying, "The ones who spend the longest time in synagogue on Saturdays are the biggest crooks from Monday to Friday." Gd forbid! But doesn't it sound like he's right? Does this bizarre phenomenon not prove that Dawkins is right as well, that religion – or, at least, Judaism – fails to provide a moral compass, and may, in fact, provide the opposite?


I think the answer is Yes, in part. Religion can lead to immorality, Judaism can lead to immorality, and I believe it is, in part, because Judaism inspires an arrogant complacence:

• The Torah sets a standard of behavior which includes being careful about what we eat, careful about how we dress, careful about what we say, careful about how we engage in business.
• The Torah gives us timetables for when to eat and when not to eat, when to pray, when to celebrate and when to mourn.
• The Torah gives us guidelines for raising our children and honoring our parents, helping our neighbors and helping those who are not our neighbors.
And the Torah says regarding all of these standards, “This is the way to live. These are the values to have. This is the way to be.”

The result is that a Jew can look at her Torah, a Jew who is even minimally observant can look at his own behavior, and feel superior to others, saying, “Based on the Torah’s priorities, I do all right! I see that other people don’t pray, I see that people value selfishness over philanthropy, I see that people eat whatever they wish – I may not be a saint, but I give tzedakah, I come to shul occasionally, I don’t eat treif… Compared to what I see around me, I’m doing pretty well!” And so the complacence and arrogance begins.

Even worse: The more scrupulous a person is in his observance, the closer her behavior adheres to the Torah’s recommended lifestyle, the greater the temptation to arrogance.


That’s when the crime begins, because this sense of superiority leads to terrible rationalizations:
Just as a husband might rationalize in his superiority, “I’m better to my family than other guys are, so it’s all right for me to do other things on the side,”
And just as a business owner might rationalize in his superiority, “I’m more honest than other business owners and so it’s all right for me to file private receipts as business expenses,”
So, too, a Jew in his superiority might fool himself, saying, “I do more to satisfy Gd’s expectations than other people do, so it’s all right for me to take a little money under the table, it’s all right for me to cut corners.”
And so Dawkins is proved correct: Religion encourages sin.


But our parshah provides a way to avoid that sense of superiority, when it directs us away from comparing ourselves to others and away from self-satisfaction with partial achievements, and toward a higher goal.

Right after proclaiming how wonderful it is to be a nation with such righteous laws, Moshe warns, ”רק השמר לך ושמר נפשך מאד פן תשכח את הדברים אשר ראו עיניך ופן יסורו מלבבך כל ימי חייך, Be very careful! Guard your life - and מאד, guard your life intensely! – lest you forget what your eyes saw, lest it stray from your heart, at any point in your lifetime! Guard your life intensely!”
What are we supposed to remember so closely, and with such a powerful warning? “יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלקיך בחורב, The day you stood before HaShem your Gd at Har Chorev, Har Sinai.”

Not, “Remember to keep the Torah’s lifestyle,” and not, “Keep a checklist of the mitzvot and make sure you satisfy every one of them.” Rather, “Remember that you encountered Gd at Har Sinai!”

The goal of the Torah is not simply to meet a certain standard of behavior, such that I might be satisfied with being better than others. The Torah's standard of behavior is meant to bring me to a greater goal:

The goal of the Torah is for me to encounter Gd once again, to live with Gd, as Adam and Chavah did in Eden and as our ancestors did at Sinai, whether in shul or at home or at work. It means to feel when I rise in the morning “מודה אני לפניך – I thank You, Gd, as I rise before you,” to daven with a sense of “דע לפני מי אתה עומד – Know before Whom you stand.” To go to work with “שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד– I place Gd before me, always.”

My gauge of success is whether I have a total awareness of HaShem in my daily life.


When I have that goal, I look to achieve perfection, and I am less likely to slip into immoral behavior. This is implicit in the Torah’s repeated warnings, "‘ויראת מאלקיך,’ You shall live in awe of Gd.”

• לא תקלל חרש ויראת מאלקיך – Don’t curse a deaf person – live in awe of Gd
• ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול ויראת מאלקיך – Don’t place an obstacle before a blind person – live in awe of Gd
• מפני שיבה תקום והדרת פני זקן ויראת מאלקיך – Rise before the aged and honor the elderly – live in awe of Gd
• לא תונו איש את עמיתו ויראת מאלקיך – Don’t oppress others – live in awe of Gd

And so on. The Torah repeats it again, and again, and again. And the gemara explains: In many cases I will think I can get away with it. I will be seduced by the lure of easy money, of social status. I will know that, hey, everybody does it. And at that point, remember: The goal is not to be better than others, the goal is to encounter Me. My goal is “שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד,” to be perpetually aware of Gd, and this does not allow for immorality, this does not allow for criminality, this does not allow for cutting corners just because everyone else does it. Regardless of where I stand in relation to others, my concern is my relationship with HaShem.


This morning, we read the Haftorah of Nachamu, Yeshayah’s message of consolation to the Jewish people. After the desolation of Tisha b'Av, after the brutal massacres and painful exiles, HaShem tells us to be comforted. HaShem pledges to take us back into that close relationship we had long ago.

But when will this happen? When we are עמי, when HaShem can say that we have become עמי, My nation. When none of us overlook sin, commit crimes and immerse ourselves in scandal out of a misguided sense of superiority. When יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלקיך בחורב, standing with HaShem at Sinai, is again a reality, when שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד, when we perpetually stand with HaShem.

-
Notes:

1. I am not leaping to legal conclusions. I know nothing about the specific guilt or innocence of the accused in this case. However, I am speaking about the collective set of scandals which have engulfed Jewish communities in the past few years, and specifying this most recent case only because of the אסיפה in Borough Park.

2. I know that there are multiple causes for scandals. I don't claim to be able to simplify any of them down to some easy formula. But I do believe this is a key factor.

3. The gemara on ויראת מאלקיך is found, among other places in Bava Metzia 58b.

4. Also tying into this idea: Akavya ben Mahallel's idea (Pirkei Avot 3:1) that one will never sin if he is contemplates the fact that as low as his physical origin and ends, he will still end up standing before Gd one day.

5. Motzaei Shabbat Update: Having now delivered this derashah, I'm troubled that quite a few listeners took this as a "them" derashah - as in, "Boy, rabbi, you really gave it to them!" Not explicitly, of course, but people seemed to think this was about some other group, those nasty people, and not themselves. Perhaps I could have mitigated the effect had I noted that the same sense of superiority and failure to fulfill part of Torah applies to people who are honest and fair to others, but feel they can cut corners on their service of Gd...

I don’t need to have an opinion on the National Cathedral saga

[First: This week's Haveil Havalim and this month's Kosher Cooking Carnival are out!]

If I had a dime for every time someone has asked me, since Wednesday, what I think about Rabbi Haskel Lookstein’s participation in the worship service at the National Cathedral last week, and the Rabbinical Council of America’s semi-public disapproval…

First: I am נוגע בדבר (I have a conflict of interest), because I am a big fan of Rabbi Lookstein. In my smichah days he volunteered his valuable time every week – on an erev Shabbos, no less! – to teach much-needed Homiletics classes for the guys. I have used his CDs teaching proper chazanus for Yamim Noraim. I have seen him to be a sincere baal chesed, someone who will move שמים וארץ (heaven and earth) for Torah and for Am Yisrael. And that’s even before we get into his distinguished career in rabbanus and at Ramaz.

Second: I am נוגע בדבר (I have a conflict of interest) because renowed poskim, who are my halachic mentors, have already issued rulings on the matter. I am familiar with their read of both the facts on the ground and the relevant halachic sources and precedents, and I see nothing I can add to their expressed perspectives.

Third: My opinion doesn't change anything here; there is no practical purpose to voicing an opinion on this.

But beyond all of that, I think that onlookers like myself need a dose of humility here.

I taught an adult education class the other day (on the issue of Lying for Peace, משנים מפני השלום), and we came to the gemara in Bava Metzia (23b-24a) which says, “A Torah scholar may lie about three topics: (1) Whether he knows a tractate, (2) Intimate details of his marriage, and (3) His host’s hospitality.”

I explained the first case, in which a scholar is asked, “Do you know a certain volume of gemara,” and he denies knowing it well. The scholar does know the subject, but, as a matter of humility, he claims ignorance. (Presumably this is not where he is asked a question by someone wishing to learn Torah or needing a halachic decision, but that’s a topic for another discussion.)

A large segment of the class – an adult class! – could not fathom the logic here. I explained that this is a matter of humility, but they still didn’t get it. These are very good people, strong members of society, but the idea that one would humbly deny his strengths was entirely foreign to them.

I think this is a function of society itself. We are taught, encouraged, demanded to promote ourselves, lest we be overlooked, or lest we look down upon ourselves. Humility is just not valued; if anything, it’s considered a character flaw, some function of a lack of self-esteem.

Rabbis are especially expected to have opinions. If a rabbi answers a question on a proba interview - "Do you feel that the State of Israel embodies Mashiach" or "What do you think is the single greatest threat to Judaism today" - with anything less than 100% certainty, he is assumed to be waffling in order to hide offensive opinions. Certainly, it cannot be that he is simply... uncertain. And if he is uncertain, well, then, he would not be a good leader.

It seems that people believe "leadership" has less to do with leading and more to do with talking.

This is what I see in the constant insistence upon having a comment on any and every issue, National Cathedral services and otherwise. There really is nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know.”

And especially when that’s the truth.

Daf: Gittin 61-64 – Tzedakah for all human beings, Halachic deception, Feed animals first

[Haveil Havalim is here...]

This is a feeble attempt to sort of catch up with my notes a little bit, in the middle of Yamim Noraim when I ought to be writing my Shabbos Shuvah derashah. If you’re not into the notes on the Daf, feel free to scroll down for other material, perhaps to speeches for Day 1 (Risk-taking) and Day 2 (Depression) of Rosh HaShanah. I won’t be offended.

Gittin 61a
The gemara says that there is a debate regarding the ownership of wild creatures caught in a trap which does not have a receptacle component, but I am not clear on why this is a debate. In the mishnah in Rosh HaShanah and Sanhedrin regarding disqualifying people from testimony for acts which are classified rabbinically as theft, we include people who lure birds from others’ dovecotes, even those the dovecotes do not hold the birds in receptacles.

In the story of Rav Kahana taking someone’s dates, he had the halachic status of a pauper because he was traveling on the road, and so he was entitled to them.

See Tosafot שדי אופיי, who disagrees with Rashi as to what Rav Kahana was doing to get the dates.

The gemara here approves of providing tzedakah for non-Jewish needy people when we provide it for Jewish needy people. Note that this does not qualify, though, for the maaser kesafim custom of giving 1/10. This is because we are dealing with two different practices here: Tzedakah obligates me to give to a needy person I see. Maaser Kesafim is a separate custom to separate 1/10 and find someone who needs it. (There are views that MK is more than a minhag, but I find the minhag explanation most compelling. See Prof. Cyril Domb’s excellent selection of resources on the topic in his book Maaser Kesafim.)


Gittin 61b
Note that Abayye here disagrees with Rava, but answers a challenge to Rava's view on his behalf.


Gittin 62a
The gemara here recommends that we tell an am ha’aretz that by touching dough he will return it to its untithed state, because we know he doesn’t take impurity seriously but he does take tithes seriously.
This idea of lying for halachic gain bothers me a great deal, especially when Tosafot שלמא further down the page says that one may not pretend to greet someone warmly when you are really greeting a third party, lest you be guilty of deception!

The gemara here notes that one should feed his animals before eating personally, from the order of HaShem’s promise that if you will follow the mitzvot, Hashem will give grass for your animals, and you will eat and be full. Note, though, that regarding drinking we say that people should drink first, since Rivkah gives water to Eliezer first, and only afterward to his camels.


Gittin 63b
In the middle of the page: I believe that the word should be ליישה rather than לישא. It’s a feminine verb for “kneading.”


Gittin 64a
We say here that if a man sends a proxy to betrothe an unspecified woman, and the proxy dies without informing him whom he betrothed (if any), then the man may not wed, lest he accidentally wed a relative of his betrothed. This is often cited as an explanation for how Lavan wished to destroy “everything,” as alleged in the Haggadah – since he and Betuel plotted to kill Eliezer, with the result that Yitzchak would now not have been able to wed. However, see my notes here explaining why this is not a concern, using Tosafot from Nazir 12a.


Gittin 64b
The gemara here says that the sages empowered an underage shifchah to acquire the meal of שיתופי מבואות on behalf of others, even though she is underage, since the entire construct is rabbinic. But I don’t understand – once they felt free to expand to an underage shifchah, why didn’t they also permit one’s underage children?
Perhaps it’s because then you have two problems – the fact that they are underage, and the fact that it isn’t actually a transaction, where they live in the parents’ home. (But then what if they live independently, and don’t depend on the parents’ table?)

From Shifchah Charufah to Theodicy, “I don’t know” is the right answer

Over the years, I have learned to love the magic words “I don’t know” on many levels.

It started with my high school entrance interview with Rabbi Yitzchak Cohen, for MTA (Yeshiva University’s boys’ high school – aka TMSTAYUHSFB). Rabbi Cohen came to our elementary school, Hebrew Academy of Long Beach, and he interviewed us as a group, and then one by one.

Rabbi Cohen was very intimidating for me; I was a skinny 5-1 or 5-2 kid, and to me he looked like he was about 6-6. He had a long beard, black-framed glasses, and intense expression. His accent (Detroit?) and speech pattern were unusual for me, too, and I didn’t catch everything he said. It isn’t that he wasn’t kindly; I was just automatically intimidated. (Over the years since, I have come to respect and love him, and see him as a great role model.)

At one point during the 1-on-1, Rabbi Cohen began asking me questions. "What does X mean?" "Can you explain Y," that sort of thing. I did pretty well; thank Gd, I had a strong education and a good command of Hebrew, and knew what one would hope an eighth-grade Jewish boy would know.

Until he pulled out the stumper – “What is a Shifchah Charufah?”

I had no idea. I had heard the term somewhere, but I couldn’t remember what it meant. So I did the best I could – I knew shifchah was a maid, and charufah might be linked to חרפה, meaning embarrassment, so I tried, “An embarrassed maid.”

(The right answer: A חציה שפחה חציה בת חורין who is betrothed to an עבד עברי and then becomes involved with another man. Or, according to one view, a regular שפחה כנענית who is betrothed to an עבד עברי and then becomes involved with another man.

Yeah, I knew you knew that.)

That was when Rabbi Cohen taught me a lesson I haven’t forgotten in the 22 years since, and I hope never to forget: If you don’t know, say “I don’t know.” I don’t know. I don’t know. It’s not the end of the world, pal – just say it. I don’t know.

I think he knew that his question would stump me. I think he asked that question just to be able to teach me that lesson in humility and honesty… for which I am very grateful today, although I wasn’t at the time.

The story comes to mind now for two reasons:
1. We’ve been discussing the bizarre case of the Shifchah Charufah in Daf Yomi this week, and
I was reminded again yesterday of this important lesson.
2. It goes back to my post from yesterday, about the funeral of a young woman, as great a person as I know here in Allentown, who died of an extremely painful disease.

After the funeral I was approached by someone who asked me the age-old question, “What is it about? Why does this happen? Is it just that Gd wasn’t looking, was busy somewhere else?”

I do feel, often, like I should have an answer, like I’m expected to have the answer. "Rabbi, you've been at this for a dozen years; what can we say when something like this happens?" And I’m supposed to say something which will give all of this meaning.

But I’m no closer to understanding this than I was to knowing the meaning of shifchah charufah as a fourteen year old kid.

Oh, on a theoretical level I can talk about the gemara’s four approaches to suffering and Rav Soloveitchik’s “what now” instead of “why” question, but, ultimately, when dealing with מתו מוטל לפניו, an actual case, Rabbi Cohen was right: When you don’t know, say I don’t know.

It’s the right answer.