Starting Positive, Then Back to Lack of Trust
Paragraph 43 of our long siman (and remember, Shulchan Aruch itself only had five paragraphs, suggesting this grew in significance in the interim) discusses those who sin out of fear. A convert who returned to his/her old religion due to governmental scrutiny or pressure (later in the paragraph, he gives the example of a converso who remained in Spain after it was possible to leave, but still observed Judaism in private. He adds all this was in the old days, a reminder he himself lived with some fear, had to be sure he did not sound like he supported or praised conversion), or a Jew who sinned to avoid being killed can still validly slaughter animals, and touch wine without affecting its permissibility.
If either the convert who backslid or the coerced Jew becomes rooted in the new religion, then we must treat him/her like a non-Jew. A Jew who informs on other Jews, to coercive non-Jews, has an unclear status, as he said back in siman 2 and repeats here (I note it because when he chooses to repeat himself, knowing he is repeating himself, he draws our attention to a live concern, one he did not want to leave unaddressed at any point it was relevant).
The Limits on How People Will Lie
To believe a Jew who has forfeited our trust about his/her claim to have bought something from a kosher supplier (like cheese), s/he must name the seller. Without a name, the lie is easy and impenetrable, where with one, we could easily check on him/her, so the Jew will not lie. Where the Jew brings a gift we worry s/he partakes of without its being permissible, but in this case says s/he bought if from a kosher-keeping person, we believe him/her even without a name, because people don’t lie to ease their gifts’ reception.
Rema thought these leniencies based on our perspective of when a Jew will or will not lie do not allow us to ignore issues of Torah law. Taz and Pri Chadash disagreed, and pointed to siman 2, which allowed us to accept the certification that certain meat had been killed by a reputable shochet, from someone who eats nonkosher le-te’avon, out of convenience rather than religious rebellion.
Shach suggested the example might be an exception, because the Gemara asserts a probability, most people who kill animals for food are trained. Once this Jew says s/he did not kill the animal himself, we can accept the next part, he went to a qualified slaughterer. AH leaves the question open.
Egregious Misleading
Se’if 48 of our siman describes a situation we would hope would never occur, except it famously did, in 2006, in Monsey. AH says someone who sold nonkosher food as if it were kosher, on purpose, even once, loses all credibility about anything having to do with permissible and not in halachah. (A Monsey butcher, whose name I leave out because why spread it more, knowingly sold nonkosher chicken and meat for an indeterminate period, at least months).
Nor can this Jew stay in his/her position (the Monsey butcher was kicked out of town; my Google search did not discover what happened to him, although he seems to have started on the path to repentance soon after, sending letters to neighbors asking their forgiveness), until s/he undergoes complete repentance, to be defined in a moment.
