Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 234

Wed, 16 Nov 2011

• 1. Re: Chillul HaShem when NJ are the observers (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Chillul HaShem when NJ are the observers (Micha Berger)
• 3. chilul Hashem when NJ are observers (Joel Schnur)
• 4. Chillul HaShem when NJ are the observers (Joseph Kaplan)
• 5. Re: In this week's parsha in the parsha of the akaida AA says "venashuva alaichem." (hankman)
• 6. short andlong term (Harvey Benton)
• 7. Eating and Sustenance (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Re: In this week's parsha in the parsha of the akaida AA says "venashuva alaichem." (Liron Kopinsky)
• 9. Re: bat issues (T6...@aol.com)
• 10. Re: Chillul HaShem when NJ are the observers (T6...@aol.com)
• 11. Re: In this week's parsha in the parsha of the akaida AA says "venashuva alaichem." (hankman)
• 12. Chillul HaShem and Non-Jews (Prof. Levine)

On 15/11/2011 5:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 04:51:35PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> >  On 15/11/2011 4:48 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> >>  I dispute both your assumption of what minhag avoseinu was,
>> >  Do you dispute that spitting when passing a church is minhag avoseinu?!
> I doubt that spitting when observed by a nachri was done very often. I
> doubt there ever was a minhag Yisrael that carried such risk of piquach
> nefesh.

So they spat discreetly.  They still spat.   Even R Elisha Baal Knafayim
pretended not to be wearing tefillin when the policeman actually
confronted him.


> Nidon didan wasn't the case you cited either. It was spitting when
> passing the galach.

Same thing.  Umordechai lo yichra` velo yishtachaveh.  More chilul
haShem!  He would not have enraged Haman any more by spitting.


> In the meantime, you're not working on a definition of qiddush hasheim
> that relates to the usage in Yuma. (Which is only as aggadic as the
> entire topic.) The embarassing is a chilul hasheim, which appears to
> explicitly validate the position you're arguing against.

Again, it *must* depend on who is doing this judging, and what their
values are.  If their values are straight then they will approve that
which is good and disapprove that which is bad; the gemara you cite
is talking only about such people.  If their values are those of Sdom
then the exact opposite is true.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 05:10:18PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Nidon didan wasn't the case you cited either. It was spitting when
>> passing the galach.

> Same thing.  Umordechai lo yichra` velo yishtachaveh.  More chilul
> haShem!  He would not have enraged Haman any more by spitting.

(It's not chilul "haShem", it's "hasheim". It's the name / reputation
being mechalel, not the Creator Himself. No reason for caps, IMHO. Also,
since "Hashem" is a kinui, why capitalize the noun rather than the
article prefix? If you split the idiom, it's not a kinui anymore.)

Lemaaseh, you agree that people in Europe didn't spit at the galach.
So what exactly is this "minhag Yisrael"?

Also, it's quite likely German Jews gave up the practice of *discreetly*
spitting when passing a kenesiah because the Emancipation changed the
cheftzah.

>> In the meantime, you're not working on a definition of qiddush hasheim
>> that relates to the usage in Yuma. (Which is only as aggadic as the
>> entire topic.) The embarassing is a chilul hasheim, which appears to
>> explicitly validate the position you're arguing against.

> Again, it *must* depend on who is doing this judging, and what their
> values are...

Must it? I thought it was all about whether more or fewer people are
pushed to yir'as Shamayim. Is that not the Rambam?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The true measure of a man
mi...@aishdas.org        is how he treats someone
http://www.aishdas.org   who can do him absolutely no good.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Samuel Johnson

On 15/11/2011 4:48 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> I dispute both your assumption of what minhag avoseinu was,

 

>Do you dispute that spitting when passing a church is minhag avoseinu?!

 

 

As Rabbi Dr. Moshe Tendler responded when I asked him about this issue way
back when he was my high school senior rebbe, "It is a Pavlovian response to
centuries of persecution by the Church." 

 

 

___________________________

Joel Schnur

Senior VP

Government Affairs/Public Relations

Schnur Associates, Inc.

1350 Avenue of the Americas

Suite 1200

New York, NY 10019

 

Tel. 212-489-0600 x204

Fax. 212-489-0203 

j...@schnurassociates.com 

www.schnurassociates.com
<http://www.schnurassociates.com/>  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111115/a60b1516/attachment-0001.htm>

"The argument
you are making is precisely that which was used in the last generation
to tell people to remove their yarmulke, because it's a "chilul haShem"!"

I don't think it's "precisely" that argument; in fact, I think the two
cases are not similar at all.  A person who wanted to wear his yarmulke at
work wasn't doing something negative to someone else; he wanted to do an
act that he believed was demanded by his religion which did not hurt anyone
else.  Therefore, it would be unreasonable for someone else to think poorly
of a Jew who did that.	Spitting at someone, even if it doesn't hit him, is
a an act that civilized society today, including Torah observant Jews,
think is disgusting.  It is an insulting act, so the priest, at whom the
spit was directed, who may be a wonderful, fine, moral ethical man who
truly loves the Jewish people, will feel insulted and think ill of the Jew
who spit as will even the most ehrlich NJ.  And if they see it often
enough, they may begin to think ill of the God the spitters worship. 
Sounds like Chilul Hashem to me.

Joseph Kaplan  

R?nTK wrote:
Or maybe "nashuva" was the royal we? 

CM notes:
I have since found that the Belzer Rebbi learned the lashon rabim here exactly this way ? as the Royal We. 

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111115/b331ded8/attachment-0001.htm>

does modern warfare (eg halachic military)
permit torture of any kind, in/for short and
or long-term [potential] dangerous (civilian/
military) operations???
or,do we learn from Yaakov'sreaction to
shimon and levi'sruse, if you can call a bris-mila)
[under false pretenses) torture???
hb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111115/c9e4b0e6/attachment-0001.htm>

In the thread "Chillul HaShem when NJ are the observers", R' Zev Sero wrote:

> The Malbim asks how the angels could eat Avraham's food. It's
> easy to understand how they could *pretend* to eat, but the
> Torah says that they actually ate, and to eat ("le'echol")
> means to derive sustenance.

I'm curious exactly how the Malbim phrases this, and exactly which word he
used for "to derive sustenance". My guess is that "sustenance" corresponds
to some form of the word "mazon".

Many poskim hold that the bracha of mezonos is effective for any food
except water and salt, and that the reason is because they provide
sustenance. In the words of the Beur Halacha 167:10:B'makom, "mayzin zayan"
- "they do sustain".

For nidon didan, I think the exception of salt is notable, because I think
we'd all agree that the word "le'echol" DOES describe what we can do with
salt, and we do so even though it does not provide sustenance --- exactly
like the food which the angels ate without receiving sustenance.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ec2f312ad85badabast03vuc

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:12 AM, hankman <hank...@bell.net> wrote:

>   R?nTK wrote:
> Or maybe "nashuva" was the royal we?
>
> CM notes:
> I have since found that the Belzer Rebbi learned the lashon rabim here
> exactly this way ? as the Royal We.
>

How does this fit with Rashi?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111116/117f88cc/attachment-0001.htm>

 

From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
To:  avo...@aishdas.org
"

http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/11/bat-responsa.html

some  modern  torah  approaches  to  realities  of   today's science,  in 
this  case  bat  reproduction 

 
>>>>>
Chazal said, "Chochmah bagoyim ta'amin."  I think it is quite  reasonable 
to assume that they accepted as fact many scientific statements  made by the 
Greek scholars of their time.  They set an example for us to  follow, which 
is that we can study and use modern science, even though we know  that 
sometimes scientists turn out to be wrong about this or that.  What we  learn 
from Chazal is not that bats lay eggs but that if we want to know  about bats, 
we should consult the most up to date scholarship among the nations,  just 
as Chazal did.
 
HOWEVER: Those rabbanim and Torah leaders of our own day who insist that  
every scientific statement in the Gemara is knowledge handed down from Sinai  
should not be treated with disdain and sarcasm.  Yesh lahem al mi  lismoch. 
 And it goes without saying, those who say that scientific  statements in 
the Gemara were not handed down from Sinai, of them too it is true  that yesh 
lahem al mi lismoch.
 
I think this is a machlokes leshem Shomayim.
 
The only caveat is that the discussion must indeed be  conducted on a high 
level, leshem Shomayim.  To keep it that level, the  discussion has to be 
without personal rancor, even in a case where a person has  every reason to 
feel personal hurt and pain and would be almost a malach to  suppress all 
emotion and always take the high road.  
 
 

--Toby  Katz
================




_____________________
 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111116/f8f4aa5f/attachment-0001.htm>

[1] Someone wrote on Areivim:  
> As a great man once told me "It"s not enough to be well versed  in the
> first 4 chalokim of SA,the 5th chelek is important as  well"

and RZS responded:
> And that is precisely where I am coming from. But of course anyone
> can claim that the "fifth chelek" supports him! What test is there?
> The fifth chelek cannot contradict the first four. And what is the
> fifth chelek anyway? It is mesoras yisroel. In this case, our mesorah
> is precisely what these people are doing, while those who object are
> all coming from an alien perspective.

[2] Continuing the discussion on Avodah under the subject line  "Chillul 
HaShem when NJ are the observers" 

RZS wrote: 
> ....The argument you are making is precisely that which was used
> in the last generation to tell people to remove their yarmulke, because
> it's a "chilul haShem"! Of course that is exactly backwards. Wearing a
> yarmulke in public, demonstrating in public that yidden are different,
> is a kiddush haShem.....Kiddush haShem consists of the observer seeing
> how yidden stick to haShem, Torah, and Mitzvos; whether the observer
> likes it or not.

[3] RZS also wrote:
> ...Then he explains that since they were all mal'achim of chessed,
> their missions were also ones of chessed; to tell Sarah the good news,
> to heal Avraham, to rescue Lot -- and to destroy Sedom! How is that
> chessed? Yes, chessed includes destroying anti-chessed.....that this
> is how a Jew behaves, and that he will do the right thing no matter what
> anyone thinks of him, is exactly what kiddush haShem means.

> And exactly the same applies to spitting at AZ. Rejecting and being
> disgusted by AZ is the essence of right and justice. It is the ultimate
> good; it's the definition of a Yehudi - "mi shemodeh baH' vekofer baAZ".
> And visibly expressing this disgust is the equivalent of giving the
> guests salt, or indeed of returning the stone to the donkey seller.

[4] And finally:

RMB wrote:
> I dispute both your assumption of what minhag avoseinu was....

and RZS responded:
> Do you dispute that spitting when passing a church is minhag avoseinu?!

[1] It is not "our mesorah" to spit at people and leave actual spittle
on their faces and clothing. And if 99% of all Orthodox Jews find the
idea of spitting at goyim revolting, and 1% think that is exactly what
the Torah requires, I'd be wary of saying that it's the 99% who are
"coming from an alien perspective."

[2] It is certainly true that "Kiddush haShem consists of the observer
seeing how yidden stick to haShem, Torah, and Mitzvos" but the tacit
premise here -- that the Torah requires us to spit at every Christian
clergyman we pass on the street -- is completely and utterly false.

[3] Yes, chessed does mean destroying anti-chessed -- but to equate an
Armenian Christian priest of today with the pure evil of the people of
Sodom is completely wrong and false. Christians are not the evil people in
the world today, far from it, they are among the best and most moral and
G-d-fearing. They are not the chief deniers of G-d today -- that would be
the Harvard faculty. And according to many Torah sources, shituf is not
even Avodah Zarah for goyim. When the early Christians replaced Greek
and Roman mythology (which WAS Avodah Zarah) with the slightly muddled
monotheism of the Trinity ("3=1") they were pulling goyim UP and not down.

RZS says "Rejecting and being disgusted by AZ is the essence of right
and justice." Would he say the same about rejecting and being disgusted
by gilui arayos, specifically, mishkav zochar? I would also like to
know if RZS would support, with equal vehemence, visible expressions
of disgust at the sight of the toeivah people in the Toeivah Parade.
Maybe we should be spitting at them, too? And if not, why not?

[4] Spitting on the ground while passing a church is a "minhag" in the
sense that saying "Feh!" at the sight of something ugly is a minhag.
It's the minhag hamakom in some places, like angels eating when
visiting humans -- "when in Rome..." It's not minhag in the sense of
halachic norm, like minhag Yisrael din hu. (The very word "minhag"
has many meanings and depends on context.) There is no law that you
have to spit in front of a church and there has /never/ been a custom
of spitting on human beings, on priests and nuns! There isn't even a
custom of spitting on the ground /in front of/ a priest, and the current
practice of some in Y-m who leave their spittle all over the clergymen is
just plain disgusting. There is no source for it and no excuse for it.

I would add that it is highly ironic that the people who reject the
State of Israel on the grounds that it violates the "Four Oaths" would
be the ones to show ownership of the land in such an aggressive way,
by spitting on non-Jewish clergy -- an act they would never have the
nerve to commit in any land where they didn't feel they were the boss.
So we're the boss of Eretz Yisrael now? The goyim are under our thumb
now, hey? The Four Oaths are inoperative? Whadaya know, it's aschalta
de'geulah after all!

--Toby Katz
================

  R?nTK wrote:
  Or maybe "nashuva" was the royal we? 

  CM notes:
  I have since found that the Belzer Rebbi learned the lashon rabim here exactly this way ? as the Royal We.

RLK wrote:

How does this fit with Rashi? 

CM notes further:

I would say on a conscious level AA meant the Royal We (not a sheker), but
the choice of words was not a real nevuoh but a choice of words put into
his mouth that did in fact point to the real future (nivo velo yoda ma
shenivo as RZS brought from a medrash).

I have found in the Chumash Torah Mai?ira on this pasuk a string of
explanations of this phrase. Here are some of them with some minor
embellishment of my own. 1) AA used lashon rabim wrt to the ne?orim so they
should not understand what was to take place (perhaps so they should not
restrain him from murder what they might view as a man gone crazy), 2)AA
used lashon rabim wrt to YA so he should not realize he was to be the
korban (and necessary to carry out the Akaida,) 3) AA intended to return
with atsmos YA hence the lashon rabim, 4) It was not a statement but
beloshon temiah, ?do you think we are only here to bow down and we will
return right away? 5) It was a statement with a condition, if he will get a
new command from Hashem (as in fact happened) then we will just bow and
Both return to you, 6) Essentially the answer I wrote above, 7) Similar to
6) that he inadvertently used words that unknowingly pointed to the future.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111116/f8102127/attachment-0001.htm>

Redirected at the suggestion of an areivim moderator to avodah. YL

At 04:32 PM 11/15/2011, Zev Sero wrote:

  >And that is precisely where I am coming from.  But of course anyone can
  >claim that the "fifth chelek" supports him!  What test is there?  The
  >fifth chelek cannot contradict the first four.  And what is the fifth
  >chelek anyway?  It is mesoras yisroel.  In this case, our mesorah is
  >precisely what these people are doing, while those who object are all
  >coming from an alien perspective.

Your mesorah may be "precisely what these people are doing,"  but it
is certainly not the mesorah of RSRH,  ZT"L, and many, many other
Jews.  It was certainly not the mesorah of Rav Shimon Schwab,
ZT"L.  In his essay Chillul Hashem that I have posted at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chillul_hashem_r_schwab.pdf

he wrote

The second sentence of Sh'ma Yisroel begins with the
command: "You shall love Hashem", which is interpreted by
our Sages: "Let the name of Hashem become beloved through
you." In other words, we are supposed to lead the kind of
exemplary life which would contribute to the universal
adoration of G-d and which would, in turn, enhance the glory
and lustre of the Torah, adding respect for the dignity of the
Jewish people as a Kingdom of Priests and a Holy Nation.
The very opposite of the sanctification is the desecration
of the Name as condemned by the Prophet with the scathing
words (Yechezkel 36): "They came to the nations and
desecrated my Holy Name, so that one said to them, is this
the people of G-d who came from His land?"

Every form of Chillul Hashem lowers the awareness of
the Divine Presence in the world. But if the desecrator
happens to be a professed Torah observer or, even worse, a
so-called scholar of the Torah, then the Chillul Hashem not
only weakens the respect for Torah on one hand, but
strengthens on the other hand the defiance of the non observer
and adds fuel to the scoffers, fanning the fires of
religious insurrection all around. Chillul Hashem is
responsible, directly or indirectly, for the increase of frivolity,
not be surprised reading the harsh words of condemnation
we find in the Talmud: "He who has committed Chillul
Hashem, even Teshuvoh, Yom Kippur and suffering cannot
fully atone for his sin until the day of his death (Yoma 86)."
"Better to commit a sin in secrecy than to commit Chillul
Hashem in public (Kiddushin 40).

"There is no delay in the Divine punishment for Chillul
Hashem, whether committed knowingly or unknowingly
(ibid.)".

"If one steals from a non-Jew, swears falsely and dies, his
death is no atonement for his sin because of Chillul Hashem"
(Tosefta B. Kamma, 10).



At 04:32 PM 11/15/2011, Zev Sero wrote:

 >And that is precisely where I am coming from.  But of course anyone can
 >claim that the "fifth chelek" supports him!  What test is there?  The
 >fifth chelek cannot contradict the first four.  And what is the fifth
 >chelek anyway?  It is mesoras yisroel.  In this case, our mesorah is
 >precisely what these people are doing, while those who object are all
 >coming from an alien perspective.

Your mesorah may be "precisely what these people are doing,"  but it
is certainly not the mesorah of RSRH,  ZT"L, and many, many other
Jews.  It was certainly not the mesorah of Rav Shimon Schwab,
ZT"L.  In his essay Chillul Hashem that I have posted at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/chillul_hashem_r_schwab.pdf

he wrote

The second sentence of Sh'ma Yisroel begins with the
command: "You shall love Hashem", which is interpreted by
our Sages: "Let the name of Hashem become beloved through
you." In other words, we are supposed to lead the kind of
exemplary life which would contribute to the universal
adoration of G-d and which would, in turn, enhance the glory
a
Redirected at the suggestion of an areivim moderator to avodah. YL

At 04:32 PM 11/15/2011, Zev Sero wrote:

 >And that is precisely where I am coming from.  But of course anyone can
 >claim that the "fifth chelek" supports him!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20111116/ddba3e3f/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 234
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."