Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 072

Tuesday, December 8 1998

• tzedakah opprotunity
• Re: Chillul HaShem
• Re: chillul HaShem - appearing weak
• Re: "RE:"
• Re: Avodah V2 #71
• T"T 3:10
• Rambam 3:10
• Galus and Assertiveness
• Halocho and Chillul haHsem
• Chillul Hashem and Talmud Torah
• Re: T"T 3:10
• authority of Shulchan Aruch
• womb rent
• mitzvah as hillul Hashem
• Re: mitzvah as hillul Hashem
• Re: Avodah V2 #71
• Psak based on lost manuscripts
• Israeli MIAs
• More Chillul Hashem

	Are you tzedakkah minded?

	If you are in the 28% tax bracket or above, we've found a way to donate $1500
in assets to a very worthwhile tzedakah for a maximum out-of-pocket cost of
$80! 

	Anyone interested in taking advantage of this opportunity please email
YitzW@aol.com.

	Best regards,

	Yitz

RYGB writes:

<< 
 > We don't find in Rambam or SA a din that a mitzva should not be done if
 > it results in a chilul Hashem (however you choose to define it) - what
 > is the precedent for this claim? 

 No?

 See Rambam Hil TT 3:10.
>>

The quoted Rambam discusses the prohibition of evoting one's time exclusively
to learning Torah and relying on the public for support.  I would argue that
Rambam is claiming that such limud Torah is NOT a mitzva, but rather a chillul
HaShem.  He is arguing that the very action being done has lost its status of
mitzva.  This differs from performance of mila where people think it is
barbaric.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<< 
 As I previously quoted Rav Schach clearly disagrees with Rav Cohen
 and very strongly states that Jews survuved for 2000 years by not
 starting with the goyim, i.e. Jews survived in galut by accepting
 all the beatings and degradations of the goyim and not reacting to it.
 He then extends this philosophy to the state of Israel (this is the
 weak link).
  >>

This argument goes back all the way to this past week's parsha.  See Nechama
Lebovitz for mefarshim about the disagreement between Yaakov and Shimon & Levi
concerning Sh'chem.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

If we are trying to upgrade the quality of posts here by keeping the language
level high, might I suggest that we take the time to modify the subject
headers in submissions to this list.  Seeing Re; Avodah #71, while it tells me
that the submission is a response to something recently read, does little to
inform me, or anyone else for that matter, as to what is being addressed.
While I find much of what is submitted of interest, there are some threads
that I skip, and would like to know before scrolling through the file how far
down to go.  

Also, when we address an issue that has different threads to it, for example
Chillul HaShem, which has digressed into one thread dealing with Eretz Yisrael
and another dealing with performance of mitzvot in general, maybe we could
take an extra second to specify which thread we are addressing ( eg. "Chillul
HaShem- Mitzvot ).

Just a suggestion.

Eliyahu Teitz

In a message dated 98-12-07 10:59:44 EST, you write:

> 
>  I was giving a shiur today on Sotah daf 14b where thegemara cites pasukim
>  to  be sources for som hilchos menachos. One ofmy students asked why the
>  gemara sometimes introduces a pasuk with shenemar and sometimes with
>  d'ktiv. I admitted that I never really thought about it but would try to
>  find an answer.Does anyone know an answer or a makor for the difference
>  between d'ktiv and shenemar--Next shiur is Wed.

You might find some food for thought in Sedei Chemed Mem:143. He discusses the
difference between Sheneemar and Mishum sheNeemar. I don't recall his whole
discussion, but I believe he draws a distinction between biblical/rabbinic.
Mordechai
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf
Congregation Ohave Shalom, Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave

>>> The Rambam did not think so. See Hil. TT 3:10. >>>

Irrelevant. The Rambam writes that there is a specific issur of using Torah
for on'e livlihood (L'Fi she-asur l'henos miDivrei Torah baOlam HaZeh); one
who violates this issur has, in addition, been mechalel shem shamayim.   What
does that have to do with being mechadesh a new din sans gemara/Rishonim that
chilul Hashem is doche mitzva performance ?  

IMHO this discussion should revolve around the sugya in Gittin 46a (I was told
there is a Techumin article on this but do not have access to the journal).
The gemara has a machloket why the shevua with the Givonim was not violated to
fufill kibbush ha'aretz: either it was an irrevocable neder, orr acc. to
Chachamim bec. of kiddush Hashem.  A cursory reading suggests that the miztvot
of kibbush ha'aretz (see Tos there D"H kivan on the mitzvot involved and why
it isn't a shevua l'vatel et hamitzva) are modified by considerations of
kiddush Hashem.  However, a closer examination (note esp. Rashba there)
suggests that the consideration of kiddush Hashem is used in the narrow
context of justifying keeping a shevua/promise that otherwise could have been
nullified.  The concept is given no further amplification in the Rishonim, and
barring other proof, ain l'cha bi ela chiddusho, it is a limited to the
context of shevua.    

Midrashim can serve as a giluy milsa as to what might constitute a chilul
Hashem once we are made aware of the issur; they cannot serve as the basis for
creating new dinim.  (In addition to the achronim cited already, note Rashba
Megilla 15 who rejects the need to be meyashev aggadot).  

-Chaim B.

I looked at the Rambam in 3:10 and saw there that the Rambam paskens to be
nisparnes from divrei Torah is Assur and is therefore a chillul shem
shamayim, a well known opinion of the Rambam.  Nowhere does he state that
one is to refrain from doing a specific command of HKB'H because of chillul
Hashem.  The Rambam obviously holds that this is not the kiyum of mitzvas
Talmud Torah.  Osek Bamitzvah Patur Min Hamitzvah.  that is why in the next
seif 11 the Rambam makes a point that "Maaleh Gedolah lemi shemisparnes
mimaaseh yadav" therefore it is not incumbent upon one to learn torah when
he is involved in the Mitzvah of making a parnasah.  It is simply an
aveirah according to the Rambam to learn Torah in such a way, without going
into the big debate that we all know surrounding this Rambam.  I still
don't find a source for not doing a Mitzvah because of Chillul Hashem.
Shaul weinreb

>>As I previously quoted Rav Schach clearly disagrees with Rav Cohen and very 
strongly states that Jews survuved for 2000 years by not starting with the 
goyim, i.e. Jews survived in galut by accepting all the beatings and 
degradations of the goyim and not reacting to it. He then extends this 
philosophy to the state of Israel (this is the weak link).<<

By the Way, R' Ytizchok Etshalom (in his Genesis project emails this year) has 
outlined a very intersting common thread re: the Avos and this same concept.  
That is the Avos behaved one way in Galus and aonther way in EY.  

B'kitsur this might be the macklokes between Yaakov vs Shimon & Levi re; 
Schechem 
Yaakov:  don't start up with the goyim ...vnishmadti ani uveisi,  This is 
Chillul Hashem in that the goyim will tgake up the cudgels against us... 
sruvival
Shimon & Levi, Hachezone:.. ie we must stand up or they will abuse our women, 
etc.

The underlying assumption:  Yaakov holds we are as if in Golus, and we must not 
rock the boat.
Shimon & Levi hold no, we are in EY now and we musst assert ourselves lest the 
Goyim step on us.

(This also helps to explain how Avrohom called Soro his sister " kaasher hi'su 
osi Elokim mi beis ovie"  "on the road" one may be gonev daas for 
self-preservation, bechavior that we not be accpetable when at home).

The question today is:
Should we consider ourselves in the Golus era and do as Rav Shach has noted?
OR
Now that we have EY (albeit no BhM) can we behave assertively?

The teshuvo: it depends upon your shito; Augidsts will probably advocate the 
former, Mizrachists the latter.  Mizrachi holds that the holocaust was a 
violation of the shavuo that Goyim should not commit genocide against us; as a 
result we Yehudim are free from the other 2 shavuos (see TB Kesubbos re: the 3 
shvuos followign the churban)


IMHO, iff you see this from a bit of distance, you will recognize that each 
shito has its raayos and kushiyos etc. 

And if BhM is the sole criteria, How could R. Akivo support Bar Kochbo during 
the post churban era?

Regards
Rich Wolpoe

>>From: Saul J Weinreb <sweinr1@uic.edu> Subject: Re: Avodah V2 #70
 If Hashem commands us to do something, we don't have to "agree" with it to do 
it.  This is about as basic a concept in our religion as belief in One G-D.
I challenge HaRav YGB to find one mekor in chazal, which suggests that we should
not do an explicit mitzvah because of chillul hashem.<<

I agree with this WHAT the question is the HOW.
OTOH we are taught havei az kenomer
AND
OTOH we are taught az Ponim legehenom.

Julius Berman at a Hazkor for R YD Solveichik tells the story of the Rav pacing 
all night because he was faced with assering a shidduch between a kohen and a 
giyores.  The Rov was asked " Rm, rebbe, what's the dilemna? Isn't the din 
clear?" He replied: "Of course the HALOCHO is clear! But how do I go about 
breaking thee hearts of this young couple? That's why I'm up all night with 
concern..."

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

To my many detractors here who flippantly dismissed the Rambam in TT 3:10,
with all due respect, your lomdus is bewildering. 

You say learning Torah while receiving support to do so is not a mitzva of
TT - a very strange idea to me, and surely one that the BY, Shach et al
who defend our current custom with the heter of "eis la'asos" should have
addressed, as eis la'asos wil not necessarrily make an aveira into a
mitzva. 

But, let us accept for a moment your premise - then the same might be
said, say, of Yishuv EY when one is on the public dole to do so, or is
mechallel Shem Shomayim in some other way when engaged in the mitzva - the
Chillul Hashem is "mechabeh" the mitzva.

So, you are back to square one - my argument.

Sorry!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Mon, 7 Dec 1998 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Midrashim can serve as a giluy milsa as to what might constitute a chilul
> Hashem once we are made aware of the issur; they cannot serve as the basis for
> creating new dinim.  (In addition to the achronim cited already, note Rashba
> Megilla 15 who rejects the need to be meyashev aggadot).  
> 

Guess what! Midrashim are also Chazal! Surprise! And, while we cannot
learn from them Halacha directly - as we cannot from a Mishna - we learn
what Chazal thought and wanted to teach about Jewish Thought - the Da'as
of Torah. And, the highly subjective area of Chillul Hashem requires
assessment of these "beyond simple Halachic issues" - witness the
parameters of Adam Chashuv in Chillul Hashem. This, we learn from Agadata
and Midrash!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

>On what rational basis can we ignore material that appears valid, relevant,
>not forged, Rishon-ic or earlier, and decide that just because the Bais
>Yoseph did not see it, we may choose to ignore it?
>Another way of presenting the above would be: Is there appropriate authority
>to decide that the Bais Yoseph was the "ne'eelas ha-psak" in the way that
>Shas is presumed to have been closed up for further contributions?

Rav Yehonoson Eybeschuetz states his opinion on this matter in Urim VeTumim,
Kitzur Takfo Kohen, p. 48, column 4. He says that the Shulchan Aruch with
Hagahos HaRema is a work of such perfection that it could not have been the
product of mere humans. The Beis Yosef and the Rema were inspired by a
"ruach Hashem" and wrote a work which contains truths of which they
themselves were not conscious. Any halachic opinion not included in it has
had the door shut before it as far as halachah lemaaseh is concerned.

I recommend that anybody who is interested look at the original. The Gaon
must have had a different opinion.

Yisrael Herczeg

for the situation of a frum woman with ovaries but no uterus-- has the
halacha lmaaseh been worked out on the question of the fertilized embryo
being implanted in another womb? is a non-jewish womb better?   can anyone
provide a tamzit of who's paskened and how?
thank you learned rabbis.

R. YGB was asked where doing a mitzvah is considered a hillul Hashem.
His answer:

>See Rambam Hil TT 3:10.

This, it seems to me, does not support the claim that the performance of
a mitzvah can be a hillul Hashem (and therefore one should refrain from
performing the mitzvah).  Aside from the fact that the Rambam's view was
not accepted le-Halakha, the Rambam is not addressing the either/or
question of doing a mitzvah or not doing a mitzvah.  As I read it, he is
discussing the manner in which the mitzvah is performed.  When turned
into the source of one's livelihood, talmud Torah becomes a kardom
lahpor bah.  However, the same act of talmud Torah, when peformed as an
adjunct to one's vocation, is not a hillul Hashem.  Thus, Rambam's
ruling stands for the uncontroversial position that a mitzvah done
improperly can create a hillul Hashem.  Applying this principle to the
yishuv ha-aretz question, we can conclude that the mitzvah should not be
performed in a manner that creates a hillul hashem.  This supports the
consensus view on this list that various acts of violence and other
anti-Torah behavior by opponents of territorial compromise are
non-halakhic, irrespective of the halakhic validity of their underlying
views.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

On Mon, 7 Dec 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> This, it seems to me, does not support the claim that the performance of
> a mitzvah can be a hillul Hashem (and therefore one should refrain from
> performing the mitzvah).  Aside from the fact that the Rambam's view was

To the best of my knowledge - correct me if I am wrong about what I
believe - I am not advocating abandoning mitzvos for Chillul Hashem
reasons - a proposal that rates a c"v. Getting back to the original issue,
the mitnachalim, we are not suggesting they not be mekayem the mitzva of
yishuv Eretz Yisroel - aderaba! - something I did not understand when I
was 13 in 1975 watching them on TV (r"l!) in Sebastia, and something I
still do not understand - why is it less of a mitzva of YEY to start
gar'inim and yishuvim to settle the Negev and Galil. I therefore fail to
discern the issue that R' Eli is critiquing.

Ditto re this Rambam - the Rambam was not advocating abandoning the mitzva
of TT because of CH, rather he held one should do so in a manner that does
not create a CH.

I have not yet seen an answer here yet to my question on the
counter-ta'ana that the mitnachalim have a chiyuv to be monei'a the
govenment from giving land to the Palestinians - zu me'nayin lanu, v'im
timzeh lomar ken, then the same applies to other areas of religion no
less, perhaps much more so.

I fear the real answer to my question lies in the passage in R' Elchonon's
Kovetz Ma'amarim I long ago found objectionable but cannot help but
reconsider. I still find it too harsh to type here, but you all probably
recall what he called the marriage of "datiut" and "leumiut".

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Yisrael Herczeg
  
> Without getting involved in the specific example given in the posting, the
> Chazon Ish in Kovetz Igros, vol. II, no. 23, says that newly found
> manuscripts are of little value in arriving at halachic conclusions. See
> also vol. I, no. 32, where he has a similar attitude toward versions of the
> Talmudic text which are not mentioned by the rishonim.

I have a few questions even if one accepts this approach

1. There are cases where minor changes in a Rambam answers all the questions
   of an incomprehensible Rambam. Should one insist on answering the original?

2. A perush like Meiri is now commonly used in many yeshivot.
   While once upon a time it was a "new" manuscript it no longer is.
   Does this change the approach since it has been used by talmidim for many years?

3. There are currently being issued new versions of the Shulchan Arukh based
   on the original printed version (as far as I know the Shulchan Arukh was the
   first sefer that originally was printed without being issued as a manuscript).
   Does the same principle follow and we follow mistakes in the usual versions
   over more correct versions?

Eli Turkel

Would the Chazon Ish ignore the Meiri whose works were unknown to many
generations of Rishonim  and Achronim?
David I. Cohen

Short note:
As you see by the counter in my .signature, Yehudah Katz, Zechariah Bauml,
and Zvi Feldman have been MIA for 6000 days today.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6000 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 8-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Have you ever heard the one that one should not daven with a minyan on an
airplane because it may disturb other passengers and create a Chillul
Hashem? It made sense to me - although I think it should be possible to
make a minyan without a Chillul Hashem - but I guess my interlocutors here
would disagree.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]