tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7898782635470765614.post7184493202147817160..comments2023-09-11T17:58:13.764-04:00Comments on The Rebbetzin's Husband: How Jewish Law defines the application of Jewish EthicsThe Rebbetzin's Husbandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14977193945074906534noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7898782635470765614.post-7559616089775726822010-08-14T23:43:35.709-04:002010-08-14T23:43:35.709-04:00Hi Joseph,
I think the Chazon Ish's argument w...Hi Joseph,<br />I think the Chazon Ish's argument would be that those issurim don't hold in the situation where someone is illegally aggressive.<br />Physical and financial attacks, on the other hand, are governed by the laws of עושה דין לעצמו, which prevent vigilante action so long as a beis din is available.The Rebbetzin's Husbandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14977193945074906534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7898782635470765614.post-26244261573659978692010-08-13T16:19:21.333-04:002010-08-13T16:19:21.333-04:00It's not so much the fact that Hazon Ish (than...It's not so much the fact that Hazon Ish (thanks for the correction, my bad!)would advocate extreme measures in specific situations, but that there doesn't seem to be any limit on what can be done. Why stop at baseless hatred and lying, if the new people involved would be that bad? Why would we not be allowed to resort to physical violence? While I don't want to arrogantly demand a source for such a claim from Hazon Ish, I would like to know what sources he is using to justify his position. Rabbanim have more trouble finding hetterim for issur ve-hetter issues, while the Hazon Ish seems to be justifying violations of various issurei de'oraysa with ease. There needs to be some legal reasoning involved here - otherwise, - to use Jose Faur's description of the violent activities of medieval anti-Rambamists, "zeal would be displacing halachah." This has practical applications. For instance, Palestinian nationalists lie about Jewish history in the Land of Israel; would we be allowed to play similar games because that society advocates violence against Jews? What are the parameters?Josephnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7898782635470765614.post-39968178109656070212010-08-11T21:48:28.912-04:002010-08-11T21:48:28.912-04:00Jenny-
Yes, it does - because the Torah's supp...Jenny-<br />Yes, it does - because the Torah's support for secular law is rooted in a moral argument. [For more on this, see my post about Nedarim 28a, <b><a href="http://rechovot.blogspot.com/2008/02/daf-notes-on-nedarim-1.html" rel="nofollow">here</a></b>.]<br /><br />Joel-<br />1. Which result among which choices?<br />2. Good question.<br /><br />Joseph-<br />Yes, can't edit comments, only keep or delete. (And it's the Chazon Ish rather than Rav Dessler.)<br />In any case: I don't think he was exaggerating, although he may have been using hyperbole to make his point. But think about it - the newcomers are threatening their lives, by robbing them of their livelihood. The tactics may be extreme and dangerous without being inappropriate.The Rebbetzin's Husbandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14977193945074906534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7898782635470765614.post-36282446364641947052010-08-11T10:00:33.648-04:002010-08-11T10:00:33.648-04:00Please disregard the last unedited half-sentence i...Please disregard the last unedited half-sentence in my previous post; I can't figure out how to remove it.Josephnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7898782635470765614.post-51835533823002149242010-08-11T09:56:04.696-04:002010-08-11T09:56:04.696-04:00"All of these deeds would be innocent of sin ..."All of these deeds would be innocent of sin if the law agreed that they could block the newcomers. Then the newcomers would be the ones sinning with their lives...There would be no prohibition against strife, harmful speech or baseless hatred. Indeed, there would be a mitzvah of battling in order to establish proper religious conduct."<br /> Why does R. Dessler assume the ends justifies the means? Is he exaggerating here, or is this an actual ruling allowing for all types of fighting (including deception and hatred) against any type of sinner? Is there no responsibility on even the wronged party to fight responsibly? Isn't this a recipe for permanent communal infighting? <br /><br />But why would R. Dessler allow for strife within the communityJosephnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7898782635470765614.post-63340209799319373192010-08-11T09:13:20.988-04:002010-08-11T09:13:20.988-04:00OK- and which result gives HKB"H more pleasur...OK- and which result gives HKB"H more pleasure? and should a person who insists on din (e.g. the new school teachers) wear tfillin at mincha and only eat glatt(i.e. pick where they are a baal nefesh type and where not?)<br /><br />KT<br />Joel RichAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7898782635470765614.post-479858227919283292010-08-11T07:52:37.523-04:002010-08-11T07:52:37.523-04:00Does such an idea apply to secular law as well? Is...Does such an idea apply to secular law as well? Is someone who breaks the law of the land (assuming that the law itself is amoral) acting immorally?<br /><br />If the answer is no, then I wonder how far it extends in Judaism. It's one thing if the violator (or in your case, the opponents of those who follow the law) is violating God's law. But what if he only violates a Rabbinical ordinance, which viewed in a vacuum is amoral as well?Jennynoreply@blogger.com