I was just in New York for a quick trip, and experienced a bizarre moment that re-defined my identity.
Preface: I took driver's education in Washington Heights, a part of Manhattan in which the term "defensive driving" is meaningless. If you waited at a corner for pedestrians to clear, you never went anywhere; crossing an interesection, making a turn or changing lanes was a combination of skill, nerves and mazal.
How aggressive was that brand of driving? When I took my first driver's test on Long Island, I failed because I entered an intersection to prepare for a turn while pedestrians were still in the crosswalk. I had no idea what the tester was talking about when she corrected me; I had never heard anything about this odd rule.
Back to my recent visit: My years out of New York have mellowed me, apparently. I was crossing Lower Manhattan at Canal Street, going from the Holland Tunnel to the Williamsburg Bridge. Traffic was bumper-to-bumper, and then some. I needed to change lanes, and was a bit nervous because (a) I was driving a rental car that was significantly nicer than my own and (b) The rental car was much larger than my own, with poor sightlines.
So I start easing my way over, allowing car after car to go by as I get further into the lane. Finally, I have my hole and I ease in - and then a car that had been way behind zooms up to take the spot. I roll down my window, and he rolls down his. And I shout, "What's the matter with you - don't you have any manners?"
That's it - If that's the best I can come up with, I'm definitely not a New Yorker anymore...
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Offering children financial rewards for mitzvot
A couple of weeks ago, when the Haftorah included shirat Devorah (the victory ballad composed by the prophetess Deborah, from Judges 5), I asked my elementary school-aged children whether they had been required to memorize it in school. Turns out, this had not been asked of them. I decided to put the challenge to them, offering a financial incentive for memorizing the first 5 sentences. The approach worked; they studied it, and helped each other study it, and they succeeded.
I don't feel bad about offering money for learning; this is over and above their school obligations. I offered it again this week, to memorize the six sentences of Parshas Shekalim.
But this did leave me with a few questions:
1. I value my children's chesed higher than their intellectual achievements; should I offer financial incentives for shoveling someone's driveway, or volunteering with an organization? Or should that be considered 'basic' and not something which warrants special reward?
2. What steps should I take to ensure that the mitzvah retains its inherent value in their eyes, separate from the financial reward?
3. How do I ensure that they prioritize properly, so that mitzvos without financial reward (setting the table, being polite, davening properly) don't get shunted aside in pursuit of cash?
[Side note: From what I understand, recent neurological research shows that pre-teen children memorize better than they reason, and pedagogy which tends to memorization will be better than critical analysis at this age. Of course, they need to learn critical thinking skills, too, but this is my basis for emphasizing memorization.]
I don't feel bad about offering money for learning; this is over and above their school obligations. I offered it again this week, to memorize the six sentences of Parshas Shekalim.
But this did leave me with a few questions:
1. I value my children's chesed higher than their intellectual achievements; should I offer financial incentives for shoveling someone's driveway, or volunteering with an organization? Or should that be considered 'basic' and not something which warrants special reward?
2. What steps should I take to ensure that the mitzvah retains its inherent value in their eyes, separate from the financial reward?
3. How do I ensure that they prioritize properly, so that mitzvos without financial reward (setting the table, being polite, davening properly) don't get shunted aside in pursuit of cash?
[Side note: From what I understand, recent neurological research shows that pre-teen children memorize better than they reason, and pedagogy which tends to memorization will be better than critical analysis at this age. Of course, they need to learn critical thinking skills, too, but this is my basis for emphasizing memorization.]
Friday, February 17, 2012
Rabbis letting their hair down?
The Archbishop of Toronto is now in Rome, where he is going to become a Cardinal. As I heard it on the radio this morning, he entered St. Peter's Square wearing a Toronto Maple Leafs jersey, to demonstrate that his new position won't distract him from serving his Canadian constituency. [You can see pictures here.]
All jokes about Cardinals and Maple Leafs/Blue Jays aside, I wonder about this. "Cardinal" is a pretty serious position within their hierarchy; a Cardinal can become Pope. We don't have their system of authority, and I don't mean to make any sort of equation between what they believe and what we believe, but I imagine a rough corrolary, in terms of solemnity, would be a rabbi becoming a Rosh Yeshiva at YU, or a member of the Moetzes Gedolei haTorah, or the Chief Rabbi of a country.
So I'm imagining a rabbi who has been selected for some prestigious position doing something similar on the cusp of his inauguration - donning a sports jersey in the plaza before the Kotel, perhaps. I know some rabbis who would do it; I know others who would never dream of it. Certainly, I know many Jews who would consider it a diminution of respect for the position he is accepting; I get raised eyebrows just for having a blog!
What do you think - is this a playful nod to home, or a disrespectful lack of solemnity?
Note: It isn't clear to me that this photo-opportunity was during any sort of public event; perhaps it was done outside of any formal context. I still find the question interesting.
All jokes about Cardinals and Maple Leafs/Blue Jays aside, I wonder about this. "Cardinal" is a pretty serious position within their hierarchy; a Cardinal can become Pope. We don't have their system of authority, and I don't mean to make any sort of equation between what they believe and what we believe, but I imagine a rough corrolary, in terms of solemnity, would be a rabbi becoming a Rosh Yeshiva at YU, or a member of the Moetzes Gedolei haTorah, or the Chief Rabbi of a country.
So I'm imagining a rabbi who has been selected for some prestigious position doing something similar on the cusp of his inauguration - donning a sports jersey in the plaza before the Kotel, perhaps. I know some rabbis who would do it; I know others who would never dream of it. Certainly, I know many Jews who would consider it a diminution of respect for the position he is accepting; I get raised eyebrows just for having a blog!
What do you think - is this a playful nod to home, or a disrespectful lack of solemnity?
Note: It isn't clear to me that this photo-opportunity was during any sort of public event; perhaps it was done outside of any formal context. I still find the question interesting.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
The Ethics of Protest: A Play in Three Acts – Act Three
For an explanation of what this is about, please see Act One here.
THE ETHICS OF PROTEST
ACT THREE – THE BATTLE OF SATMAR AND LUBAVITCH IN AMERICA
Narrator:
Act Three.
Sometimes our concerns are not about correcting other people's conduct as in 922, or preserving the honour of Gd as in 1655. Sometimes our problem is that Jews are targeting other Jews physically, and harming them. What are we licensed to do?
It's the summer of 1983, and we are in New York. On the streets of the Crown Heights neighbourhood, Lubavitcher chassidim are attacked on numerous occasions, their beards cut and their bodies beaten. The Lubavitcher Rebbe himself claims that these attacks are coming from Satmar chassidim. Satmar chassidim deny the charges. Brawls are reported in the international media and Lubavitch spokesman Yehuda Krinsky writes a letter to Time magazine denouncing the Satmar chassidim.
Here, two young Lubavitch chassidim, Avi and Yoni, are discussing the events of the summer, and what to do next.
[Avi and Yoni come on-stage; Avi is holding a rolled-up copy of Time magazine. They sit at the table]
A: Did you see what Rabbi Krinsky wrote? And in Time Magazine of all places?
Y (sarcastic): You want his autograph, Avi?
A: I want to ask him what he thinks he's doing!
Y: What do you mean? He's calling out the Satmar for attacking us!
A: But in the newspapers? A shanda! Ess pas nischt, we don't do that! It's like mesirah, we don't rat each other out!
Y: I disagree – remember Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai at the end of the second Beis haMikdash? He went to the Romans to hand over the zealous biryoni Jews in a peace deal because they were a threat to the Jewish community. This is no different.
A: That was one case, and the Romans were going to take the city with or without his help.
Y: It's more than just that case. The gemara says that where Jews are נותן חיתיתם בארץ חיים, where they intimidate other Jews, the courts can do what they need to do to get rid of them.
A: But we learned that Rabbi Elazar told Mar Ukva not to go to the authorities when he was being tormented by other Jews!
Y: That was an individual being hurt, not the entire community. Look, you know this – the Rif, Rambam, the Rosh, the Tur and Shulchan Aruch all say it: If a Jew is harming the community, we are allowed to turn him over to the government to handle him. It's part of protecting the community. So why shouldn't Rabbi Krinsky turn the Satmar over to the police?
A: Because there are other ways to handle this.
Y: Like what?
A: Like a boycott.
Y: What – we should stop buying their pareve ice cream? Stop buying products that have their hechsher? Stop giving to their tzedakos and mosdos?
A: Yes, exactly. We've always done that – when Jews hurt other Jews, we hit them where it hurts most, in the pocketbook.
Y: That is such a Jewish stereotype – all the Jews care about is money.
A: But it works! When bird merchants raised the price on the birds women needed for their korbanos, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel changed his ruling and on korban obligations and greatly reduced the demand for birds. And when fish merchants gouged on the price of fish for Shabbos, rabbis banned gefilte fish. We do it, and it works.
Y: You really think that will help?
A: Better that than writing letters to newspapers to talk trash about other Jews. We don't need to air our dirty laundry in public.
Y: You know that the Rebbe doesn't agree with you, right?
A: What do you mean?
Y: Did you miss the sichah last week? Haven't you heard? The Rebbe went to town on them, and said a Jew is obligated to reveal the names of the people who committed these attacks, even though they will be tried in secular courts. Turn 'em over to the government!
A: Wow. [drops the Time Magazine] Guess I didn't realize how far we could go – we should go – when this sort of thing happens.
Narrator:
Once again, we see that there are good arguments on both sides. We do have license to go to secular police and courts if Jews are harming the community. On the other hand, Avi is right: We would be better off handling this internally, perhaps with economics.
EPILOGUE
At the end, we noted a few last pieces of rabbinic counsel:
The Netziv highlights three factors to consider in any protest:
Is it with anger?
Is it proportional?
Will it corrupt more than it mends?
Similarly, in Likutei Sichos 3 Pinchas 5743, the Lubavitcher Rebbe posed a key question: Will our actions lead to peace, or to more hatred and fighting?
And we closed with a thought from Rav Yisrael Salanter (Tenuas haMussar I pg. 305): אם הצדק אתך השתדל להשאר צודק – "If justice is on your side, work to keep it that way."
Sources we cited:
THE ETHICS OF PROTEST
ACT THREE – THE BATTLE OF SATMAR AND LUBAVITCH IN AMERICA
Narrator:
Act Three.
Sometimes our concerns are not about correcting other people's conduct as in 922, or preserving the honour of Gd as in 1655. Sometimes our problem is that Jews are targeting other Jews physically, and harming them. What are we licensed to do?
It's the summer of 1983, and we are in New York. On the streets of the Crown Heights neighbourhood, Lubavitcher chassidim are attacked on numerous occasions, their beards cut and their bodies beaten. The Lubavitcher Rebbe himself claims that these attacks are coming from Satmar chassidim. Satmar chassidim deny the charges. Brawls are reported in the international media and Lubavitch spokesman Yehuda Krinsky writes a letter to Time magazine denouncing the Satmar chassidim.
Here, two young Lubavitch chassidim, Avi and Yoni, are discussing the events of the summer, and what to do next.
[Avi and Yoni come on-stage; Avi is holding a rolled-up copy of Time magazine. They sit at the table]
A: Did you see what Rabbi Krinsky wrote? And in Time Magazine of all places?
Y (sarcastic): You want his autograph, Avi?
A: I want to ask him what he thinks he's doing!
Y: What do you mean? He's calling out the Satmar for attacking us!
A: But in the newspapers? A shanda! Ess pas nischt, we don't do that! It's like mesirah, we don't rat each other out!
Y: I disagree – remember Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai at the end of the second Beis haMikdash? He went to the Romans to hand over the zealous biryoni Jews in a peace deal because they were a threat to the Jewish community. This is no different.
A: That was one case, and the Romans were going to take the city with or without his help.
Y: It's more than just that case. The gemara says that where Jews are נותן חיתיתם בארץ חיים, where they intimidate other Jews, the courts can do what they need to do to get rid of them.
A: But we learned that Rabbi Elazar told Mar Ukva not to go to the authorities when he was being tormented by other Jews!
Y: That was an individual being hurt, not the entire community. Look, you know this – the Rif, Rambam, the Rosh, the Tur and Shulchan Aruch all say it: If a Jew is harming the community, we are allowed to turn him over to the government to handle him. It's part of protecting the community. So why shouldn't Rabbi Krinsky turn the Satmar over to the police?
A: Because there are other ways to handle this.
Y: Like what?
A: Like a boycott.
Y: What – we should stop buying their pareve ice cream? Stop buying products that have their hechsher? Stop giving to their tzedakos and mosdos?
A: Yes, exactly. We've always done that – when Jews hurt other Jews, we hit them where it hurts most, in the pocketbook.
Y: That is such a Jewish stereotype – all the Jews care about is money.
A: But it works! When bird merchants raised the price on the birds women needed for their korbanos, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel changed his ruling and on korban obligations and greatly reduced the demand for birds. And when fish merchants gouged on the price of fish for Shabbos, rabbis banned gefilte fish. We do it, and it works.
Y: You really think that will help?
A: Better that than writing letters to newspapers to talk trash about other Jews. We don't need to air our dirty laundry in public.
Y: You know that the Rebbe doesn't agree with you, right?
A: What do you mean?
Y: Did you miss the sichah last week? Haven't you heard? The Rebbe went to town on them, and said a Jew is obligated to reveal the names of the people who committed these attacks, even though they will be tried in secular courts. Turn 'em over to the government!
A: Wow. [drops the Time Magazine] Guess I didn't realize how far we could go – we should go – when this sort of thing happens.
Narrator:
Once again, we see that there are good arguments on both sides. We do have license to go to secular police and courts if Jews are harming the community. On the other hand, Avi is right: We would be better off handling this internally, perhaps with economics.
EPILOGUE
At the end, we noted a few last pieces of rabbinic counsel:
The Netziv highlights three factors to consider in any protest:
Is it with anger?
Is it proportional?
Will it corrupt more than it mends?
Similarly, in Likutei Sichos 3 Pinchas 5743, the Lubavitcher Rebbe posed a key question: Will our actions lead to peace, or to more hatred and fighting?
And we closed with a thought from Rav Yisrael Salanter (Tenuas haMussar I pg. 305): אם הצדק אתך השתדל להשאר צודק – "If justice is on your side, work to keep it that way."
Sources we cited:
1. Talmud, Rosh haShanah 17a
המינין והמסורות והמשומדים והאפיקורסים שכפרו בתורה ושכפרו בתחיית המתים ושפירשו מדרכי צבור ושנתנו חיתיתם בארץ חיים ושחטאו והחטיאו את הרבים כגון ירבעם בן נבט וחביריו יורדין לגיהנם ונידונין בה לדורי דורות
Attackers of Torah, those who turn Jews over to their foes, those who convert out, heretics who deny Torah and the resurrection of the dead, those who separate from the community, those who intimidate others, those who sin and cause the masses to sin like Yeravam ben Nevat and his colleagues – these people descend to Gehennom and are judged there for all generation.
2. Talmud, Gittin 7a
שלח ליה מר עוקבא לר' אלעזר בני אדם העומדים עלי ובידי למסרם למלכות מהו שרטט וכתב ליה אמרתי אשמרה דרכי מחטוא בלשוני אשמרה לפי מחסום בעוד רשע לנגדי אע"פ שרשע לנגדי אשמרה לפי מחסום שלח ליה קא מצערי לי טובא ולא מצינא דאיקום בהו שלח ליה +תהלים ל"ז+ דום לד' והתחולל לו דום לד' והוא יפילם לך חללים חללים השכם והערב עליהן לבהמ"ד והן כלין מאיליהן
Mar Ukva sent to R' Elazar: There are people who stand against me, and I could give them to the throne; what should I do?
R' Elazar wrote back: It is written, "I guarded my path from sinning with my tongue; I muzzle my mouth when the wicked are still opposite me." Even though the wicked are opposite me, I will muzzle my mouth.
Mar Ukva sent back: They are causing me great pain, and I cannot manage them.
He sent: It is written, "Be silent for Gd and hope [hitcholleil] for Him." Be silent for Gd, and He will make them corpses [challalim]. Rise early and stay late in the Beit Midrash, and they will disappear on their own.
3. Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Chovel uMazik 8:11
כל המיצר לציבור ומצער אותן מותר למסרו ביד גוים להכותו ולאסרו ולקנסו, אבל מפני צער יחיד אסור למסרו
Regarding one who troubles and pains the community: One may give him to the nations to strike, bind and fine him. One may not do this for an individual's pain, though.
4. Mishnah Keritot 1:7
מעשה שעמדו קינים בירושלים בדינרי זהב אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל המעון הזה לא אלין הלילה עד שיהו בדינרין נכנס לבית דין ולימד האשה שיש עליה חמש לידות ודאות חמש זיבות ודאות מביאה קרבן אחד ואוכלת בזבחים ואין השאר עליה חובה ועמדו קינים בו ביום ברבעתים
Once, bird offerings in Jerusalem cost gold dinarim. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: By the Temple! I will not sleep tonight until they cost standard dinarim.
He entered the court and taught, "A woman who needs to bring offerings for multiple births or impurities brings one offering…" Bird offerings dropped to a quarter-dinar that day.
EPILOGUE
5. R' Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, Haamek Davar to Bereishit 49:5-6
וכדאיתא בתענית (דף ד, א) 'האי צורבא מרבנן דרתח, אורייתא הוא דרתחא ביה כו', אפילו הכי מיבעי למילף נפשיה בניחותא, שנאמר: 'והסר כעס מלבך'. שעל ידי כעס נעשה דברים זרים יותר מהנדרש לצורך הענין, ובזה יהיה קלקולו יותר מתיקונו.
This is like the Talmudic passage (Taanit 4a), "When a Torah scholar boils, it is Torah that is boiling within him… and yet he is obligated to conduct himself gently, as it is written (Kohelet 11:10), 'And remove anger from your heart.'" Due to rage, foreign deeds, beyond any proportion to the matter at hand, are performed, and this corrupts more than it mends.
6. R' Yisrael Salanter, as cited in Tenat haMussar 1:305
אם הצדק אתך השתדל להשאר צודק
If justice is on your side, work to remain just.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
The Ethics of Protest: A Play in Three Acts – Act Two
For an explanation of what this is about, please see Act One here. [Note: We focussed on just one historical explanation for Spinoza's ex-communication; of course, the historical record is much more complex and obscure.]
THE ETHICS OF PROTEST
ACT TWO – THE EX-COMMUNICATION OF BARUCH SPINOZA
Narrator:
Act Two.
The issue is not always about correcting behaviour; sometimes, the issue is Chillul HaShem, desecrating Gd's Name, and its fallout. Should we protest if the conduct of a Jew or a group of Jews causes Gd's Name to be defamed, as has happened in the wake of the publicity surrounding Beit Shemesh?
The year is now 1655, and our scene shifts to Amsterdam. Two members of the Ma'amad, the Jewish leadership, Rabbi Avraham and Rabbi Yonatan, are discussing their options in dealing with an upstart lens-grinder and philosopher, Baruch Spinoza.
Spinoza is promoting ideas which Jews consider heretical. Worse, though, the local Christian government is growing agitated, raising concerns of Chillul HaShem - the elders are worried that Spinoza is desecrating the Name of Gd by promoting the idea that Jews are heretics.
[Rabbi Avraham and Rabbi Yonatan enter and sit down]
Y: These glasses just aren't as good as they used to be. [Takes glasses off to clean them on his shirt.]
A [smirking]: Maybe you should go to that Spinoza fellow to make you new ones.
Y: Not funny. What are we going to do about him, anyway?
A: We've been through this already; we're going to do nothing. We don't ex-communicate people anymore!
Y: Where have you been? I don't keep track, but I'd say in all of Amsterdam there have been 100 or so in the past fifty years.
A: Not for heresy – we ex-communicate for defying the courts, refusing to pay fines, that sort of thing. Not for heresy.
Y: So you would have us do nothing? The gemara says במקום חילול ד' אין חולקין כבוד לרב, we don't defer to anyone's honour in a case of desecrating Gd's Name! We need to act!
A: I'm not convinced that this is a desecration of Gd's Name.
Y: Really. You know he believes in monism – that the universe is Gd, and it was not created at all but it simply exists. That there is no such thing as another realm beyond this one. [A covers his ears, in fun] That we are all animals, acting by instinct and not with free will. That we shouldn't accept any sort of revelation, but deduce everything on our own. That religion is a good way to keep people in line, but it's a product of imagination. [cleans his glasses]
A: [laughing] To each his own, right?
Y: You're not taking this seriously.
A: I am taking it seriously. Sorry. I just feel like there is nothing to do about it, and there is no reason to act. We've had heretics before and we've survived them. He's not going to reach the masses. I mean, for goodness sake, he's Latinized his name to Benedictus – who's going to listen to him?
Y: It's not Jews I'm worried about, it's the Christian world.
A [laughing]: You’re worried about Christians listening to him?
Y: Not funny. [cleans his glasses again] I'm worried that the Church will decide that Jews are heretics.
A: So what if they do?
Y: Don't you remember the Rambam's words? To cause non-Jews to believe that we do not honour the Torah is a desecration of Gd's Name!
A: So you think we should do something?
Y: Rabbeinu Asher allowed a Jewish court in Spain to use physical punishment for a blasphemer, because the Muslims take blasphemy seriously and would look down on us if we didn't.
A: That's different; the Jews were really worried that the Muslims would attack them.
Y: And you think we're safe in Amsterdam because they talk about "religious tolerance"? Not even ten years ago the Christians butchered hundreds of thousands of our brethren in the Ukraine under that pig Chmielniczki, and the priests egged them on. We're still not allowed to live in England, although there is talk that Rabbi ben Israel is making some headway on it. And here – we've just absorbed thousands of refugees from those massacres in Poland, as well as thousands more from the New World because of Portugeuse conquests there. We are a burden on society. That's all we need now, for them to decide we're a bunch of heretics. Where will we move next?
A: Okay, I admit that it's a dangerous desecration in the eyes of the nations – but ex-communication as a solution? Don’t you remember the Talmud's advice for how to sanctify Gd's Name? Learn Torah, talk nicely to other people, be honest. That's it.
Y: So we'll be nice people, while he desecrates Gd's Name. How will that help?
A: By creating Kiddush HaShem, sanctifying Gd's Name. The gemara says מעשה מוציא מידי מעשה, deeds can cancel out deeds. Let our deeds get the headlines and establish what a Jew is.
Y: I'm not buying it. And I need new glasses. [rises and leaves]
A shrugs and follows him offstage to change props
Narrator:
Avraham and Yonatan make important points about the concern Jewish tradition has for desecrating Gd's Name, in terms of the false impression it conveys and in terms of the danger it creates, as well as our desire on the other hand to build with positive responses rather than tear down with negatives.
In the end, the Maamad decided to ex-communicate Baruch Spinoza, which did not keep him from promoting his ideas but may have succeeded in telling people that he didn't represent Judaism. His writings were denounced by the Church Council of Amsterdam as a "work forged in Hell by a renegade Jew and the Devil", so at least they called him a "renegade". Spinoza died in his ex-communication in 1677.
Sources
Act Three next...
THE ETHICS OF PROTEST
ACT TWO – THE EX-COMMUNICATION OF BARUCH SPINOZA
Narrator:
Act Two.
The issue is not always about correcting behaviour; sometimes, the issue is Chillul HaShem, desecrating Gd's Name, and its fallout. Should we protest if the conduct of a Jew or a group of Jews causes Gd's Name to be defamed, as has happened in the wake of the publicity surrounding Beit Shemesh?
The year is now 1655, and our scene shifts to Amsterdam. Two members of the Ma'amad, the Jewish leadership, Rabbi Avraham and Rabbi Yonatan, are discussing their options in dealing with an upstart lens-grinder and philosopher, Baruch Spinoza.
Spinoza is promoting ideas which Jews consider heretical. Worse, though, the local Christian government is growing agitated, raising concerns of Chillul HaShem - the elders are worried that Spinoza is desecrating the Name of Gd by promoting the idea that Jews are heretics.
[Rabbi Avraham and Rabbi Yonatan enter and sit down]
Y: These glasses just aren't as good as they used to be. [Takes glasses off to clean them on his shirt.]
A [smirking]: Maybe you should go to that Spinoza fellow to make you new ones.
Y: Not funny. What are we going to do about him, anyway?
A: We've been through this already; we're going to do nothing. We don't ex-communicate people anymore!
Y: Where have you been? I don't keep track, but I'd say in all of Amsterdam there have been 100 or so in the past fifty years.
A: Not for heresy – we ex-communicate for defying the courts, refusing to pay fines, that sort of thing. Not for heresy.
Y: So you would have us do nothing? The gemara says במקום חילול ד' אין חולקין כבוד לרב, we don't defer to anyone's honour in a case of desecrating Gd's Name! We need to act!
A: I'm not convinced that this is a desecration of Gd's Name.
Y: Really. You know he believes in monism – that the universe is Gd, and it was not created at all but it simply exists. That there is no such thing as another realm beyond this one. [A covers his ears, in fun] That we are all animals, acting by instinct and not with free will. That we shouldn't accept any sort of revelation, but deduce everything on our own. That religion is a good way to keep people in line, but it's a product of imagination. [cleans his glasses]
A: [laughing] To each his own, right?
Y: You're not taking this seriously.
A: I am taking it seriously. Sorry. I just feel like there is nothing to do about it, and there is no reason to act. We've had heretics before and we've survived them. He's not going to reach the masses. I mean, for goodness sake, he's Latinized his name to Benedictus – who's going to listen to him?
Y: It's not Jews I'm worried about, it's the Christian world.
A [laughing]: You’re worried about Christians listening to him?
Y: Not funny. [cleans his glasses again] I'm worried that the Church will decide that Jews are heretics.
A: So what if they do?
Y: Don't you remember the Rambam's words? To cause non-Jews to believe that we do not honour the Torah is a desecration of Gd's Name!
A: So you think we should do something?
Y: Rabbeinu Asher allowed a Jewish court in Spain to use physical punishment for a blasphemer, because the Muslims take blasphemy seriously and would look down on us if we didn't.
A: That's different; the Jews were really worried that the Muslims would attack them.
Y: And you think we're safe in Amsterdam because they talk about "religious tolerance"? Not even ten years ago the Christians butchered hundreds of thousands of our brethren in the Ukraine under that pig Chmielniczki, and the priests egged them on. We're still not allowed to live in England, although there is talk that Rabbi ben Israel is making some headway on it. And here – we've just absorbed thousands of refugees from those massacres in Poland, as well as thousands more from the New World because of Portugeuse conquests there. We are a burden on society. That's all we need now, for them to decide we're a bunch of heretics. Where will we move next?
A: Okay, I admit that it's a dangerous desecration in the eyes of the nations – but ex-communication as a solution? Don’t you remember the Talmud's advice for how to sanctify Gd's Name? Learn Torah, talk nicely to other people, be honest. That's it.
Y: So we'll be nice people, while he desecrates Gd's Name. How will that help?
A: By creating Kiddush HaShem, sanctifying Gd's Name. The gemara says מעשה מוציא מידי מעשה, deeds can cancel out deeds. Let our deeds get the headlines and establish what a Jew is.
Y: I'm not buying it. And I need new glasses. [rises and leaves]
A shrugs and follows him offstage to change props
Narrator:
Avraham and Yonatan make important points about the concern Jewish tradition has for desecrating Gd's Name, in terms of the false impression it conveys and in terms of the danger it creates, as well as our desire on the other hand to build with positive responses rather than tear down with negatives.
In the end, the Maamad decided to ex-communicate Baruch Spinoza, which did not keep him from promoting his ideas but may have succeeded in telling people that he didn't represent Judaism. His writings were denounced by the Church Council of Amsterdam as a "work forged in Hell by a renegade Jew and the Devil", so at least they called him a "renegade". Spinoza died in his ex-communication in 1677.
Sources
1. Talmud, Berachot 19b
אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ד' (משלי ל) כל מקום שיש חלול השם אין חולקין כבוד לרב
'There is no wisdom, understanding or counsel opposite Gd' – Wherever there is desecration of the Divine Name, we do not give honour to the great.
2. Rambam, Commentary to Mishnah Avodah Zarah 1
הגוי אשר ישכרנו יחממו בשבת, וייכנסו בו הגוים ויאמרו, נרחץ במרחץ של פלוני היום, ויש בזה חילול השם למי שישמע זה ולא ידע שהוא מושכר בידו לזמן קצוב בדמים קצובים
A non-Jew hired by the Jewish bathhouse owner will heat it on Shabbat, but non-Jews will enter and say, "Let us bathe in the Jew's bathhouse today," and this will desecrate the Divine Name to those who will hear this and not know that it is rented to the non-Jew [permissibly] for a period of time, for a fixed sum.
3. Responsa of Rosh 17:8
והנחתיה להם כמנהגם, אבל מעולם לא הסכמתי עמהם על איבוד נפש. אמנם, אני רואה שדעת כלכם מסכמת לבער זה הרע מקרבכם. ובודאי חלל השם בפרהסיא, וכבר נשמע הדבר בין הישמעאלים, והם מחמירים מאד במדבר נגד דתם ואמונתם וניתוסף החילול אם לא יעשו בו כדין בשביל מיגדר מילתא
I allowed the courts to continue their custom [of punishing defendants], but I never agreed to permit execution. However, I see that all of you agree on the need to eradicate this evil from your midst. Certainly, he desecrated the Divine Name in public. His act has already been heard among the Muslims, who are very strict regarding those who speak out against their religion and belief, and so the desecration will increase if they will not act according to the law to fence in the matter.
4. Talmud, Yoma 86a
היכי דמי חילול השם... מי שקורא ושונה ומשמש תלמידי חכמים ואין משאו ומתנו באמונה ואין דבורו בנחת עם הבריות
What is desecration of the Divine Name? One who reads and studies and serves Torah scholars and does not deal honestly with others, and does not speak gently with others.
Act Three next...
Monday, February 13, 2012
On, off and after the Derech: When Religion and Family Collide
Our Beit Midrash is hosting a panel discussion tonight on "On, Off and After the Derech: When Religion and Family Collide", with a local synagogue rabbi and a child-and-adolescent psychiatrist who is also an ordained rabbi.
[Update: The audio is now available here; the video should be available soon here.]
What are your thoughts on the following scenarios:
1. A couple after twenty years of marriage decide to become observant fairly rapidly. They have three children, a son age 17, a daughter age 15 and a son age 10. They put their children into observant Orthodox private schools, with tutors to help them catch up.
The 10-year-old takes to the change easily.
The 15-year-old has some bumps, but after effort seems to acclimate well.
The oldest, 17, is unwilling to switch schools, friends or change his lifestyle. He is somewhat willing to live within the home in an Orthodox lifestyle, but in his personal life, school and life goals he is not interested and occasionally defiant.
How should the parents help their 17-year-old, in terms of his own situation and his impact on the family?
2. An observant family has a child with learning issues, which influence personality and socialization. It is difficult for her to appropriately conform to the policies of Orthodox schools, from style of clothing to social activities. The child’s learning issues are not being addressing to the extent needed by the Orthodox school system, but are available in the public system. Further, the challenge of handling the school's policies is affecting the child’s self-image and self-respect, and she appears to be drifting away from observance.
What should the parents do to give their child an education and keep her on the path of Torah observance?
3. A family with several children finds that one of them, age 15, does not want to keep an observant lifestyle. The parents cannot determine the cause. The parents respond angrily, the siblings often fight with him, the child is becoming more sullen and distant. What can be done?
4. After 15 years of marriage, a couple with a ten-year old daughter divorces and one of the two becomes Torah-observant. Custody is shared, and the observant parent wishes to raise the chld in an observant setting, while the other parent does not agree. The child experiences drastically different lifestyles, messages, ethics and basic rules of conduct with the different parents. Leaving aside matters of family law, the observant parent is concerned that the child’s mixed messages will actually cause her to drift further away from Torah. What should be done?
[Update: The audio is now available here; the video should be available soon here.]
What are your thoughts on the following scenarios:
1. A couple after twenty years of marriage decide to become observant fairly rapidly. They have three children, a son age 17, a daughter age 15 and a son age 10. They put their children into observant Orthodox private schools, with tutors to help them catch up.
The 10-year-old takes to the change easily.
The 15-year-old has some bumps, but after effort seems to acclimate well.
The oldest, 17, is unwilling to switch schools, friends or change his lifestyle. He is somewhat willing to live within the home in an Orthodox lifestyle, but in his personal life, school and life goals he is not interested and occasionally defiant.
How should the parents help their 17-year-old, in terms of his own situation and his impact on the family?
2. An observant family has a child with learning issues, which influence personality and socialization. It is difficult for her to appropriately conform to the policies of Orthodox schools, from style of clothing to social activities. The child’s learning issues are not being addressing to the extent needed by the Orthodox school system, but are available in the public system. Further, the challenge of handling the school's policies is affecting the child’s self-image and self-respect, and she appears to be drifting away from observance.
What should the parents do to give their child an education and keep her on the path of Torah observance?
3. A family with several children finds that one of them, age 15, does not want to keep an observant lifestyle. The parents cannot determine the cause. The parents respond angrily, the siblings often fight with him, the child is becoming more sullen and distant. What can be done?
4. After 15 years of marriage, a couple with a ten-year old daughter divorces and one of the two becomes Torah-observant. Custody is shared, and the observant parent wishes to raise the chld in an observant setting, while the other parent does not agree. The child experiences drastically different lifestyles, messages, ethics and basic rules of conduct with the different parents. Leaving aside matters of family law, the observant parent is concerned that the child’s mixed messages will actually cause her to drift further away from Torah. What should be done?
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Ethics of Protest: A Play in Three Acts – Act One
This past Friday night, our Beit Midrash held a Shabbat dinner to address the theme of "Jew vs. Jew: How do we protest?" Rather than use a shiur, though, we presented the sources via historical drama, in a simple play designed to convey the issues involved in:
Act One - Rebuking others for misconduct;
Act Two - Confronting Chillul HaShem [desecration of Gd's Name]; and
Act Three – Battling those who harm the Jewish community from within
We had fun with it, which wasn't easy given the gravity of the subject matter. Here is the script we used for Act One, along with many of the sources we cited; I expect to post the other two acts later this week:
INTRODUCTION
[Narrator is alone on stage, standing beside a table]
Narrator:
King Solomon said, "There's a time to be silent, and a time to speak," and Jews have always struggled with the question of when to respond and when to hold our tongues, when to be silent and when to protest. We have also agonized over the question of how to respond – how to disagree without being disagreeable, and how to rebuke without burning bridges. In particular, we have debated how to respond when the issue involves not only Jews and our opinions, but also non-Jews and the opinion of the world.
Today, we debate these questions regarding the Sikrikim in Beit Shemesh. Their violence and abuse of women and children is horrific, regardless of the important religious issues of tzniut and the role of women in society – but we wonder how to respond appropriately and effectively.
We especially struggle with the fact that videos on this are all over YouTube, and events in Beit Shemesh have been laid out in newspapers all over the world. Should we criticize other Jews in front of the world media to correct their behavior, to prevent what we believe is Chillul HaShem, desecration of Gd's Name, and to protect our community? Or would that criticism itself only incite them to do worse, add to the Chillul HaShem, and put our community in greater danger?
The following play in three acts is meant to help understand how Jews have responded to religious disagreement over the centuries. The speakers will mention many sources from the Talmud and rabbinic writings; some of these will be available on sheets distributed after the play.
ACT ONE – THE CALENDAR CONTROVERSY
Narrator:
Act One.
The year is 921 of the Common Era, and we are in Fustat, Egypt. Jews throughout the Middle East and Southern Europe are led by Babylonian Gaonim, heads of the major yeshivot, and the Reish Galuta, the Exilarch. These scholars are acknowledged by one and all for communal decisions, and they represent the Jews to the non-Jewish world.
Then a man named Aharon ben Meir, carrying the title of Gaon of Palestine but not recognized as a Gaon in Babylon, begins teaching his students that the Gaonim of the yeshivot in Babylon have made mistakes in calculating the Jewish calendar. He believes that their date for Passover of the year 922 is wrong, and he begins to promote his view among his followers.
Rabbeinu Saadya, a leading scholar and firebrand from Aleppo, sends letters to his students across the Jewish world warning them against being drawn into Aharon ben Meir's cause. Two such students are Avraham and Yonatan.
[Avraham and Yonatan enter and sit down at a table]
Yonatan (Y), holding one of the pocket calendars issued by tzedakah organizations: Hey, Avraham, my new calendar from the Jewish Orphanage of Boys and Girls of Rabbi Meir Baal haNes and Kupat ha'Ir in conjunction with the Hebrew Academy of Cleveland and the Telshe Yeshiva of Tomchei Shabbos just came in the mail. That new Jerusalem to Fustat service is amazing – it takes only two weeks!
Avraham (A): The Year 922 edition of the calendar?
Y: What else would it be, 923? Rosh haShanah wasn't that long ago, Avraham.
A: I get that Yonatan, but whose Year 922 edition is it?
Y: What do you mean? (flips pages) Wait – Is Pesach starting on a Thursday this year? I thought it was a Tuesday!
A: (laughing) You have Ben Meir's calendar, not the one set by the Gaonim.
Y: Ben Meir? Who listens to Ben Meir? (throws out calendar, mumbling about its omission of Family Day)
A: Lots of people do. Didn't you receive the letter from our master and teacher, Rabbeinu Saadia, warning against following him? Why would he send us a letter if he wasn't concerned? Listen to what he wrote: [produces letter and reads it aloud] "Know that when I was yet in Aleppo, some pupils came from Ba'al al Gad and brought the news that Ben Meir intends to proclaim Cheshvan and Kislev deficient months. I did not believe it, but as a precaution I wrote to him in the summer. The Exilarch, the heads of the academies, all the senior scholars and teachers likewise agreed… In conjunction with their letters I too wrote to most of the great cities, in order to fulfill my duty. My students! Persist in this matter and close up this breach, and do not rebel against the command of Gd! No one dare to profane the festivals of Gd wilfully, to eat chametz on Passover, and eat, drink, and work on Yom Kippur. May it be the Will of Gd that there be no stumbling-block and no pitfall in your town or in any other town in Israel. May our peace grow and increase forever!" He's even talking about bringing in the Persian government to handle this – you bet he's scared!
Y: Isn’t that overkill? I mean, let this Ben Meir and his followers do what they want, why is it our business? They're not hurting me.
A: Of course it's our business! Yonatan, the Torah says הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, every Jew is responsible to rebuke other Jews and teach them to follow the law.
Y: That's the job of the courts, they have means to handle that, not us small fish. Let Rabbeinu Saadya deal with it, he writes proclamations all the time. He'll be made Gaon soon enough!
A: It's for all of us to handle this, Yonatan! Don't you remember the Talmud's story about the righteous people who died in a plague in the time of Yechezkel? They were responsible to rebuke people for wrongdoing, and they didn't! It's for every Jew, not just for the courts; we are supposed to protect the Torah!
Y: Why is it my business if someone else sins?
A: כל ישראל ערבין זה בזה, we are all responsible for each other, Yonatan. If he sins, I am sinning. So, yes, I am responsible to correct him.
Y: So what do we do, Avraham– do we march out in protest? Start arguing with his followers at the store? Picket outside their shuls to give them a hard time? "Hey, ho, Ben Meir has got to go!"
A: Maybe. Remember the Talmud's warning about scholars who don't protest: "If people like a Torah scholar, it's because he doesn't give them a hard time. " It's our responsibility to give Ben Meir and his followers a hard time.
Y: Yes, I know, and in a thousand years Rabbi Yisrael of Salant will say-
A: Wait – What’s a Salant?
Y: A city in Poland.
A: What's a Poland?
Y: Never mind. Someone's going to say, "A rabbi they don't want to chase out of town isn't really a rabbi, and a rabbi they chase out of town isn't really a man." But come on – no one is going to listen to us, even with catchy protest rhymes.
A: You don't need to time-travel as far as that – just wait 300 years. Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerona will say-
Y: What's a Gerona?
A: Same thing as a Poland. Anyway: "If you hear people gossiping or speaking disgustingly or mocking Torah and mitzvot, and you know that they are stubborn and won't listen and so you just put your hand over your mouth, you will be punished for not responding to their foolishness!" We must do something, whether or not they will listen.
Y: And what about the Talmud's declaration that we are obligated not to speak when people won't listen?
A: Rabbeinu Saadya seems to think that doesn't matter – he's going all out against Aharon ben Meir. We need to make sure to keep the entire Jewish world on the same track; the calendar is that important.
[Avraham and Yonatan leave to change props while Narrator concludes Act One]
Narrator:
Both Avraham and Yonatan made good points about the obligation to rebuke, the concern that no one will listen, and the question of whether rebuke is valuable for its own sake.
In the end, Rabbeinu Saadya did persist, and people on both sides ended up coming to blows over the issue in the next 18 months, before Aharon ben Meir was soundly defeated by Rabbeinu Saadya's arguments. This was a case of a successful fight to put down sin and enforce Jewish communal standards, but it came with a great price in national unity.
Sources:
Act One - Rebuking others for misconduct;
Act Two - Confronting Chillul HaShem [desecration of Gd's Name]; and
Act Three – Battling those who harm the Jewish community from within
We had fun with it, which wasn't easy given the gravity of the subject matter. Here is the script we used for Act One, along with many of the sources we cited; I expect to post the other two acts later this week:
INTRODUCTION
[Narrator is alone on stage, standing beside a table]
Narrator:
King Solomon said, "There's a time to be silent, and a time to speak," and Jews have always struggled with the question of when to respond and when to hold our tongues, when to be silent and when to protest. We have also agonized over the question of how to respond – how to disagree without being disagreeable, and how to rebuke without burning bridges. In particular, we have debated how to respond when the issue involves not only Jews and our opinions, but also non-Jews and the opinion of the world.
Today, we debate these questions regarding the Sikrikim in Beit Shemesh. Their violence and abuse of women and children is horrific, regardless of the important religious issues of tzniut and the role of women in society – but we wonder how to respond appropriately and effectively.
We especially struggle with the fact that videos on this are all over YouTube, and events in Beit Shemesh have been laid out in newspapers all over the world. Should we criticize other Jews in front of the world media to correct their behavior, to prevent what we believe is Chillul HaShem, desecration of Gd's Name, and to protect our community? Or would that criticism itself only incite them to do worse, add to the Chillul HaShem, and put our community in greater danger?
The following play in three acts is meant to help understand how Jews have responded to religious disagreement over the centuries. The speakers will mention many sources from the Talmud and rabbinic writings; some of these will be available on sheets distributed after the play.
ACT ONE – THE CALENDAR CONTROVERSY
Narrator:
Act One.
The year is 921 of the Common Era, and we are in Fustat, Egypt. Jews throughout the Middle East and Southern Europe are led by Babylonian Gaonim, heads of the major yeshivot, and the Reish Galuta, the Exilarch. These scholars are acknowledged by one and all for communal decisions, and they represent the Jews to the non-Jewish world.
Then a man named Aharon ben Meir, carrying the title of Gaon of Palestine but not recognized as a Gaon in Babylon, begins teaching his students that the Gaonim of the yeshivot in Babylon have made mistakes in calculating the Jewish calendar. He believes that their date for Passover of the year 922 is wrong, and he begins to promote his view among his followers.
Rabbeinu Saadya, a leading scholar and firebrand from Aleppo, sends letters to his students across the Jewish world warning them against being drawn into Aharon ben Meir's cause. Two such students are Avraham and Yonatan.
[Avraham and Yonatan enter and sit down at a table]
Yonatan (Y), holding one of the pocket calendars issued by tzedakah organizations: Hey, Avraham, my new calendar from the Jewish Orphanage of Boys and Girls of Rabbi Meir Baal haNes and Kupat ha'Ir in conjunction with the Hebrew Academy of Cleveland and the Telshe Yeshiva of Tomchei Shabbos just came in the mail. That new Jerusalem to Fustat service is amazing – it takes only two weeks!
Avraham (A): The Year 922 edition of the calendar?
Y: What else would it be, 923? Rosh haShanah wasn't that long ago, Avraham.
A: I get that Yonatan, but whose Year 922 edition is it?
Y: What do you mean? (flips pages) Wait – Is Pesach starting on a Thursday this year? I thought it was a Tuesday!
A: (laughing) You have Ben Meir's calendar, not the one set by the Gaonim.
Y: Ben Meir? Who listens to Ben Meir? (throws out calendar, mumbling about its omission of Family Day)
A: Lots of people do. Didn't you receive the letter from our master and teacher, Rabbeinu Saadia, warning against following him? Why would he send us a letter if he wasn't concerned? Listen to what he wrote: [produces letter and reads it aloud] "Know that when I was yet in Aleppo, some pupils came from Ba'al al Gad and brought the news that Ben Meir intends to proclaim Cheshvan and Kislev deficient months. I did not believe it, but as a precaution I wrote to him in the summer. The Exilarch, the heads of the academies, all the senior scholars and teachers likewise agreed… In conjunction with their letters I too wrote to most of the great cities, in order to fulfill my duty. My students! Persist in this matter and close up this breach, and do not rebel against the command of Gd! No one dare to profane the festivals of Gd wilfully, to eat chametz on Passover, and eat, drink, and work on Yom Kippur. May it be the Will of Gd that there be no stumbling-block and no pitfall in your town or in any other town in Israel. May our peace grow and increase forever!" He's even talking about bringing in the Persian government to handle this – you bet he's scared!
Y: Isn’t that overkill? I mean, let this Ben Meir and his followers do what they want, why is it our business? They're not hurting me.
A: Of course it's our business! Yonatan, the Torah says הוכח תוכיח את עמיתך, every Jew is responsible to rebuke other Jews and teach them to follow the law.
Y: That's the job of the courts, they have means to handle that, not us small fish. Let Rabbeinu Saadya deal with it, he writes proclamations all the time. He'll be made Gaon soon enough!
A: It's for all of us to handle this, Yonatan! Don't you remember the Talmud's story about the righteous people who died in a plague in the time of Yechezkel? They were responsible to rebuke people for wrongdoing, and they didn't! It's for every Jew, not just for the courts; we are supposed to protect the Torah!
Y: Why is it my business if someone else sins?
A: כל ישראל ערבין זה בזה, we are all responsible for each other, Yonatan. If he sins, I am sinning. So, yes, I am responsible to correct him.
Y: So what do we do, Avraham– do we march out in protest? Start arguing with his followers at the store? Picket outside their shuls to give them a hard time? "Hey, ho, Ben Meir has got to go!"
A: Maybe. Remember the Talmud's warning about scholars who don't protest: "If people like a Torah scholar, it's because he doesn't give them a hard time. " It's our responsibility to give Ben Meir and his followers a hard time.
Y: Yes, I know, and in a thousand years Rabbi Yisrael of Salant will say-
A: Wait – What’s a Salant?
Y: A city in Poland.
A: What's a Poland?
Y: Never mind. Someone's going to say, "A rabbi they don't want to chase out of town isn't really a rabbi, and a rabbi they chase out of town isn't really a man." But come on – no one is going to listen to us, even with catchy protest rhymes.
A: You don't need to time-travel as far as that – just wait 300 years. Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerona will say-
Y: What's a Gerona?
A: Same thing as a Poland. Anyway: "If you hear people gossiping or speaking disgustingly or mocking Torah and mitzvot, and you know that they are stubborn and won't listen and so you just put your hand over your mouth, you will be punished for not responding to their foolishness!" We must do something, whether or not they will listen.
Y: And what about the Talmud's declaration that we are obligated not to speak when people won't listen?
A: Rabbeinu Saadya seems to think that doesn't matter – he's going all out against Aharon ben Meir. We need to make sure to keep the entire Jewish world on the same track; the calendar is that important.
[Avraham and Yonatan leave to change props while Narrator concludes Act One]
Narrator:
Both Avraham and Yonatan made good points about the obligation to rebuke, the concern that no one will listen, and the question of whether rebuke is valuable for its own sake.
In the end, Rabbeinu Saadya did persist, and people on both sides ended up coming to blows over the issue in the next 18 months, before Aharon ben Meir was soundly defeated by Rabbeinu Saadya's arguments. This was a case of a successful fight to put down sin and enforce Jewish communal standards, but it came with a great price in national unity.
Sources:
1. Talmud, Shabbat 55a
מעולם לא יצתה מדה טובה מפי הקדוש ברוך הוא וחזר בה לרעה חוץ מדבר זה דכתיב ויאמר ד' אליו עבר בתוך העיר בתוך ירושלים והתוית תו על מצחות האנשים הנאנחים והנאנקים על כל התועבות הנעשות בתוכה וגו' אמר לו הקב"ה לגבריאל לך ורשום על מצחן של צדיקים תיו של דיו שלא ישלטו בהם מלאכי חבלה ועל מצחם של רשעים תיו של דם כדי שישלטו בהן מלאכי חבלה אמרה מדת הדין לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבש"ע מה נשתנו אלו מאלו אמר לה הללו צדיקים גמורים והללו רשעים גמורים אמרה לפניו רבונו של עולם היה בידם למחות ולא מיחו אמר לה גלוי וידוע לפני שאם מיחו בהם לא יקבלו מהם אמרה לפניו רבונו של עולם אם לפניך גלוי להם מי גלוי
Gd never expressed a good verdict and then retracted it to cause harm, other than in this case: “Gd said to him: Pass through the city, through Yerushalayim, and draw a ‘Tav’ on the foreheads of the people…for all of the abominable acts performed therein.”
Gd said to Gavriel: Go inscribe a ‘Tav’ in ink on the heads of the righteous, so that the angels of destruction will not harm them. Inscribe a ‘Tav’ in blood on the heads of the wicked, so that the angels of destruction will harm them.
The trait of Justice said before Gd: Master of the Universe, what is the difference between these and those?
Gd responded: These are completely righteous, those are completely wicked!
It said: Master of the Universe, they ought to have protested, and they did not do so!
Gd responded: I know clearly that had they protested, the people would not have accepted it from them.
It said: Master of the Universe, if to You it is clear, to them is it clear?
2. Netivot haMishpat to Choshen Mishpat, Biurim 3:1
מה שכתב [בסק"א] דאי שעבודא לאו דאורייתא והבית דין כופין בעי בי"ד [מומחין] דוקא לכפותו דהדיוטות לאו בני עישוי נינהו. נראה לפענ"ד דליתא, דכיון דדמי לעשה סוכה ואינו עושה דכופין אותו לקיים המצוה, כל אדם מצווה להפריש חבירו מאיסור
The Ketzot haChoshen wrote that a court of experts is required in order to compel a litigant to pay, for untrained people are not eligible to compel. In my opinion this is not so; it is similar to forcing a person to fulfill a mitzvah, like Succah, regarding which every individual is instructed to keep others from violation.
3. R' Meir Simchah haKohen, Meshech Chachmah to Shemot 24:3
Compelling people to follow Torah is a product of the principle of 'All Jews are responsible for each other'; one who would violate the law would harm others and the entity as a whole… Otherwise, it would be inappropriate to intervene in another's relationship with his Creator.
4. Talmud, Ketuvot 105b
אמר אביי האי צורבא מרבנן דמרחמין ליה בני מתא לאו משום דמעלי טפי אלא משום דלא מוכח להו במילי דשמיא
Abbaye said: If a Torah scholar is beloved to his city, it isn't because he is good. Rather, it's because he does not rebuke them in heavenly matters.
5. R' Yisrael Salanter, as cited in Tenat haMussar 1:305
רב שאין רוצים לגרשו מהעיר איננו רב, ורב שמגרשים אותו מהעיר איננו אדם
A rabbi they don't want to chase from town isn't really a rabbi, and a rabbi they chase from town isn't really a man.
6. Rabbeinu Yonah of Gerondi, Shaarei Teshuvah 3:197
איש אשר ישמע את דברי בני אדם מדברים לשון הרע, או כי ישמע כל פה דובר נבלה, או יושב בסוד משחקים בוזים תורה ומצות, ויודע כי הם סרבים וסלונים ואם יוכיחם לא יקשיבו אל דבריו, על כן ישים יד על פה, גם זה יענש כי לא יענה כסילים באולתם, פן יאמרו כי הוא כמו הם, וכי הודה על דבריהם
If you hear people gossiping or speaking disgustingly or mocking Torah and mitzvot, and you know that they are stubborn and won't listen and so you just put your hand over your mouth, you will be punished for not responding to their foolishness.
7. Talmud, Yevamot 65b
כשם שמצוה על אדם לומר דבר הנשמע כך מצוה על אדם שלא לומר דבר שאינו נשמע רבי אבא אומר חובה שנאמר +משלי ט'+ אל תוכח לץ פן ישנאך הוכח לחכם ויאהבך
Just as there is a mitzvah to say that which will be heard, so there is a mitzvah not to say that which will not be heard. R' Abba said: It is obligatory, as it is written, ‘Do not rebuke a scorner, lest he hate you. Rebuke a wise man and he will love you.’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
