Volume 22 Number 22
Produced: Mon Nov 27 22:39:07 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Ahavas Chinam
[Mordechai Perlman]
Ahavat Chinam
[Avraham Teitz]
Kavod Hatorah (2)
[Aaron H. Greenberg, Kenneth Posy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai Perlman <aw004@...>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 07:24:36 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Ahavas Chinam
On Thu, 23 Nov 95, Jerrold landau wrote:
> Mordechai Perlman states that "if someone is not only irreligious but
> that by choice, and seeks to uproot Yiddishkeit from its roots, then
> IMHO such a person is not deserving of our love." Mordechai states
> that in reference to a quote from Rav Amital's discourse indicating
> that non-religious Israelis, who may be dedicated to protecting our
> people in so many ways, are not devoid of values, and are deserving of
> our love. How many people nowadays are considered "irreligious by
> choice". Jews who are born into non-religious families, and into a
> largely non-religious society, can hardly be considered irreligious by
> choice. In fact, very many opinions nowadays consider most
> irreligious Jews to be in the halachik category of "tinok shenishba"
> (a baby who is born captive among the nations, and cannot be
> considered liable for his lack of religious practice). Such Jews are
> indeed worthy of our love, and we must try to reach out to them rather
> than castigate them. In a completely religious society, when an
> individual rebels and rejects the observance of Torah, perhaps we have
> a right to deny such a person our love. But we do not live in any
> such society today. Even in Israel, where there are BH a large number
> of religious Jews, unfortunately the main society and environment is
> secular, and any individual Jew, not born into a religious family,
> cannot be blamed for following the masses. Mordechai should also take
> note of the famous statement made by Bruria in correcting her husband
> Rabbi Meir. We should hate the sin, and not the sinner
Yes, if such an individual is as the Rambam (Hilchos Mamrim Perek 3
halacha 3) puts it is not enthusiastic about keeping the commandments,
we are obliged to draw them with words of peace until they return to
the Torah. As long as they do not, they are still 'tinokos shenishbu'.
But it is certainly plausible to imply that if the person shows himself to
fight against Judaism, to endeavour to destroy Judaism among others
like a certain MK who makes the statement that in the Israeli public
schools should be taught the ideas of Martin Luther (not King), that
kind of person, is not just the subject of their upbringing, but the result
of much work in that direction on the part of the individual themself.
About such people as the Yalkut Shim'oni points out, the posuk
(T'hillim 139:21) says, "Behold, those who hate You, I hate and with
those who stand up to You, I will wrangle." I'm sure that B'ruria was
not arguing with King David, those wicked people were probably of a
different sort. Therefore, there is a time when love has no place even if
they've done things physically for Jews, if their attitude toward Torah is
one of hate, love is not in order. Because you follow the Rambam's
idea of 'tinok shenishbo', I feel safe making this implicaton. There are
however, implications elsewhere not like the Rambam, or rather to say
that the implication from the Rambam does not apply in our
circumstances.
> . In more modern parlance, as stated by Rabbi Riskin several
> years back, if one wants to win over the non-religious Jews,
> we should invite them into our homes to share a kiddush, and
> a piece of gefilte fish, rather than demonstrating against them.
If they agree to come for kiddush. Then there's something to work
with. But if they spit in your face and show their disgust for Judaism
and the Torah, well then I cannot work with them. They don't accept
help. And I'm not talking about disbelief because of personal experience in
the Holocaust -- that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
Zai Gezunt un Shtark
Mordechai Perlman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avraham Teitz <TEITZ.AVRAHAM@...>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 09:36:03 -0500
Subject: Ahavat Chinam
Mordechai Perlman wrote regarding "ahavat chinam":
>I don't understand. There are halachos regarding this love. The
>person must be in the category of Amisecha and Rey'acho (your friend in
>mitzvos). If a person is not only irreligious but that by choice and
>seeks to uproot Yiddishkeit from its roots, such a person may not IMHO
>be a receiver of our love. We can't murder him but we certainly cannot
>love him.
Aye, there's the rub! It amazes me that we can call for love between
Jews and then quickly throw up qualifications and religious scorekeeping
to disqualify those different from ourselves. This is certainly not the
path of Aharon Hacohen or Reb Levi Mi Barditchev (to quote 2 far flung
examples). We should worry about the Ben Adam L'chavero (relationships
between fellow persons), and for anyone besides ourselves, let Hashem
worry about the mitzvot of Ben Adam L'Makom (relationships between man
and G-d). After all, ben Adam L'Makom is just that - between man and
G-d. When we decide who is a Tzaddik (righteous person) and who is a
Rasha (evil one) we run into trouble (witness Yigal Amir). In fact, we
have learned that there are those that earn Olam Habah (the world to
come) in one minute and there are those who must struggle all their
lives to earn this reward. We do not know who is worthy. Therefore, we
should treat all Jews as if they were worthy of Olam Habah (the world to
come). Like it says in Pirke Avot - all Jews have a portion in Olam
Habah. Furthermore, the Ramban states in his Iggeret, we should have
our eyes cast downward and our heart uplifted to the heavens and we
should look at all people as our superior, and those that seem to act
purposely against Torah as if they were acting B'shogeg - without direct
evil intent. Judgmentalism is outside the ken of Torah Judiasm.
To intimate that Rabin was trying to uproot Torah is stretching things
quite a bit. As seen by his actions (quite a few were cited in M-J in
the past few weeks), Rabin was not closing Batei Midrashim and Yeshivot.
His government actively funded Jewish Institutions of learning (a
possible Zevulun/Yissachar relationship?). He did not believe that
Torah was a fraud. He did not worship idols.
Anyone can twist a pasuk to align with their preconceived notions of
what is right. Anyone can rail against perceived threats and declare
others as enemies (again I offer Yigal Amir as an example of such
wayward thinking). We should lead by being M'taken (fixing) ourselves
first, and then leading by example. This will have much more impact
than slagging off others as non-believers or threats to Judaism. Since
most of us need a good deal of tikkun (fixing) yet, we should refrain
from judgements of others until such time that we have perfected
ourselves. Given our current state of mankind, this practice should
lead to an outbreak of redifas sholom (chasing after peace) and a
respite from the internicine bickering and claims of authentic
representation of Torah Judaism currently in vogue - at least for a
millenium or two.
Avi Teitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron H. Greenberg <greenbah@...>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 21:50:51 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Kavod Hatorah
Shmuel Himelstein wrote:
> Here I cannot give Mordechai the benefit of the doubt. He is clearly
> aware that these words are Rav Amital's, and yet he takes issue so
> glibly. Surely, when a great Torah authority such as Rav Amital makes a
> statement, the response should not be a voicing of blatant disagreement
> - even with the disclaimer of "IMHO". If Mordechai finds Rav Amital's
> reasoning incomprehensible, he has the option of approaching the Rav
> personally and discussing it. A public criticism of a great Rav's
> halachic statements is totally unacceptable in a Torah-oriented forum.
Shmuel, I think you are missing one of the finer points of this
discussion group. In this discussion group, neither the Rabbi's who
participate nor the laymen are considered above one another in our
ability to express our opinion or to criticize another opinion. We are
all each others contemporaries. We may not criticize those Rabanim of
earlier generations, but for those in the present it is our right. The
same Rabbi that you may view as a "great Torah authority" another may
view as misguided, and that is where our different on views of Torah
come in. (I am not commenting on Rav Amital or anyone else here so
don't take this as an offense on any Rav) There are thousands of
Yeshivas throughout the world, being a Rosh Yeshiva should not grant any
form of being beyond reproach, just as someone may disagree vehemently
with a LOR that they see as being to liberal, so may any of us disagree
with any Rosh Yeshiva. By far the most abomniable Rabbi, that someone
in my family has had contact with was a Rosh Yeshiva of a school in
Israel who openly conceded to the fact that he was running his Yeshiva
as a business, and this is not in the Derech haTorah.
Any time you introduce anything to this forum, you open it to complete
scrutiny. The use of the word "ridiculous" is debateable, I'm sure
other people have used it, and you did not take notice, but I don't
think the moderators job is to assure that people are always polite,
-people aren't. But, rather to see to it that it does not degenerate to
personal insults, or to the point that we start wanting to rip at each
others throats due to our differring points of view.
I don't think it is Kavod HaTorah for each of us (in a way that is
unquestionably subjected to much bias) pick out our "great Torah
authorities" and say their Torah opinions are not to be disagreed or
even completely rejected, -so long as it is done with respect for the
person as an individual, that they are also genuinely seeking Toras
Emes. When we get to the point that an Appointment to Rosh Yeshiva
means that you cannot be subject to open critique then we have lost an
important aspect of the formation of Halacha, and will be in a quagmire
of unescapable falacies, that can originate from even our most prominent
Rabbi's.
All Rabbi's even our "great ones" our subject to mistakes, saying things
in a ploitical context rather than in halachic context, etc. It would
be a tremendous diservice to Rabbi's to remove thier human side from
them.
Aaron Greenberg
<aarong@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kenneth Posy <kenneth.posy@...>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 12:37:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Kavod Hatorah
> From: Shmuel Himelstein <himelstein@...>
> In V21N15, Mordechai Perlman quoted a previous posting of mine, taken
> from Rav Amital's speech before Prime Minster Rabin za"l's funeral:
[stuff deleted]
> Here I cannot give Mordechai the benefit of the doubt. He is clearly
> aware that these words are Rav Amital's, and yet he takes issue so
> glibly. Surely, when a great Torah authority such as Rav Amital makes a
> statement, the response should not be a voicing of blatant disagreement
> - even with the disclaimer of "IMHO". If Mordechai finds Rav Amital's
> reasoning incomprehensible, he has the option of approaching the Rav
> personally and discussing it. A public criticism of a great Rav's
> halachic statements is totally unacceptable in a Torah-oriented forum.
As a Gush alumnus ("one of the great yeshivot in Israel today" as R.
Himelstein puts it) and a talmid of Rav Amital shlita, I have absolutely
no interest of defending someone who was disrespectful or belittleing to
him. However, after reading the post of R. Pearlman, I am convinced that
no disrespect was intended or shown.
I would, however, *respectfully* disagree with R. Himelsteins
last comment. Rav Amital's sicha (I wouldn't call it a speech) was
distributed to a wide ranging audience all over the world through the
internet. R. Pearlman does NOT have the option of traveling 8,000 miles
to discuss with him privately. If it was in the public forum, it can be
discussed in such a forum. Perhaps R. Himelstein, who does live a few
minutes away from the Rosh HaYeshiva, could clarify the point for him.
Furthermore, while I agree that Rav Amital is a great rav, I
disagree that this means one cannot disagree with his halachik
pronouncements. Rav Amital would be the first to defend anyone's right
to question and disagree with his opinions, within the realm of darchei
noam (constructive debate) R. Pearlman at no point attacked or insulted
Rav Amital, he merely disagreed with his opinion. (maybe a little
stridently; but such is the way of milchamto shel torah (the battle of
torah). In fact, the tone reminded me of our question to him after
shiur.) Such debate is well within the realm of "yagdil torah v'yadira".
Rav Amital shlita, I assume, allowed his statement fo be
released because he believes that it can stand for itself. It does not
help it, or Rav Amital's kavod, to attack those who critisize it for
lack of Kkavod hatora. The biggest kavod for Rav Amital, IMHO, and for
his torah is to answer the arguments against it, as many on MJ have done
so effectively, no matter how they were offered.
In that vein, here is my humble attempt to do that. Obviosly, I cannot
speak for Rav Amital shlita, and I am sure that he would be able to
defend his words eloquently and thoroughly:
> "> a) Even if one disagreed with all of Rabin's policies, the role he
> > played in the Six Day War alone is sufficient to atone for all the
> > sins he had. To quote the Rav: "How many merits he had!"
>
> And then Mordechai goes on:
> "I can't believe such a statement. Since when do good deeds cancel out
> bad ones? In that case, let's put Mr. Amir in the army and when he's
> carried out heroic acts, he should be declared atoned. That's
> ridiculous. I don't believe that Rabbi Amital would agree with your
> statement. Perhaps, he had merits and Rabbi Amital felt he deserved
> Kovod Hames for those merits. But don't try to make him into a
> tzaddikel."
If I remeber correctly, the Gemara and the Rambam in Hilchos tshuva
describe a tzadick as someone who has more good deeds than bad deeds.
Even a tzadick can sin, and must pay for those sins. I think that rav
Amital means that in such a cheshbon, Rabin's mitzvos exceeded his
aveiros. Obviously, this calculation is weighted. A similar weighting
would prevent the extension of this rational to Amir, whose sin must
have outweighed all the good that he did. He will be rewarded for his
mitzvos, but he will suffer greatly for his aveiros. BTW, I assume that
the "that's ridiculous" comment refered to the fact that Amir might be
absolved of his sin, not Rav Amital, shlita.
> "I don't understand. There are halachos regarding this love. The
> person must be in the category of Amisecha and Rey'acho (your friend in
> mitzvos). If a person is not only irreligious but that by choice and
> seeks to uproot Yiddishkeit from its roots, such a person may not IMHO
> be a receiver of our love. We can't murder him but we certainly cannot
> love him. For those who are going to quote the Rambam in Hilchos
> Mamrim (perek 3, halacha 2,3) to refute my last sentence are advised to
> see the Chazon Ish regarding those halachos found in Hilchos Sh'chita."
> <End quote>
After re-reading the summary of Rav Amital's sicha, (a summary,
not a quote; I am not sure Rav Amital even saw it), I think it is clear
that the Rav is not delivering a ruling in "hichos ahavas yisrael". In
fact, I think that is the answer to his question "Why call it ahavas
chinam?" Because it is not required. He simply said that he feels that
many non-religious people, who do good things, *deserve* our love,
regardless of whether the Rambam says it is an obligation or not. I must
say that I do not understand what R. Pearlman finds objectional in that
statement.
Respectfully, b'birchos hatorah v'lomdeha,
Betzalel Posy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 22 Issue 22