- This topic has 36 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I’ve seen the phrase used by at least three different people on the CR today. Is this a Torah concept? My impression of it is that it’s a concept brought by the influence of the powerful ruach of liberalism that infects this country.
No, it most certainly is not a Torah concept. It comes from western liberalism.
According to the Torah, Kol Yisroel Areivim Zeh L’Zeh. We have to mind each others spiritual (and material) business. And we are required to give Tochacha when someone does something wrong. That is the Halacha in the Torah.
Eilu v eilu
Though it ia true we have a chiyuv to give tochacha, if you are going to do it, better be really sure that you are halachically correct and not giving mussar about a chumrah or minority-held minhag that are not required by the Torah.
Not exactly, but there are many Torah ideas that are consistent with live and let live. On the other hand, we are supposed to engage in kiruv, loving all creatures and bringing them closer to Torah.
1) “Judge every person favorably” (Avos 1:6)
2) “Do not judge your fellow until you have stood in his place.” (Avos 2:5)
3) There are countless statements of Chazal about the importance of humility, and publicly criticizing other people (the alternative to “live and let live”) isn’t exactly humble.
4) Embarassing another person (such as through public criticism) is considered as bad as shedding blood.
5) I think it was Rav Hillel the Elder who said that no one in his generation was qualified to offer reproof. And that was a generation of spiritual giants!
New Hampshire License plates:- “Live Free or Die”
When someone uses the phrase live and let live theyre not neccessarily saying it the same way others mean it. Sometimes you have to leave somebody alone because that’s the best thing to do, in which case it is just as Toradik to do so as rebuking when rebuke is appropriate. But if they mean live and let live in a broader sense then theyre wrong its not Daas Torah.
Curiosity i think he meant this and that.
Live and let live would mean (in the full sense) to allow the toeivaniks to freely do their lifestyle. The Torah law is to not allow them to do so (whether they are Jewish or gentile.)
The Jewish equivalent is “eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim chaim”. Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai even married each other despite disagreements regarding yichus which were put into practice (Yevamot 14a).
Avi K: -“The Jewish equivalent is “eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim chaim”. Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai even married each other despite disagreements regarding yichus which were put into practice (Yevamot 14a).”
Yes but only after making sure the yichus of the particular shidduch was OK according to their Shitta
live and let live was said about women learning daf hayoimi!
pinchas killed zimri. no live and let live.
Toi, you’re right. Who needs a bais din!!
Live and let live means if we’re both following valid peaks but yours is more machmir, leave me alone
Maybe live and let live applies that we should not say Loshon Hara unless we have all 7 conditions listed in Sefer Chofetz Chaim Hilchos Loshon Hara Klal 10 S’eef 2
Let and Let Live would mean we would have to accept Satmar and Neutrei Karta on the Anti-Zionist approach
Pinchas killed Zimri for flaunting in public his flagrant disregard for the laws of morality with a non-Jewish woman. Pinchas was a tzaddik, whose ONLY thought was Kovod Hashem, when he committed his act of kana-us. What Zimri and Cozbi were doing was a clear and unquestionable act of immorality. Pinchas knew the halacha. Today, you see men spitting on and terrorizing four year old girls for not wearing sox. THEY are neither Pinchas-es nor tzaddikim.
Pinchas didn’t need a beis din to kill. And if it happened today, one wouldn’t need a beis din to kill.
Here’s what live and let live means to me, and what kol yisroel areivim ze bazeh means.
First: Part of the mehalech of tochecho done properly, according to some of the most machmir of posters here in other threads,is that it can only be be given to someone who is receptive – SO – until and unless you know your nosiness and interference is going to be appreciated, you have no halachic right or obligation to give it. So live and let live.
Second: As has been said above, your chumrah is not necessarily his chumrah, and your (or your Rov’s) interpretation of halocho is not necessarily that of him or his Rov. SO why would one make an assumption that you know better, or that your Rov “trumps” his? That is arrogance, and arrogance has no place in Yiddishkeit. So live and let live.
Third: As it says in Avos, have you walked in his (or her) shoes? Do you know if he or she has asked a shailah about what you are seeing? Often poskim – chareidi poskim – are makil to extremes if the particular circumstances dictate it. Do you know if it is their particular challenge, and your rebuke will do more harm than good? If you don’t know, how can you take the risk of pushing someone (further) away from yiddishkeit? So live and let live.
OTOH, what are your responsibilities? If you see something that seems to you to demand a response, perhaps your response should be one of love and achdus. Perhaps you can offer the individual a helping hand, a favour, a smile, a shabbos lunch, or simply an opportunity to talk. Perhaps you could call the person to wish them a good shabbos every couple of weeks instead of crossing to the other side of the street when you see him. IF the person get sin trouble with the law, help and advocate for him. If they need a loan or a job, work to make it happen. If they need help getting their kids into a school, or paying for it, see if you can raise funds for them. If they are sitting shiva, cook for them. If they need a place to live, don’t shoo them away because they don’t meet your standards of tznius, find a way to welcome them into the community, and show them the beauty of a tzniusdig life. THAT is kol yisroel areivim ze bazeh.
Unless, of course, to you, kol yisroel… is a sham, and what is important is maintaining your holy exclusivity and looking down on di andere….
I did not mean any of these definitions when I said it. So I therefore retract my words. I only meant , when someone should mind their own business, for example: telling others to go or not go to Uman. Or to admonish others for NOT going to the siyim hashas.
If you try to bite a dog, he might bite you back. You have to know how to approach various situations we find ourselves in today including…
Like…Ooh what I saw…Only G-d can handle it in His own way. Pain, agony, suffering, frustration, for many…I don’t know.
It was a very serious offense that I’m sure has been committed by more than one. I’m truly serious, like destroy the Beis HaMikdash time…
When you see someone really doing something offensive, try to love him first. If you can’t love him first then it’s not your place to scream at him. It’s been my personal experience that certain people who truly disapprove of certain things that I’ve done or are doing truly are so stuck in their perspective that they have no room for any other idea. Getting back to the “You absolutely can’t judge a person until you’ve been in their shoes” but you can passionately fight for a cause. The attack is not on the person but for the issue at hand.
less- wow, you just made fun of pinchas? thats kinda dumb. i agree with how you teiched it, but alot of posters here use it to mean that if someone elses trangressing of halacha doesnt interfere with anothers daily life, no-one should say anything. R aharon kotler ztl explains that this approach is in conflict with yiddishkeit and thats not called shalom. pinchas made shalom by killing zimri. and so he was given “brisi shalom”.
LessChumras:
Say what you want, TOI is correct!
No bais din was required as Pinchas knew the halacha was on his side.
Specifically, “Ha-bo al Aramis, Kanoim pogim bo”.
Not agreeing with a halacha was the start of the reform movement!
Good Luck!
Having written my previous post, one must keep a delicate balance between two maamorei Chazal.
Hochayach tochayach es amisecha,
while at the same time,having in mind,
K’shot atzmecho v’achar kach k’shot acheirim.
It’s not easy.
Toi just because people might make mistakes doesn’t mean you can be ambiguous and make blanket statements about pinchas and no such thing as live and let live and trick people into being extra machmir.
I really dont understand why you stress severity when kindness and acceptanve is just as, if not more, important.
Yichusdik- i appreciate your summarization. Therere probably more factors too. Here is a very important one that i dont think was brought yet.
You shall surely rebuke your fellow (?????(- ?? ???? ????? ???????- one who is on your level in torah observance- otherwise the mitzva of ahavas yisroel continues, and in fact maybe hell return from this approach.
Actually, the original Hatikva composed by frei zionist Naphtali Herz Imber said: ???? ???? ???????. But the Israelis wanted to davka put apikorsus in it, so they actually changed the poets original composition to ????? ?? ???? ??????.
Choppy:
Wrong thread.
hatikva was changed after 1948
Live and let live = Eilu V’eilu + no Bais Din, so we aren’t killing anyone, even Toi. (whom I hear why someone might want to, but still we hold back. The Government does not see it the same way, and Kanoim Pogim Bo doesn’t apply where the Malchus would (rightfully) kill you back. Hence Let Live & Live.)
Eilu V’eilu is very far from “live and let live”. Live and let live would include if someone else is sinning. It would mean live and let him sin. Live for yourself and don’t worry about other’s sins.
That is very very far from Eilu V’eilu.
GAW- its nice to see old rivalries (shall we call them?) are still alive and well. kudos.
GAW- its nice to see old rivalries (shall we call them?) are still alive and well. kudos.
Thanks. I’m glad you got it 🙂 Hopefully it made you smile.
Either way, the “main” meaning is true. You are 100% correct that we don’t “live and let live” as a religion. However, due to external conditions, we don’t force people to follow Yiddishkeit, but rather try “honey” to show the sweetness.
If we had a Sanhedrin & a Torah Government then the Taliban would look harmless by comparison (in the way that we would force people to follow the Torah), but that is not the time period which we are dealt.
“Pinchas didn’t need a beis din to kill. And if it happened today, one wouldn’t need a beis din to kill. “
But he would definitely need a good LAWYER if he tried that in THIS country.
GAW- i actually laughed out loud.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.