Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Health, here are the relevant passages with the conditions from the Project Genesis Web Site:
5. Speaking Lashon Hara About a Heretic
The prohibition against speaking Lashon Hara applies when spoken about someone who is considered “amitecha” (of your people), namely in observance of Torah and mitzvot. However, regarding those who are recognizably “apikorsim” (heretics), it is a mitzvah (fulfillment of a positive commandment) to disparage and shame them, to their face and behind their back, for everything that one witnesses or hears about them.
The Torah states (Lev. 25:17 & Lev. 19:16) “One should not wrong his fellow” and “Do not act as a talebearer among your people,” but heretics do not fit under this category for they do not act as “your people.” Therefore, we follow the practice (as taught in Avot D’Rabbi Natan, a work from the Talmudic era), “those who hate you, L-rd, I will hate, and your rebellious ones I will dispute.”
An “apikorus” (heretic) is one who denies the laws and prophecies of Israel, whether the Written Law or Oral Law. Even if he says, “All the Torah is true with the exception of one Scriptural verse, kal v’chomer, g’zeira shava, or one grammatical detail,” he is included in this category. [“Kal v’chomer” and “g’zeira shava” are Talmudic terms for two of the logical principles from which we understand many laws.]
*Important note: there is a large in-between category not mentioned in this paragraph, namely those who do not observe – or even commit some sins – but without the malicious intent of heresy. Lashon Hara against someone in this middle category is forbidden. The purpose of these laws permitting speech against an actual heretic is not for a community to degenerate into nasty name-calling, but rather to protect itself against the influence of those who flagrantly do not care about the image they set for the community and even intentionally wish to destroy it.
6. Determining Whether Someone is Considered an Apikorus
[The permissibility to speak against an apikorus (heretic)] applies if one heard words of heresy directly from an individual. However, if he heard the heresy second hand, he is forbidden to speak against the person, whether in his presence or behind his back. Rather, he should suspect the person as an apikorus, and also warn others to stay away from him until the matter is clarified. Further, he should not believe in his heart that the information is true, according to the laws against accepting Lashon Hara discussed in chapter 6.
Verification is required when one hears that an ordinary person has spoken heresy, but if the person is a publicly confirmed heretic one may speak Lashon Hara about him as if he heard the heresy himself.
7. Speaking Lashon Hara about an Established Sinner
If a resident of a city is an established sinner, violating well-known laws, it is permissible to speak Lashon Hara about him.
(Here the Chafetz Chaim refers to his footnote enumerating the conditions that must be fulfilled to speak Lashon Hara in this case:
The speaker must have constructive intentions to encourage others to avoid the ways of evil, once they realize that such behavior is disparaged, and perhaps even to inspire the sinner himself to repent. He should not intend to benefit from exposing the other’s faults, nor should he speak out of hatred.
The speaker may not exaggerate about the subject’s behavior.
The speaker also should not act deceitfully, disparaging the person privately behind his back, yet flattering him in his presence; he should be comfortable speaking about him publicly. If, however he has a specific fear of retribution or swishes to avoid a public controversy, he may tell individuals privately. The speaker must be certain that his intentions are to prevent others from learning from the sinner’s evil ways.)
Who is classified as an established sinner? One who is designated as such by the town elders, based on which there can be no doubt, due to constant, numerous reports regarding his adulterous acts or other transgressions that are of the type that everyone knows they are forbidden.
If, however, there were only a rumor about him, it would be forbidden on that basis to speak against him, Heaven forbid. Even to decide in one’s heart is forbidden, as we discussed previously in chapter 7.
8. Speaking Lashon Hara about Ba’alei Machloket
Regarding the permissibility to speak Lashon Hara about those who are “ba’alei machloket” (people who are either polemic by nature or regularly engage in prolonged public disputes), it applies in certain circumstances. If a dispute is rooted in a deception [which violates Torah law] on the part of one side [thereby called a “ba’al machloket”], and if exposure of the deception will reveal that his position violates the halacha and will, therefore, more quickly resolve the dispute, then Lashon Hara is permitted. If the dispute will not be resolved as a result of the Lashon Hara, it is forbidden.
In addition, the following conditions are required:
The individual or group on the deceiving side are established “ba’alei machloket,” not merely rumored to be such, but rather verified by the speaker himself.
The speaker must have pure intentions, as discussed above. He must speak out of desire to resolve the quarrel, not out of hatred.
If silencing the dispute can be done by means other than speaking about the dishonest individual or group, such as direct rebuke or the like, it is forbidden to resort to Lashon Hara. (Unless he is afraid to rebuke them, for when they learn that he does not agree with them, they will negate what he tells others, and he will have no way to further address the situation.)
Speaking against ba’alei machloket requires careful consideration, and one should not rush to decide that one side is wrong and conclude that they are the ba’alei machloket. Rather, he must deliberate thoroughly according to the guidelines of Torah law. And if one cannot clarify which of the parties is correct, it is better not to get involved. [end of passages]
You still have not answered my questions. Do you hate smokers and people who cheat on their taxes?
Health, on the contrary, Sefer Chafetz Chaim is all about NOT saying or believing evil reports. You have made a contention against my sources. Therefor it is up to you to prove it=- ?????? ?????? ???? ?????. Tell me, do you hate smokers, people who cheat on their taxes, etc.?
Health, please cite your source.
Neville, it is true that Carter ordered the cancellation of Iranian-U.S. visas and a moratorium on new visas, with exceptions for humanitarian and otherwise compelling situations. However, that is not the same as Trump’s plan. Carter’s actions were in retaliation for the taking of American hostages with the connivance of the new government. Trump wants a restriction on a religious basis because of the actions of individuals. This would be akin to banning Jewish immigration because of the likes of Emma Goldman (not to mention Trotsky, who lived in the Bronx after being forced to flee Czarist Russia)and Lepke Buchalter (whose actions even shocked Lucky Luciano). Not to mention that the plan is unworkable. As Rabbi Pruzansky pointed out, how would a person’s religion be determined? By asking him?
Mdd,
1. OK. Howeevr, I note your sheeta of simply poseling rabbanim who disagree with you. Thus “most” rabbanim pasken your way.
2. In any case, saying “I’m sorry” is not enough regarding aveirot ben adam v’chaveiro. For example, if someone stole he must reimburse his victim.
Not to mention the fact that several pundits have described the Trump phenomenon as a form of identity politics. Coupled with other forms of identity politics such as Black Lives Matter it bodes ill for the future of America as a country based on unity in diversity. At worst ti could lead to Lebanonization.
Joseph, how about that Mashiach should come in my lifetime? Maybe a seat on his Sanhedrin.
Akuperma, I guess that free speech was abridged.
Mdd,
1. I dispute you.
2. Correct.
3. Why only a get? What about kiddushin? Baruch Hashem I have ben to many weddings, including Chareidi weddings, and I never heard a messader kiddushin say this.
Mdd,
1. On the contrary, it is supported by virtually all poskim today.
2. Who is presumed to be an “erliche Yid” in today’s anonymous society? For that matter, what is an “erliche Yid”. Someone who keeps Shabbat but lies, cheats and steals? Is someone who shirks his duty to join the IDF presumed to be an erliche Yid?
Joseph ,he also does not pasken that it is prohibited to say lashon hara. In any case, opposing a belief is not racism. We must strive to love all peoples (Rav Chaim Vital Shaarei Kedusha 1,1,1 and Rav Kook Midot HaRaya Ahava 5). Indeed, if someone has the status of a ger toshav (without getting into whether or nott his status exists in our time) we have a positive Tora mitzva to keep him alive.
Joseph, then I guess Hashem was right when He sent my neshama down when he did.
I am a dual citizen (US and Israel). In the case of the former, I see it as being based on the sheva mitzvot (although the left is trying to replace them with a secular liberalism that is essentially pagan). The Anglo-American philosophers of the 17-19th centuries were lovers of Tanach who saw it as the blueprint for the ideal state. The English legal philosopher John Selden even learned with Rabbi Menashe ben Yisrael. In the case of the latter, it is the precursor to the complete geula. Moreover, we are enjoined to pray for the government as the protector from mob rule.
Any simple person will do (Megilla 15a).
Mdd, that does not apply in our time (Chazon Ish Yoreh Deah 2,16 and see also Rambam Hilchot Mamrim 3,3 and Rema Yoreh Deah 340,5). Even in Chazal’s time it only applied where one was a witness to an aveira. If that applied in our time we would all have to hate each other. Start off with all those who smoke in public and drivers who violate traffic laws.
Health, on the contrary, the anti-Zionists are rebelling against Hashem and aiding our enemies. BTW, we are not supposed to hated reshaim but only ra (Berachot 10a).
Nishtdayngesheft, I hope that that op-ed was just a fit of pique due to his flap with the Chief Rabbinate and that he since has regretted it. While we both have since moved on, when I knew him thirty years ago he had strong criticisms of Conservative and Reform. I also had the impression that early on he decided to play the “good cop” in order to attract BTs and keep marginal FFBs from going completely OTD. In fact, he once commented that meany of those who started in HIR would no longer daven there – and he did not seem upset about it.
However, I do think that the criticism should continue. Hopefully it will do for OO what the Mitnagdim did for the Chassidim (“Mekor Baruch” in the name of the Tzemach Tzedek).
According to today’s Jerusalem Post Trump wants to go up on Har HaBayit. Would any of you astute observers want to hazard a guess as to what will happen?
Neville, you obviously have no idea as to the connotation of discrimination in this context. While you are correct that immigration to the US is a privilege and not a right it may not be directed against a broad religious group and certainly not against someone who is defined s a member of that group because of his national origin even though he might not be particularly religious (and Moslems have the same range as us – there have even been complaints about asking “Sheik Google” questions about Sharia). For example, someone who has expressed support for ISIS could and should be excluded. However, to make a blanket exclusion of Moslems (and BTW, he has also made racist attacks on other groups) is reprehensible. He obviously thinks that he is right but so did anti-Semites like Gerald Burton Winrod ym”s, who said “After observing the title of this book, some will accuse me of being anti-Semitic. If by this they mean that I am opposed to the Jews as a race or as a religion, I deny the allegation. But if they mean that I am opposed to a coterie of international Jewish bankers ruling the Gentile world by the power of gold, if they mean that I am opposed to international Jewish Communism, then I plead guilty to the charge.”
The fact of the matter is that many bankers were Jewish and many Communists were Jewish. In fact, the atomic spies were all Jews. Many gangsters were also Jewish. Was the US right to exclude Jews seventy five years ago?
Joseph, that is private discrimination such as preferring Jews in hiring (if one has one’s own business). A government has no right to discriminate accept under very limited circumstances (e.g. a human sacrifice cult). Trump is today’s Gerald Burton Winrod ym”s (@DY). The same old junk in a new package. In fact, if gentiles have gilgulim (it is a machloket) I would guess that Trump is a gilgul of Winrod.
Or they were Ashkenazim. Some say that the reason not to name after a living grandparent is so as not to appear that they are calling the parent by his name. In fact, one of the interpretations as to why Abaye was called Abaye is that his name was Nachmani, which was his grandfather’s (and Rabba’s father’s) name.
While it’s true that that is only in a milchemet reshut and we are now in an ongoing milchemet mitzva, the fact that the fearful person is worried because of his aveirot show that he frummest should go first (cf. the greatest talmidei chachamim arer mechallel Shabbat for pikuach nefesh). Maybe such a law will stop people from saying “Mirror, mirror on the wall – who is the frummest of them all?”
And not all are cut out for full-time learning. How about a compromise? Those who are star learners will for a new unit called Cheil HaTalmud. They will open each seder with a dedication of their learning for the success of the IDF and give shiurim to the troops. Those who are cohanim will exhort them before they go into combat.
There was one in Brisk who made a bar mitzva and invited the whole town. They were afraid not to go but how could they eat his food? The Bet HaLevi went to him.
BHL : Do you steal?
Crook: That’s my parnassa.
BHL : Do you desecrate Shabbat?
Crook: Business is business.
BHL : Do you kill people.
Crook: If I have to.
BHL : Do you eat nevilot and tereifot?
Crook: The rav suspects me? Does the rav think that I am a goy?
Charlie, I did forget. TY for reminding me.
Charlie, how did you forget that Joe Lieberman was AG of CT and that Michael Mukassey was Bush II’s second AG? BTW, I heard of a case decades ago where a Jew was given a summons for operating his pushcart on Sun in NYC. When he went to court he explained that he kept Shabbat and could not take off two days per week. The conversation went like this:
Judge : What do you do on Sat?
Vendor: I go to a synagogue.
Judge : Do you go there every Sat?
Vendor: Yes.
Judge : Did you go there this past Sat?
Vendor: Yes.
Judge : What parsha was read?
The vendor answered correctly and the judge dismissed the summons adding “If you hadn’t known I would have hanged you”.
Zahavasdad, I have thought for a long time that the frum are afraid to form the government. If they would get the highest number of seats in the Knesset they would demand a recount. However, halachic solutions must be found so that Israel can be completely run according to Tora. Perhaps running the airport with Druze, Arabs who hold citizenship and Russians who are not halchically Jewish. Perhaps a widening of Rav Shlomo Zalman’s heter for the electric company (a plane might have to make an emergency landing).
Zahavasdad, why is that a problem. First of all, the drivers are almost certainly gentiles. Secondly, it is pikuach nefesh as there are elderly and unfirm peopel who will not be able to get their meds, not to mention the fact that an ambulance might need to get through. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach allowed using the electric company’s electricity on Shabbat even though Jews might fix problems because of the consideration of elderly, infirm, babies, etc.
Flatbusher, also the kiddush Hashem. For that matter, the same can be said for being someone who learns Tora. The Gra says (Even Sheleima 2) that Tora is compared to water because it makes everything grow. Someone with naturally good middot who learns will become even better but the opposite is also true.In fact, Rav Aviner said that a Tora learner who has bad middot will add ??? to ??? as we say here by finding “frum” excuses for what he does.
Rav Chaim Brisker famously said that a nebbich apikoros is still an apikoros . On the other hand, Rav Gustman said that today’s non-believers are ignoramuses not apikorim. In Vilna the apikorsim knew all of Shas. I am willing to judge the OOs favorably and think that they are tinnokot shenishbu regarding hashkafa and/or think (albeit erroneously IMHO) that they are saving what they can among certain types of lost sheep.
Malei, unfortunately many people want a quick fix without having to do any work. We have instant coffee and instant meals so they also want peace NOW, Mashiach NOW, to fix their problems NOW. This is Eisaviut (lentil soup NOW).
Sholomrov, if it is an aveira ben adam laMakom it is prohibited to advertise it. If it is an aveira ben adam l’chaveiro it is praiseworthy (Rambam, Hilchot Teshuva 2:5). IMHO this is because he must rectify the damage he did to his fellow whereas one cannot damage Hashem.
Flatbusher,
1. Every job has its temptations and every junior clerk has his little area of power.
2. Why should they just cater to the frum (whoever they are)? The general idea is to engage in tikkun olam. How an individual should do it is different for every individual depending on his strengths and weaknesses.
Joseph, I think that you are referring to the injunction (2:3) not to become known to the rulers because they will use you when it is to their advantage and not help you when you need them. However, that can be true of any senior position.
Rav Lior quoted Rav Kook as saying that the Erev Rav are Jews who support our enemies. This would definitely fit the NK and their fellow travelers. According to Rav Yehuda Ben-Yishai they are those who doubt Hashem’s ability to bring about the Geula. There are also the Spies, whose sin the Gra (quoted in “Kol HaTor” and “Em HaBanim Semeicha”) says will infect many who who hold on to the Tora. They oppose yishuv EY – many times for “frum” reasons. See Baal HaTanya, Likutei Tora on parashat Shelach 38b:
??? ??? ?????? ???? ?????, ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ?? “????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ?????”. “?? ???? ??? ??????, ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????. ??? ????? ??”? (???? ??, ?) ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?????. ?????: ??? ????? ???????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??”. ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?’ ????? ?????, ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ????.
Avram, do the repair people accept pledges?
The eruv rav is the rav hamachsir of the eruv.
DY,
1. I think that the whole article is pertinent. One of the questions we will be asked after 120 years is whether we understood devar betoch devar.
2. I have no idea what establishments exist in Boro Park nor do I particularly care. I was indeed referring to Moses Mendelssohn. I was using his quote (now now) to point out the obvious conclusion from your statement “the halachic discussion within really has nothing to do with current events”. Whether you embrace or reject his hashkafa is up to you.
Selling the sefer is a segula for parnassa.
DY,
1. If newcomers can be kept out because they might cause the authorities to expel the current residents kal v’chomer if they might kill people.
2. Who mentioned pizza? More reading comprehension issues. However, if you insist, there would be a nafka mina if the fear is that Syrian refugees might open a competing kosher pizza place.
DY, are you addressing me? If so you have a serious problem with reading comprehension. The title of this thread is “Banning Syrian Refugees From the US”. The title of the article is “THE REFUGEE CONTROVERSY AND ‘CHEZKAS YISHUV'”.
Scared, that’s what Franklin said aboutthe Germans and Henry Adams ym’s said about the Jews. Here is a halachic article that I just received by e-mail:
THE REFUGEE CONTROVERSY AND ‘CHEZKAS YISHUV’
The right to inhabit a city.
Rabbi Micha Cohn
In recent weeks there have been ongoing debates between presidential candidates about immigration and the European refugee crisis. At the heart of these questions is how much are countries obligated to compromise their own security and economic system to help the less fortunate? In this article we will explore a pertinent rabbinic discussion from the Middle Ages called chezkas yishuv.
The Views of the Rosh & Maharik
The Maharik (See Rema CM 156) wrote that other Rishonim disagreed with the Rosh. They maintained that inhabitants of a city do have a chazaka on their town. This gives them a right to prevent others from moving there, especially if it will hurt their livelihood. According to this approach, the right to live in a city does belong to its inhabitants. As such, newcomers need the permission of the original inhabitants to move in.
Rabbeinu Tam writes that there was a cherem (excommunication) instituted in some communities against unwanted newcomers. The idea of the cherem was to circumvent the halachic question of chezkas yishuv. Even if the townspeople could not stop the newcomers from moving in, they could make a cherem on them to protect their source of livelihood. This means that the community members would prohibit anyone from doing business with the newcomers.
The Dispute Between the Maharik and Mabit
Communities also sought to protect their interests from newcomers by another indirect tactic. Newcomers needed permission from the local authorities to move in. The townspeople would convince the authorities not to give the newcomers a permit. The Maharik ruled that this is permissible (cited in Rema and Darchei Moshe ibid). He explained that since there was serious concern about the negative impact of newcomers, it is permissible to indirectly prevent them from moving in. The Maharik viewed causing the authorities not to issue a permit as only preventing the newcomers from getting a benefit, not as taking away something they already had. The Mabit (See Pischei Teshuva CM 156), however, disagreed. He maintained that even indirectly causing the newcomers to lose a legitimate right is not permissible.
Drawing Conclusions
We can glean from these discussions some important insights about some of the current issues. Does a country belong exclusively to its citizens? Possibly not. Should illegal immigrants be deported? Should a country refuse to take in refugees if they pose a security threat? These question could depend on how significant these risks are. If there is a real concern that the illegal immigrants are causing financial hardship to citizens or if the security risks are significant, one could consider them to be a rodef, a pursuer. Furthermore, there may be a difference between deporting individuals already in the country and not letting newcomers in. Otherwise, if they are willing to pay their fair share in taxes, we should welcome them and not behave like the selfish people of Sedom.
CTLAWYER, not correct. Philosophy is a BA. Math and Eco can be either and the latter can also be a BBA. It depends on which core program one takes.
Popa, people who get that much to start are slaves to the billable hours regime. True, there are frum lawyers in these firms but they work motzaei Shabbat and Sun (in fact, when Nat Lewin told Justice Harlan about Shabbat before clerking him Harlan said “No problem. You’ll come in on Sun”). I knew someone who had a friend who left because he realized that he had no time to enjoy the salary and went to a government job. Much lower salary but 9-5. Today that would be an immense problem for someone who does not come from a well-to-fo family.
CTLAWYER,
1. Just out of curiosity why not a BA?
2. You forgot to mention the insane law school tuitions.
From what I understand law schools look down on Legal Studies degrees as they are considered soft. Top secular majors are Math (analytical skills), Economics and Philosophy. The main thong though is the LSAT and Gemara study along with courses in analytical reasoning would be very good.
Fears were not limited to spies and revolutionaries. Several decades previously NYC Police Commissioner Theodore Bingham published an article in the North American Review entitled “Foreign Criminals in New York” in which he blamed Russian-born Jews for property crimes and Italian immigrants for violent crimes.
“We are in the hands of the Jews”, (Henry) Adams lamented. “They can do what they please with our values.” He advised against investment except in the form of gold locked in a safe deposit box. “There you have no risk but the burglar. In any other form you have the burglar, the Jew, the Czar, the socialist, and, above all, the total irremediable, radical rottenness of our whole social, industrial, financial and political system” – Saveth, Edward N. (1948). “Henry Adams Norman Ancestors.” In: American Historians and European Immigrants 1875-1925. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 74.
Joseph, as a matter of fact, in a typically daring Zionist operation Israeli commandos brought the last Jews home from Syria with the exception of a woman who converted to Islam and married an Arab (after the Brother Daniel case the Law of Return was amended to explicitly exclude someone who converted to another religion). As for non-Jewish Syrians, it might be feasible to take in some Druze under a family reunification plan (many are related to Golan Druze) given the fact that they keep the sheva mitzvot (the sheik of the Israeli segment officially accepted them in the name of the whole community and Rav Ovadia ruled that their religion is not avoda zara) and have an excellent loyalty record.
Joseph, at one time a Jewish stranger who had no place to go had no problem being invited for after the davening. In fact, homeowners argued over who would get the mitzva. There are still communities where people organize Shabbat meals for newcomers, soldiers (in Israel), etc.
There is a machloket regarding whether or not mitzvot require kavana. The Halacha according to the Mishna Berura (60:10) is that if they are d’Oraita they require it but if they a d’rabbana they do not. Of course, if one refrained from doing an aveira without kavana that it is an aveira in the end one did not do it. There, however, is a very strong inyan to go beyond (Baba Metzia 30b). However, this is also part of the Halacha (Devarim 6,18 with Rashi and see He’emek Devar, Intro. to Sefer Bereisheet).
DY, according to what I read the vetting process is very extensive. Moreover, if America will go that way it will also have to ban all Moslem students and tourists (don’t forget, tourists sometimes overstay their visas). This would be blatantly unconstitutional. Regarding the attitude towards Jewish refugees (and immigrants in general) there were, in fact, not a few revolutionaries among them. Trotsky, in fact, lived in the Bronx for a number of years after fleeing the Czarist authorities. Emma Goldman also comes to mind. There were also Sacco and Vanzetti.
However, just as there were home-grown radicals (e.g. the IWW or “Wobblies”) then there are home-grown terrorists now. Some of the worst, do not come from Moslem backgrounds at all but have embraced an extremist world-view for personal psychological reasons (the Guardian has an article about this phenomenon along with a caveat). Western countries must be vigilant and use all of the intelligence means available to them but not repeat the tragic mistake of WW2 when Japanese-Americans were interned even though not one had been suspected as an individual of plotting an actual crime (interestingly, the only government official who opposed their internment was J. Edgar Hoover).
BTW, on this general subject there is a book called “Not Fit for Our Society: Immigration and Nativism in America”, which discusses non-welcomes that were given to huddled masses. Benjamin Franklin, for example, warned about German immigrants writing “Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.”