Chortkov

Part two may take a little more sensitivity to feel. I don’t expect everybody to understand it.

My first post was basically explaining why in many cases, it could be a necessity, not just a luxury. Depending on your financial status is how much צורך you need before you decide to go ahead with making your lives easier.

Here’s a different point. There are people who can’t afford it. While they once lived life in a lap of luxury, they have unfortunately fallen upon hard times, and money is tighter than it was. So when they struggle to continue living the luxuries they always had, you get upset. They don’t need this, why can’t they live like the rest of us?

If you look at Hilchos Tzdakah, you’ll find an interesting thing. The obligation of Tzdakah is די מחסורו אשר יחסר לו. If you look here, you’ll find that you are equally obligated to provide basic necessities to a pauper as you are to provide luxuries to a man who was once rich. You must provide a horse for him to ride upon, and a slave to run in front honouring him. Surely he doesn’t need a horse? The slave running in front is just his own Ga’avah; it doesn’t make his journey any more comfortable? Why don’t we tell him to tone down his lifestyle now, he’s living off tzdakah – he doesn’t need such a fancy car!

The Halachah is not like that. The luxuries of a man who once could affort these things are necessities. Just because you don’t need it, and just because he once upon a time didn’t need it – suddenly, when he doesn’t have the money any more, the upperclass lifestyle is something he desperately needs.

The Torah doesn’t tell him that such an upperclass lifestyle is assur when there are others struggling to put food on the table. The VERY SAME chiyuv you have to feed those struggling with food obligates you to support his extravagantly luxurious lifestyle.

So to judge a family who borrowed money to make this possible is not so simple.

#CRDSYAC

There are numerous issues which need discussing:

1) Spending Pesach at home or at a hotel is a matter of personal taste. Some people may find it more meaningful at home, some don’t need the privacy to find spirituality in Pesach, others may not have a meaningful seder at home; not every family is as perfect as your own. Not every father is up to directing a seder to satisfaction, listening to Rabbi X. Ploni (who we follow on TorahAnytime, his shiurim are fantastic) would be so inspirational.

As far as “connecting to Yom Tov” is concerned, it’s each to his own.

2) The minute circumstances are different to your family – there is an elderly parent, the mother has a bad back, there are disabled children, mother is expectant during the months before Pesach, it is totally justifiable not to want or be able to make Pesach at home.

And I don’t think you need to dream up ridiculous scenarios. There are plenty of day to day excuses that may not force a family to go away, but can be much more convenient. All the kids are married and at the inlaws, with just one kid at home who is bored and kvetches, and Mom can’t face the Empty Nest over Pesach. Mom is getting older, and just can’t be bothered making Pesach. Her parents always went to hotels for Pesach, and she can’t think of a Pesach with all the stress of cleaning and cooking. They went once when the mother was highly pregnant, and had such an uplifting Yom Tov that they wanted to go back. Yes, the pressure and effort involved is a Matanah from Hashem etc. etc., but there is no Issur in not being in the mood. It isn’t ‘obscene and disgusting’ to want to relax a bit. (I’ve never heard of anyone disgusted with those who hire cleaning help before Pesach because of this precious Matanah of cleaning yourself). Throw in a working Mom or any other mild inconvenience – what aveirah is there in wanting to take it easy?

You can easily justify the motives to go away for Pesach, even if it doesn’t suit your personal taste. So what remains is simply jealousy, spite and self-righteousness which prevails. You just don’t fargin. (No real word for that in English. What’s the opposite of Begrudge?)

The anger, disdain and contempt directed to those who go away for Yom Tov is totally disproportionate. It makes me wonder whether the motive to talk against is just old school jealousy.

#CRDSYAC

In cases of public Bizayon HaTorah, everyone remaining silent is “backfiring”. Somebody has to make a statement.

Yekke, my experience is that protesting has no effect

Firstly, let me direct you to post that may not have been approved before you wrote yours: the incident took place on Friday night; on Sunday morning this askan called up the Talmid Chochom to apologize

Secondly, I think you are fundamentally mistaken about the purpose of protesting. The aim here wasn’t that he should apologize, nor that he should refrain from further humiliation – although both of the above were certainly fringe benefits. The purpose was to be מוחה against a Bizayon HaTorah. When somebody is פוגם in כבוד התורה, somebody has to be מכבד תורה as a response.

I have responded to you on other threads about the purpose of protesting when people make public statements against Hashem and His Torah. The same response goes here. You can read it here.

If not, according to halacha, does it help if there is toeles later?

I’ve been wondering this for a long time. I heard a couple of stories about a friend of mine that were NOT said in context of Toieles, and subsequently those very stories were suddenly of paramount importance when I was asked about shidduch being suggested for this very friend. Were those stories to be true [and I confirmed this Halacha with a Rav], I would tell the other side and they would probably break the shidduch. If I would have been told this in reference to the Shidduch, I would be licenced to pass on the information. However, I heard it as plain gossip. Is the fact that it is now l’toieles enough that I can believe it later?

I would say that besides for the halachah of Toeles, I couldn’t believe the stories, at least at face value. The very fact that it was gossip would motivate the storyteller to embellish, exaggerate and perhaps change the story. He would not have been as careful with the truth as he would be otherwise.

Secondly, if someone tells you that a person wants to kill you (or cheat you or rob you etc) you are NOT allowed to be mekabel but you ARE obligated to be cautious, and look for signs with the understanding that it might be for no reason but that it might be true.

I am aware of the “Respect him, Suspect him” clause. But does this only apply when the person tells you means it l’toeles?

My father’s immediate reaction when I told him that I was moicheh was that I need to ask this guy mechilah, because I had and have no right to make any assumptions about him, and to the best of my knowledge (?) he is an upstanding Jew who did nothing wrong.

I was very mesupak about this, like I wrote above. In a comparable scenario, if I hear that somebody is coming to kill me [without meeting the conditions of תועלת] in a situation where I have no halachic right to believe it, yet I instinctively believe it – am I mechuyav to escape or otherwise prepare myself מדין סכנה? Or would you say that על פי תורה, there is no reason to be suspicious? I don’t doubt the halacha in that case. So I’m not sure what my sofek is in the first case.

I heard last night at a shiur on Pesach that since our approach to kiruv has changed, the advice of the Baal Hagadah may not apply nowadays.

Whose authority is big enough to decide to change our policy from following the Tannaim to a more modern day attitude?

You always have וידעת היום, but you don’t always have השיבות אל לבבך. There is a difference between being aware, and being fully cognizant of the fact enough that you feel it. Call it the שביתי ה’ לנגדי תמיד.

I don’t know the boy, but I’m not shocked. I think that I and most people have done similar things, although perhaps to a lesser degree. I don’t know if I would have ever said that I was angry at Hashem, but I have certainly done aveiros in my life because I was upset with other people, which is kind of the same thing but to a lesser degree if you think about it (since everything comes from Hashem).

It’s not the same thing at all. Being upset with someone else can be a cause to lose yourself in anger, and forget about Hashem. (And even though the knowledge is still there, it is like that of a smoker who knows that smoking kills, and is aware that the doctor told him he only has a year left to live etc. etc.) I was talking specifically about doing the avierah out of a solid awareness of Hashem. There’s a difference. And it’s difficult to explain why I was shocked if you’ve never met this guy. I would explain, but if I give away any details, there are too many people who know me and will be able to work out the identity of the guy we’re discussing.

And he does not sound like someone who would have gained from the approach used in the Haggadah

Part of the discussion in this thread was supposed to be about exactly this: I’m not sure that the correct response necessarily means the most effective one.

If we’re anyways writing thoughts on the Four Sons, here’s one I had which is relevant to this thread:

The question is often asked: The opposite of rasha is a tzaddik, not chochom. Why is chochom given as the other extreme of rasha?

(DISCLAIMER: The question doesn’t really start; we are discussing four personality traits. Wickedness is one. The opposited of the Wicked Son is the Righteous Son, who is split into three categories: The Clever Son, the Simple Son and the One Who Cannot Ask. Chochom is the opposite of Tam, not of Rasha)

I think that if you look a bit deeper into the definition of a Chochom and the definition of a Rasha, you will find they are direct opposites. The Mishneh writes “אזהו חכם – הרואה את הנולד”. Chochmoh is measured by the ability to foresee consequences, and calculates his actions based on their ramifications.

What is a Rasha? If someone believes in Hashem, believes in Hashgacha, and believes in Schar VeOinesh, it should be impossible to sin willingly. Don’t you understand that the negative consequences of this action should outweigh any momentary pleasure you might have? In the capacity of rational thought, there is no ability to sin.

A Rasha is someone who isn’t רואה את הנולד. He lives in the present; he doesn’t SEE the future when he acts. He thinks of the fleeting, momentary pleasure rather than the negative ramifications of his actions. Every sin involves “forgetting” the future that he will reap from the seeds he plants. A Rasha is the antithesis of the Chacham.

This came to mind when I saw the אבן עזרא in Parshas Yisro – “כי לא יתכן להיות ירא שמים כראוי רק מי שהוא חכם”. (He’s coming to explain how Yisro spoke about אנשי חיל יראי אלקים, and Moshe said חכמים ונבנים, and he writes that they are one and the same)

blubluh: Beautiful vort.

ברוך שכוונת לדעת פפא בר אבא

Making Up Divrei Torah At The Seder

LU: I have a hard time believing that anyone can truly be bad deliberately. It’s just not logical to be deliberately bad. I always feel like there must be something behind it.

I have spoken Loshon Hara when I knew what I was saying constituted LH and I knew speaking LH was assur. That was being deliberately bad. It wasn’t an עבירה להבעיס, CH”V, but it was an עבירה במזיד. And it wasn’t because of any psychological issue I have nor as a result of any abuse I suffered as a child.

On some level or another, we all [אין צדיק בארץ אשר יעשה טוב ולא יחטא] sin. We are not perfect. We have a יצר הרע. I’m sorry to say, but I don’t believe that every עבירה you’ve done in your life was a שוגג.

This is what חזל mean that אין אדם חוטא אא”כ נכנס בו רוח שטות. On a rational level, if you (a) are aware something is assur, (b) believe in Hashem, and (c) believe in Schar V’Oinesh, it is foolish to sin. The same thought that stops you jumping into a fire should stop you sinning. But we don’t live our lives on a rational level.