[Avodah] Hypocrisy in halakhah

[Zev Sero]

Sorry, there's a major fallacy here.  When it comes to fending off
gezerot, we tell the outside world whatever will be effective in order
to stave them off.  But that's entirely klapei chutz; it doesn't change
the metzius, and it doesn't change the halacha.  We do not and cannot
let our own understanding of Torah be changed by what the PR people find
it expedient to tell the world.

The fact is that we are *not* the same as others, and therefore what
we think of their laws has nothing to do with the validity of our laws.
The gemara already points to these examples, and says yes, that's how
it is.  We have one standard for them and another for ourselves, and
that is right and proper; explaining it to them is another matter, and
may call for finesse.

For instance: during the times of the blood libels, how many times did
we point out that we don't even eat blood in an egg, and argue that al
achat kamah vechamah we couldn't possibly be putting human blood in our
baked goods.  Now imagine that the PR person making that argument comes
home that evening and cuts his finger while cooking, and some blood gets
into the food; much more than 1/60, but less than 1/2.  Does he have to
throw it out, just because that's what he led the court to believe was
the halacha?  (Doing so might be prudent, if there's a chance that the
court might learn of the deception, but that's a different matter.)

Then we have the siddurim and sefarim that used to be printed in Russia
with all sorts of changes, to please the censor.  They omitted "sheheim
mishtachavim...", inserted "bashamayim" into "ein lanu melech ela ata",
inserted disclaimers into various halachos that "of course this only
applied in the olden days, and not under the glorious KYRH", etc.
Did any of that change what was actually done?  Of course not.  Everyone
knew that the disclaimers were for the censors, and the tefilos and
halachos remained the same.  "Hanosen teshua lamlachim" was printed in
the siddur, and it was said in the big city shuls where the KYRH's spies
might be listening, but in the small shuls and shtiblach it was omitted.

As for the definition of citizenship, Napoleon's emancipation of the
Jews came with a terrible price, that of giving up our national identity
and defining ourselves as "Frenchmen of the Mosaic faith".  I would have
no problem whatsoever if Ireland, for instance, defined itself as a
Catholic nation and therefore said non-Catholics could not be citizens.
I'm pretty sure the Vatican already does so.  Or if Pakistan made Islam
a requirement for citizenship.  Throughout the years we were not citizens
of our host countries, and we never aspired for citizenship.  We were
always an "am levadad yishkon".  The USA is of course different because
diversity of religion and nationality is an essential part of its
historical identity.  To a lesser extent this is true also of other
"immigrant nations".  But the old European nations still have the
concept of nationality as distinct from citizenship, and in the national
sense a Jew is not a Frenchman or a German or a Slovak.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas