[Avodah] : Re: Chillul HaShem when NJ are the observers

[Heather Luntz]

RMB writes:

> I doubt that spitting when observed by a nachri was done very often. I
> doubt there ever was a minhag Yisrael that carried such risk of piquach
> nefesh.


This is irrelevant.  A church is an inanimate object.  Here we are
discussing human beings who were created btzelem Elokim.  A person might do
something wrong, indeed very wrong.  But we posken like Bruria. It is the
sins and not the sinners for which one must show disgust.

And that is why what RZS writes is inapplicable:

> And exactly the same applies to spitting at AZ.  Rejecting and being
> disgusted by AZ is the essence of right and justice.  It is the
> ultimate good; it's the definition of a Yehudi - "mi shemodeh baH' vekofer
> baAZ". And visibly expressing this disgust is the equivalent of giving the
> guests salt, or indeed of returning the stone to the donkey seller.
> An observer who shares our beliefs will approve; one who believes in
> the AZ will disapprove; kiddush haShem means seeking the first one's
> approval and the second one's *dis*approval.

Whether or not one might spit at AZ, or show disgust for it, that provides
no justification for spitting at a person, regardless of their views on AZ.
But there more than that.  In this respect I believe RZS correctly framed it
when he said:

>It depends what is causing this "negative" impression.  The argument
>you are making is precisely that which was used in the last generation
>to tell people to remove their yarmulke, because it's a "chilul haShem"!
>Of course that is exactly backwards.  Wearing a yarmulke in public,
>demonstrating in public that yidden are different, is a kiddush haShem.

...>And of course all the kedoshim created "a terrible chilul haShem"
according to your argument,
>by refusing to serve AZ like everyone else, by making a spectacle of
>themselves and insisting on their peculiar worship.  Avraham Avinu - what
> disgrace he was!  Chananya, Mishael, and Azaria - more chilul haShem!
> Chana's children -- such chutzpah they had!  They certainly didn't make
> the goyim think well of Jews!

>The answer is obvious.  Kiddush haShem consists of the observer seeing
>how yidden stick to haShem, Torah, and Mitzvos; whether the observer
>likes it or not.  And chilul haShem consists of the observer seeing the
> opposite, even if he approves and thinks us fine people for doing so.

This I believe is all true.  But that is precisely why the act under
discussion constitutes a chillul Hashem.  We have halachos regarding how to
greet people.  First there is takanas Ezra, where Ezra and those who
supported him instituted that people should shoel es shalom chavero b'shem
(Brachos 54a).  Now there is a malokus between, inter alia, the Rambam and
the Aruch as to whether this is obligatory or just permitted - but it is
important to understand the issue raised by this takana which is, as Rashi
says there "v'lo amrinan mezalzel hu b'kavodo shel Makom bishvil kavod
habriyos".  And indeed, according to the machmirim, without this specific
takana of Ezra, there are issues of taking shem Hashem l'vatala in extending
such greetings.  As so understood it is quite a breathtaking takana,
although much more easily explained if one links it with the idea that the
person to whom you are extending HaShem's name is b'zelem Elokim which is
what entitles it.

Now takanas Ezra was in relation to *chavero*, but Chazal extended "lshoelin
b'shloman" to non Jews mpnei darchei shalom (Gitten 61a).  Only on their
festivals is it forbidden to go into their houses and extend Hashem's name
to them, because that might cause them to thank their gods -but if you meet
them in the shuk eve non their holidays it is mutar.  And at the time the
Chazal instituted this takana, they were unquestionably referring to bone
fide ovdei avodah zara of the highest order - none of this minhag avoseihem
b'yadehem, or shutuf of similar get outs that we have today.

So here we have a clear statement of what is required by Torah and mitzvos
as determined by Chazal which is to greet ovdei avodah zara with shalom,
including with the mention HaShem's name  of Shalom m'pnei darchei shalom.
And what do these people in Jerusalem do, they not only do not greet these
people with shalom (and Shalom), but they do the exact opposite of shoalin
b'shloman, they spit on them.  That is precisely the definition of chillul
Hashem - when somebody does publically in front of non Jews an act that is
*contrary* to Torah and mitzvos as set out in Chazal.  On top of the issur
of the averah itself, there goes an even worse averah of chillul Hashem.

And it has nothing to do with how we might respond to inanimate objects.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana