[Avodah] Chillul HaShem when NJ are the observers

[Zev Sero]

On 15/11/2011 3:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Zev,
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 02:58:23PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> >  It isn't.  Failing to return it is not a chilul haShem.  But for that
>> >  very reason, returning it is a kiddush haShem.  The goy has no reason
>> >  to expect you to do it; he wouldn't have done it himself, and if you
>> >  were to keep it he would accept that as perfectly normal.  So if you go
>> >  out of your way to give it to him he will feel grateful....
> That's my entire point -- qiddush H' is in the gratitude that draws
> someone to avodas Hashem. I took it for granted that if I proved
> that qiddush Hashem isn't necessarily tied to following halakhhah,
> rather that which makes someone, Jewish or not, say "berikh E-lahaha
> deYdua'ei!" then it was only natural that chiullul Hashem would include
> any act that would push someone away.
>
> Are you arguing that qiddush Hashem is that which draws people to
> avodas Hashem, but chilul Hashem is NOT that which ch"v pushes them
> away?

I am arguing that whatever theory you have *must* accommodate what we
*know* about kiddush and chilul haShem.  You cannot pull a piece of
agadeta out and twist it so that it contradicts established halacha and
minhag avoseinu.

I am arguing that what matters is not "ma yomru habriyos" (you are
surely aware yourself of how much proof we have against that), not
whether they *like* what we do, which means in effect whether what
we do comports with their subjective and possibly tamei preferences,
but whether they get a lesson in darkei Hashem.  Chessed is a positive
midah, a derech of Hashem.  Sometimes it's required of us; sometimes
it's not required, but if we display it anyway we show them what Hashem
is like, and that is a kiddush haShem.  And I am arguing that it makes
absolutely no difference whether this makes them feel good or bad about
us.

Take Lot's wife, who reacted to Lot's request for salt to give his
guests by complaining "do you mean to introduce this evil custom too?!"
According to the position that you seem to be arguing, what Lot did was
a chilul haShem!  He caused his wife to think the worse of him and all
those who follow his ways, and of Hashem in Whose ways he was following;
and presumably he would have had the same effect on any normal member
of that society.  The logical conclusion is that he should have been
careful to do his mitzvah of hachnasas orchim in a more measured and
"civilised" way, accommodating local mores as much as he could.  Feeding
them, meilah, but salt?!  Such a chossid he has to be?!  Chilul Hashem!
And I am arguing that on the contrary, what he did was a kiddush haShem;
making his wife angry, throwing in her face that this is how a Jew
behaves, and that he will do the right thing no matter what anyone thinks
of him, is exactly what kiddush haShem means.

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.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
zev at sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
		                            - Yitzchak Rabin