[Avodah] Chillul HaShem when NJ are the observers

[T613K at aol.com]

[1] Someone wrote on Areivim:  
> As a great man once told me "It"s not enough to be well versed  in the
> first 4 chalokim of SA,the 5th chelek is important as  well"

and RZS responded:
> And that is precisely where I am coming from. But of course anyone
> can claim that the "fifth chelek" supports him! What test is there?
> The fifth chelek cannot contradict the first four. And what is the
> fifth chelek anyway? It is mesoras yisroel. In this case, our mesorah
> is precisely what these people are doing, while those who object are
> all coming from an alien perspective.

[2] Continuing the discussion on Avodah under the subject line  "Chillul 
HaShem when NJ are the observers" 

RZS wrote: 
> ....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.....Kiddush haShem consists of the observer seeing
> how yidden stick to haShem, Torah, and Mitzvos; whether the observer
> likes it or not.

[3] RZS also wrote:
> ...Then he explains that since they were all mal'achim of chessed,
> their missions were also ones of chessed; to tell Sarah the good news,
> to heal Avraham, to rescue Lot -- and to destroy Sedom! How is that
> chessed? Yes, chessed includes destroying anti-chessed.....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.

[4] And finally:

RMB wrote:
> I dispute both your assumption of what minhag avoseinu was....

and RZS responded:
> Do you dispute that spitting when passing a church is minhag avoseinu?!

[1] It is not "our mesorah" to spit at people and leave actual spittle
on their faces and clothing. And if 99% of all Orthodox Jews find the
idea of spitting at goyim revolting, and 1% think that is exactly what
the Torah requires, I'd be wary of saying that it's the 99% who are
"coming from an alien perspective."

[2] It is certainly true that "Kiddush haShem consists of the observer
seeing how yidden stick to haShem, Torah, and Mitzvos" but the tacit
premise here -- that the Torah requires us to spit at every Christian
clergyman we pass on the street -- is completely and utterly false.

[3] Yes, chessed does mean destroying anti-chessed -- but to equate an
Armenian Christian priest of today with the pure evil of the people of
Sodom is completely wrong and false. Christians are not the evil people in
the world today, far from it, they are among the best and most moral and
G-d-fearing. They are not the chief deniers of G-d today -- that would be
the Harvard faculty. And according to many Torah sources, shituf is not
even Avodah Zarah for goyim. When the early Christians replaced Greek
and Roman mythology (which WAS Avodah Zarah) with the slightly muddled
monotheism of the Trinity ("3=1") they were pulling goyim UP and not down.

RZS says "Rejecting and being disgusted by AZ is the essence of right
and justice." Would he say the same about rejecting and being disgusted
by gilui arayos, specifically, mishkav zochar? I would also like to
know if RZS would support, with equal vehemence, visible expressions
of disgust at the sight of the toeivah people in the Toeivah Parade.
Maybe we should be spitting at them, too? And if not, why not?

[4] Spitting on the ground while passing a church is a "minhag" in the
sense that saying "Feh!" at the sight of something ugly is a minhag.
It's the minhag hamakom in some places, like angels eating when
visiting humans -- "when in Rome..." It's not minhag in the sense of
halachic norm, like minhag Yisrael din hu. (The very word "minhag"
has many meanings and depends on context.) There is no law that you
have to spit in front of a church and there has /never/ been a custom
of spitting on human beings, on priests and nuns! There isn't even a
custom of spitting on the ground /in front of/ a priest, and the current
practice of some in Y-m who leave their spittle all over the clergymen is
just plain disgusting. There is no source for it and no excuse for it.

I would add that it is highly ironic that the people who reject the
State of Israel on the grounds that it violates the "Four Oaths" would
be the ones to show ownership of the land in such an aggressive way,
by spitting on non-Jewish clergy -- an act they would never have the
nerve to commit in any land where they didn't feel they were the boss.
So we're the boss of Eretz Yisrael now? The goyim are under our thumb
now, hey? The Four Oaths are inoperative? Whadaya know, it's aschalta
de'geulah after all!

--Toby Katz
================