[Avodah] Chillul HaShem when NJ are the observers

[Meir Rabi]

This discussion began with whether a KH or ChH can be accomplished
exclusively in the presence of Yidden or even NJ but it has morphed.



Drawing from a few posts I see that R Zev makes the following observations



A)     R Zev suggests that Kiddush or Ch HaShem depends on what is causing
the impression. [R Zev, would you please elaborate, I don’t understand what
you mean.]

B)     R Zev suggests that Public demonstrations that Yidden are different
i.e. wear a yarmulke, is a KH [I presume that means, even if a Frum Yid is
arrested in a high profile case it is entirely inappropriate that he in any
way conceal his Frum identity by wearing a cap, concealing his Peyos,
altering his clothing style etc.]

C)     R Zev suggests that KH is accomplished when we stick to Torah and
Mitzvos even when our actions make us disliked, look foolish or crude.

D)     R Zev suggests that ChH is brought about when we abandon Torah,
Mitzvos or Minhagim no matter what positive impressions are made upon the
observers.

E)     R Zev suggests that Things that are negative in themselves cause
right-minded people to have a negative impression, that is a ChH [But R
Zev, you maintain that all Torah and Mitzvos and also Minhagim like making
a public spectacle of spitting at AZ can not be negative things; so what
are we left with? What are the negative things, other than Aveiros, and
picking ones nose in public, that cause ChH? And if your Minhag is to eat
with your fingers, would it be a KH to do so at the table of the president
of the US? or to spit at his prayer house or prayer room as you are being
taken on a guided tour?]

F)      R Zev suggests that It is clear from Yeshno Am Echad, that there is
support for his interpretation, that KH and ChH are achieved only when
there are Yidden observing or aware. [R Zev, would you also please
elaborate on how this is so?]

G)    R Zev suggests that Since Avraham A (and Ch M & Azarye) chose to be
tossed into the furnace rather than deny HKBH, this disproves the assertion
(from Rashi in Yuma) that Ch HaShem is prompted by negative impressions be
they upon Jews or NJws. [R Zev, would you please also elaborate on this
point.]

H)     R Zev suggests that Failing to return a lost item is not a ChH.  But
for that  very reason, returning it is a KH. [R Zev would you please
explain this? You posit that doing an Aveira is a ChH no matter what
positive inspiration infuses the NJ; and doing a Mitzvah is a KH no matter
what aspersions are formulated in NJ’s mind. Well, returning an Aveida to a
NJ is an Aveirah and keeping it is a Mitzva.]

I)        R Zev suggests that Chessed includes destroying  anti-chessed.
 Sedom is to chessed what antimatter is to matter, and  it is davka chessed
that annihilates it. Ditto for KH and ChH. [R Zev, it appears that AA does
not agree with your Peshat. AA was desperate to prevent this KH by begging
HaShem to permit Sedom, an active ChH to continue. And HaShem also seems to
disagree with your Peshat. HaShem seems to agree in principle, He will
allow this metropolis of Ra’im VeChata’im LaHaShem MeOd to continue in
their evil ways. Now, as long as HaShem puts up with them we can understand
that we don’t pray for their annihilation. But when HaShem finally says “I
am going to pull the plug” we should be celebrating at the KH. See HaEmek
Davar intro to Bereishis.]

J)      R Zev suggests that What matters is not whether the NJ understand,
like or approve what we do but whether they get a lesson in darkei Hashem.
 When we show Chessed we show the NJ what Hashem is like, and that is a KH.
It makes absolutely no difference whether the NJ understand this and feel
good or think of us as barbarians.

K)     R Zev illustrates this with Lot who made a KH by making his wife
angry with his request and insistence for salt for the visitors even though
this prompted his wife to think badly of him, and his customs evil. [So
although he could have avoided the confrontation and waited for a better
opportunity to coolly and lovingly correct his wife, he preferred the
nuclear KH option. If this is correct, then every time we draw someone
aside to encourage them to correct their ways when we could loudly proclaim
both in actions and in words, the correct attitude and behaviour, then we
have actually perpetrated a ChH. I think we will agree that publicly
chopping up Agog and recording it, was a KH, but is this always the
appropriate line of action?]

L)      R Zev contends that the KH of spitting at AZ for example, has two
aims, earning the approval of those who approve and the disapproval of
those who disapprove. [Seems like a win win situation; it must always be a
KH no matter what one does, and it is proven from both sides of the
argument. So you hold it’s the wrong thing to do? That just proves my
point; it is a KH! Ah, you agree with me, Yes see, this is a KH. An
un-lose-able argument.]


Reb Micha proves that KH is accomplished when NJ are inspired, from the
episodes which record the violation of Halacha, ie returning valuables to a
NJ, and the Gemara focuses on the positive response of the NJ.

N)     I believe that R ShZA, discouraged or prohibited people forming a
Minyan on a plane, due to concerns of ChH. I understood that this was true
even when all the J were davening in that Minyan and all the other
passengers were NJ. If I understand R Zev correctly, he would insist that
this is a KH.

-- 

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111117/f5c19903/attachment-0002.htm>