[Avodah] Fw: fashion models and opera singers

[Samuel Svarc]

Moved from Areivim as per the request of the moderators.


>From: "Mike Miller" <areivim at mikeage.net>
>Subject: Re: [Areivim] Fw: fashion models and opera singers
>
>Of course they're wrong; we _can_ judge the actions. In the case of 
>tinok shenishbah, what we cannot judge is how guilty (and liable) they 
>are.

Of course one can. In certain aveiros (such as shabbos) they aren't liable,
in certain aveiros (such as murder) they are liable.

>The other point I was making is that perhaps it would be better for us 
>to say "their behavior is wrong" or "their behavior appears wrong."
>Why do we need to go the extra step?

Because not judging reveals an ambivalence to the action.

R' Sholom Schwadron used to say over a true story, as follows. One day his
wife rushed into the house and told him that a kid had fallen and cut his
head. R' Sholom grabbed a towel and ran outside to the kid (a neighbor's
son). He pressed the towel to the kid's head and started running up the hill
to a doctor. The kid's grandmother was walking down the hill and seeing R'
Sholom running with the kid, she figured it must be R' Sholom's son, so she
called out, "R' Sholom, he'll be all right! Don't worry!" As R' Sholom came
closer she saw that the kid wasn't a Schwadron, so she said, "Oy! He should
have a refuah shleimah!" As R' Sholom sprinted past her and she saw that the
kid was *her* grandson, she shrieked, "YANKEL!!!"

R' Sholom used to say, when it's your Yankel, then you're not ambivalent.
When shabbos means as much to you as your bank account, you shriek. When
someone rips you off, you're not ambivalent about it; you say, "That person,
he's a ganef!". When someone rips off the Ribona Shel Olam, it's the same
thing... if it's your Yankel. 

>If we have a valid reason for judging them (l'tov or l'ra), then of 
>course, as RMSS points out, we have many criteria to use, and in some 
>cases, we MUST judge. If, however, we don't (is anyone seriously 
>thinking of eating at (C)hav[ai] Mond's house? Is anyone inviting her 
>to be a spokeswoman for their organization)?) then why do we need to?
>
>Once we can answer the "why," then I think we can properly judge the 
>"what."

Well, let's start with a possuk in Mishlei, "Yiras Hashem sinas rah".
Pesachim 113b.

>Side note: one of the people in our building recently approached me to 
>ask about another tenant. The first individual (let's call him O) 
>wanted to make a private eruv for the building, but had some concerns 
>about whether another individual (let's call him A) was shomer shabbos. 
>I told him that I don't know, I know that A considers himself shomer 
>shabbos, even though there are some things he does that I wouldn't do, 
>but I believe he's in a category of "Omer Mutar."

So he's a shomer shabbos. Judge him accordingly.

>Since I
>have no relevant questions regarding A's Kashrus, etc., I've never 
>really considered the issue -- why bother?

For the same reason that people are concerned about their bottom line, and
check their stock portfolios. For the same reason that people are
'm'mashmesh b'kiseih' on a constant basis. This is what interests them, it's
their Yankel. Someone who cares about Hashem has a drive to know, it burns
in him. I can't say it better then the Mesillas Yeshorim. In perek yud tes,
anaf gimmel. I'll quote just a little, but learn the whole thing, it's
worthwhile. "... V'b'medrash Eicha omru: "Hoyoh sorim k'ayolim" Mah ayolim
hallolu bishas shrov hofchim p'neiheim alu tachas alu, kein hoyu g'dolie
Yisroel ro'im d'var aveira v'hofchim p'neiheim m'meinu. Omar l'heim Hakodesh
Boroch Hu: Tovei hashu v'ani ei'eisah l'heim kein (by the Churban)! V'zeh
poshut, ki mi sh'ohav eis chaiveiro, iy efsher lo lisbol shyirei makim es
chaveiro oh m'charfim oy'soy, v'bvaday shyeitzay l'ezroyso; gam mi sh'oheiv
sh'mo yisborach, lo yuchal lisbol v'liros sh'yichal'lu oy'soy, chas
v'sholom, v'shyaviru al mitzvosov... lo yichlu l'hisapek v'lhachrish...
v'omar: "Ohaiva Hashem, sinu rah" (Tehillim 97:10)

>I also don't have the
>situations in my personal life that A has concluded that his actions 
>are mutar, so I haven't really looked into the idea. For O, who needs 
>to know if he's mechalel shabbos or not, there is a valid question, and 
>something that he needs to be examine (delicately, of course).
>Nevertheless, I assume his conclusions, as with those of lashon hara, 
>should be that of the type that O needs to be wary of A (or not), 
>rather than declaring A to be a Rasha, etc. [in this case, A keeps 
>Kosher, sends his children to religious schools, has a wife who covers 
>(most of) her hair, etc), just for some general background].

How could some one like this be a rasha? Shomer shabbos, keeps kashrus, etc?
One doesn't need to crawl after people to see if they do aveiros. At the
most, it seems you have a question about him, he could be a choteih. We're
not discussing if we should be an Inquisition, but rather one shouldn't
withhold judgment on what he sees.

KT,
MSS