A QUESTION FOR THE NINE DAYS (AND BEYOND)

[Michael ORR]

BACKGROUND TO QUESTION
  It is well accepted that the leading reason for churban bayis sheni was sinas chinam, baseless hatred:  Yoma 9b.  Other reasons cited for the churban bayis sheni, i.e. insisting on legal rights without a willingness to go beyond the letter of the law, cited in BM30b, and the refusal of Torah scholars to rebuke the people for fear of their disrespect, cited in Shabbos 119b, can all be classified under the broad category of sinas chinam.  (See article by Rabbi Mordechai Willig for discussion on the relationship of these causes: http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2005/parsha/rwil_devarim.html ) Sinas chinam can be characterized as deficiency in proper conduct bein adam lechavero.  
   
  THE QUESTION:
  Given that eliminating sinas chinam, i.e. remedying the deficiency in proper conduct bein adam lechavero, is the key to geula and the re-establishment of the bais mikdash (Yer. Yoma 1:1), which is the highest and ultimate historical goal of Jewish existence, why is there not a more concerted and prioritized effort by Torah Jewry to teach and promote proper conduct bein adam lechavero?  Shouldn’t this be a priority that is so well known and so well publicized that it is seen both by insiders and outsiders as characteristic of the Torah community? 
   
  Notes on the question:
   
  -My observation has been that there is an emphasis on learning mitzvos bein adam lamakom, e.g. all Orach Chaim topics.  Although in an important sense, the bein adam lamakom orientation is foundational, and so cannot be neglected, the paramount importance of addressing sinas chinam based on the above sources suggests to me that we are missing something fundamental.
   
  -The potential for overemphasis on bein adam lamakom mitzvos seems especially problematic when there is an emphasis on chumros, which tend to divide.  The topic of chumros is complex though, since chumros can also be a way of achieving unity.  For example, if one observes all the chumros of kashrus, anyone can eat at that person’s house – though the down side is that they won’t be able to eat at other’s houses much unless they maintain different standards for eating out.  
   
  -It seems to me that chumros bein adam lachavero are much less divisive, and in fact have a unifying force that chumros in conduct bein adam lamakom lack.   In fact the kashrus example seems more an indication that there is a bein adam lechavero aspect to kashrus rather than an illustration that chumros in mitzvos bein adam lamokom have a unifying force.  The essence of accepting a chumra on oneself regarding bein adam lechavero conduct is to restrict oneself and in doing so to give more latitude to others.  By contrast, accepting a chumra in conduct bein adam lemakom is either neutral with respect to one’s expectation of others, or more demanding as one would implicitly tend to expect the same conduct of others. 
   
  -Of course it is important to approach this issue in a constructive and positive way that does not use it as a stick for beating other parts of the community that may be seen as more blameworthy on this analysis.  (See reference to Netziv in R. Willig’s article.)
   
  Michael Orr
   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080804/08258ecb/attachment-0001.htm>