[Avodah] Chillul Hashem

[Prof. Levine]

The following is from Rabbi Dr. David Tzvi Hoffman's essay PROBLEMS 
OF THE DIASPORA IN THE SHULCHAN ARUCH that is printed in Fundamentals 
of Judaism.  For information on Rabbiner Hoffman see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Zvi_Hoffmann  YL

Chillul Hashem

While the law to sanctify the Divine name calls on us to practice 
justice and love towards all men, regardless of their creed, there 
exists an even stronger motive to restrain every Jew in whose heart 
still lives a spark of his faith from mistreating his non-Jewish 
fellowmen in any manner. We refer to the  prohibition of desecrating 
the name of God.

Whereas the sanctification of the Divine name is a duty which we must 
strive to perform at all occasions, the contrasting action of the 
desecration of the Divine name constitutes the worst possible crime 
against Judaism, a crime that must be prevented with the combined 
force of the individual and the community.

Concerning the deplorable tendency to evade payment of taxes, R. 
Bechai ben Asher ("Kad hakemach") has this to say: "The profanation 
of the Divine name is a crime which may be erased neither by 
repentance nor by physical suffering. For, thus our Sages taught 
(Yoma 66): who transgresses a law will be forgiven at once by 
repentance and the Day of Atonement. Deadly sins may be atoned for by 
repentance, the Day of Atonement and physical suffering. Desecration 
of the Divine name, however, can be forgiven only by death."

"Evasion of taxes is a desecration of the Divine name~how great is 
this crime!"

Hundreds of admonitions such as these may be found in the Jewish 
religious law. All designate "Chillul Hashem" as the worst crime that 
a Jew can commit. All commentators agree that any action performed by 
a Jew that serves to falsify, disparage and ridicule the Jewish 
religion in the eyes of the world constitutes a desecration of the 
Divine name.

We must be careful not to draw the conclusion that the term Chillul 
Hashem applies exclusively to actions that result in public 
"scanda1." Our Sages teach in Aboth 4, 5: "Whoever desecrates the 
name of God in secret will be publicly punished ...." Even in the 
remotest corner of the world we must not treat a single non-Jewish 
individual in a manner that might cause defamation of the Jewish 
religion. It matters little whether the non-Jew would ever voice his 
indignation publicly or not. We must work to erase prejudice towards 
Judaism in the mind of every single individual, however low his station.

There can be no doubt that a number of rules in the Shulchan Aruch, 
the practice of which would be frowned upon today as a possible 
defamation of the Divine name, were welcomed by the non-Jewish world 
of medieval times. As an example we refer to a ruling of the Sh. A. 
which must have found critical acclaim in the 16th century but which 
today this same Sh. A. would surely consider a step in the direction 
of a Chillul Hashem.

Shortly before the destruction of the second Temple, the leaders who 
were responsible for the edition of the Jewish law  saw fit to 
abolish the death penalty. Since then no Jewish court as a rule had 
the power to decree a sentence of death even if  the state indicated 
its approval. An exception are heretics and apostates. Their crimes, 
according to the Sh. A., are still punishable by death.

The Sh. A. was codified at a time when heretics and apostates were 
most cruelly persecuted by the Christians. Thus, the Jewish attitude 
towards heretics must have found the wholehearted approval of the 
non-Jewish world. On the contrary, a more conciliatory treatment of 
the heretics would have been branded as being godless and 
irreligious, unworthy of the Jewish rabbis.

We are firmly convinced that the Sh. A. would have strictly 
prohibited the persecution of heretics and apostates because of a 
possible Chillul Hashem, were it not for the fact that the principles 
of tolerance and religious freedom found few followers in medieval 
times. Nowadays, when a majority of the civilized countries upholds 
the principle of tolerance as a basic concept of democracy, the 
execution of the Sh. A.-paragraph concerning the heretics and 
apostates would constitute a major injury to the Jewish religion, a 
veritable Chillul Hashem.

In this connection it is noteworthy that the idea of the "desecration 
of the Divine name" also motivates Christian thinking. When Thomas of 
Aquino was asked whether it was permissible to confiscate the 
property of the Jews, he replied as follows: "By their own guilt the 
Jews are condemned to eternal slavery. Hence their masters are 
entitled to take possession of their property at any time. However, 
since even those outside the Church must be treated decently in order 
to protect the1tame of the Lord from desecration. . . . it is 
advisable to refrain from overtaxing the Jew...."

There is no point in criticizing the famous saint for condemning the 
Jews to eternal slavery. His views are in accord with the beliefs of 
his time and it would be unjust to judge a medieval teacher of 
religious doctrine by modern conceptions of tolerance and equality. 
Rather, we are grateful to Thomas of Aquino for  formulating a 
principle which not only is essentially Jewish but should serve as a 
warning signal for the modern Antisemite.

The following passage in the Talmud (Baba Mezia II) clearly indicates 
the importance of practicing greater restraint towards the non-Jew 
than towards the Jew in order to avoid a Chillul Hashem. "A worker 
who is hired by a non-Jew to gather in the grapes must refrain from 
partaking of the fruit except when the master's custom permits it. 
Although the Jewish law permits the worker to eat of the fruit while 
reaping the harvest, this ruling is suspended in the case when the 
master is a non-Jew who has no knowledge of the Jewish law and must 
necessarily look upon the Jew as a thief. ..."

The prohibition of a Chillul Hashem, considered by Jewish teaching as 
the most severe religious crime, entails the duty to treat the 
non-Jew with infinitely greater restraint than the Jew whenever rules 
are concerned which the law of the state or the general concept of 
ethics accept as unjust. This prohibition neutralizes every rule of 
the Sh. A. involving non-Jews and idol-worshippers, as long as they 
are certain to be rejected by the current concepts of justice and morale.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120916/53072c1f/attachment.htm>