<html>
<body>
<font size=3>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
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Zvi_Hoffmann%A0" eudora="autourl">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Zvi_Hoffmann </a> YL<br><br>
<div align="center">Chillul Hashem<br><br>
</div>
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 <s> </s>prohibition of
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>desecrating the name of God.
<br><br>
Whereas the sanctification of the Divine name is a duty </font>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. <br><br>
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." <br><br>
"Evasion of taxes is a desecration of the Divine
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>name~how
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>great is this
crime!</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>" <br><br>
</font>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
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>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. <br><br>
</i>We must be careful not to draw the conclusion that the term
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3><i>Chillul
Hashem</i></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3> applies
exclusively to actions that result in <i>public </i>"scanda1."
Our Sages teach in Aboth 4, 5: "Whoever desecrates the name of God
in <i>secret </i>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. </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>It
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>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.<br>
<br>
</font>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. <br><br>
Shortly before the destruction of the second Temple, the leaders who were
responsible for the edition of the Jewish law <s> </s>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 <font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>if
<s> </s></font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>the state indicated
its approval. An exception are heretics and </font>apostates. Their
crimes, according to the Sh. A., are still punishable by death. <br><br>
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. <br><br>
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 <font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>it
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>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. <br><br>
</font>In this connection <font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>it<b>
</b>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 <i>to protect the1tame of the Lord from
</font>desecration. </i><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>. . . it is
advisable to refrain from overtaxing the </font>Jew...." <br><br>
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. <br><br>
The following passage in the Talmud (Baba
M<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>ezia
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=3>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. ..." <br><br>
</font>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. </div>
</body>
<br>
</html>