<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;" dir="ltr">
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">I've been trying to work out what I think is a basic question in hilchos chilul hashem. </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">The gemara in Yuma 86a , says that someone who learns Torah and interacts positively with people is mekadesh H', darshened from the pasuk 'V'ahavta es H' Elokecha' - 'You should cause others to love Hashem'. Conversely
someone who learns Torah but interacts negatively with people (without transgressing mitzvos technically) is mechallel H'. Rashi indicates this gemara refers to an 'adam chashuv', who is known for his Torah learning'. </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Rambam in H' Yesodei HaTorah 5:11 paskens this as 'additional ways to be mechalel H'' having dealt with doing the big 3 aveiros in private and public. He clearly learns that it refers to a well known Torah scholar who
behaves badly but within technical halacha and in doing so causes people to complain about his behaviour. Of note, he doesn't mention the gemara's drasha in V'ahavta Es Hashem as the source for this. </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Here's the question. Common parlance in English speaking circles is to assume that any behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew which would be considered negative by onlookers is a chillul Hashem. That fits the gemara's
implication that anything that causes Hashem to be 'not loved' by a Torah-learning Jew. It doesn't, however, fit the Rambam's and probably Rashi's, understanding that this gemara only applies to well known scholars. </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">The question is emphasised by what seems to be a general absence of that assumption in Israeli circles, where antisocial behaviour per se by identifiably frum Jews is not considered to be a problem by most people as far
as I can discern. </p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">So, the question in a nutshell, is antisocial behaviour by an identifiably frum Jew under the chillul Hashem category of Yoma 86 if he's not a chacham meforsam? If not, why not, given the effect on how onlookers will
perceive Torah as a result, which seems to be the gemara's underlying reasoning for the categorisation as chillul Hashem?</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br>
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>