Parshas Vayishlach


"No, I did NOT say that you are a dog or should become one. I said
you'll have to work like a dog in order to win this competition."

When Yaacov said "I lived with Lavan" (Biraishis 32:5), Rashi comments
"and I did not learn from his evil deeds". Rav Elchonon Wasserman, quoting
his rebbe, the Chofetz Chaim, said that Yaacov was giving himself rebuke.
When Lavan did evil actions, he did them with enthusiasm and Yaacov was
rebuking himself, that when doing good deeds, he sometimes lacked
enthusiasm.

We can learn lessons from many people , but we must make sure to learn
the right lessons.

Have a great Shabbos !!

Rabbi Chaim Flom
_____________________________________________________________________

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rabbi Mitterhoff,

Dear Rabbi Flom,
The opening line was interesting and the message was great, but what was the connection?
Tzivy

Dear Tzivy,
Truth is, I was under pressure to get out the dvar Torah and was
contemplating changing the opening and/or closing line, but I'll tell you my
thoughts. Sometimes when we see or hear something that should inspire us, we
miss the point. I had in mind the following story. Once a discussion came up
about a very controversial person, and someone said that Rabbi X had
tremendous respect for the controversial person. It sounded fishy to me and I
asked Rabbi X. He told me that what he had said was "I wish I had as much
mesiras nefesh for Torah as he has for his schemes"!!
I hope this shed some light on the matter. Sorry it wasn't clear.
Rabbi Flom

Dear Rabbi Flom,
I'm sure that the story wasn't loshon hora,because you wouldn't do that, and it was an important hashkafa topic. Could you fill me in on the names and details of the story?
Tzivy

Rogofsky;
If the Rav tells you the names, couldn't it then lead to lashon hara?

Dear Moshe,
Her question assumed that if I was talking about it, it wasn't loshon hora,(I thank her for the "dan lekav zchus") but rather an area of hashkafa that could benefit others--which it really is, but for a variety of reasons, I can't.
Thanks.
Chaim Flom

Dear Tzivy,
Sorry but I can't.
Rabbi Flom

Since there is no beneficial reason to know the names, and it's the idea behind the story that really matters, knowing the names from a third source would make it Loshon Horah.

Dear Sam,
Her whole question was prefaced by an avoidance of loshon hora. However, I think that if it was of hashkafic importance it isn't loshon hora, because it is "toeles (benefit)"(I hope that someone has a better English spelling of that Hebrew word). For example, when Rav Yaacov Sasportas told his talmidim that Shabtai Zvi was NOT to be followed, that wasn't loshon hora when they told others. (Obviously,one must only say what their rebbe said without adding to it.) To the contrary, people in Jerusalem hadn't "heard" about Shabtai Zvi, and he was able to influence many people before he was found out. (Actually, by then it was too late, in a certain sense, because he already had a big following.)
Have a good Shabbos.
Rabbi Flom
Rabbi Flom

Dear Sam,
Her whole question was prefaced by an avoidance of loshon hora. However, I think that if it was of hashkafic importance it isn't loshon hora, because it is "toeles (benefit)"(I hope that someone has a better English spelling of that Hebrew word).Certainly,the ones who hear it can't add on to it and the one they heard it from has to be a reliable source For example, when Rav Yaacov Sasportas told his talmidim that Shabtai Zvi was NOT to be followed, that wasn't loshon hora when they told others. (Obviously,one must only say what their rebbe said without adding to it.) To the contrary, people in Jerusalem hadn't "heard" about Shabtai Zvi, and he was able to influence many people before he was found out. (Actually, by then it was too late, in a certain sense, because he already had a big following.)
Have a good Shabbos.
Rabbi Flom
Rabbi Flom

Funny I was just reading about Sabbatai Zevi. Is that the same person? The book says he was a manic-depressive type who at times would not keep Halacha. After he had followers he was thrown into jail and then given a choice- death or conversion to Islam. He didn't choose death. Was that wrong?

B"H
In Yemen, there were also periods where Jews were forced to either convert to Islam or die. Some chose death, while others converted. The Halacha says that any Jew who changes his religion is still considered a JEW, howbeit, Yehudi Mumar! He does not require any proselytization in order to return to Judaism. In Yemen, when the persecution passed away, Jews simply returned to their religion. Moreover, as far as Islam is concerned, I have often been told that that religion is not considered to be a religion of idolatry. So, in the case of Shabtai Zvi, he could have chosen conversion to Islam over death, unless of course he wanted to make himself a martyr under "Kiddush Ha-Shem." This is my humble opinion.
Sincerely,
David Ben-Abraham

Dear David Ben Avraham,
You are correct that Islam is not Avoda Zara. The Rambam says it explicitly in Hilchos Maacholos Asuros 11:7 & Teshuva 369.
However

quote:

he could have chosen conversion to Islam over death, unless of course he wanted to make himself a martyr under "Kiddush Ha-Shem."

is not so simple. It seems to be a contradiction in the Rambam. The Rambam says in Hilchos Yesodei Torah 5:4 that if one is not obligated to give up his life HE IS FORBIDDEN to do so. On the other hand in his Igerres Shmad (also known as Maamar Kiddush Hashem which was written to uplift the Morroccan Jews after they had gone thru a foced conversion period, and had been brutally ranked out by an unnamed rabbi for their living like Morrannos i.e. outwardly practicing Islam and keeping Mutzvos secretly)he says that those he gave up their lives did a good thing. I feel that really the Rambam held it IS forbidden, but since he was talking about people who had already done it, he didn't want to criticize them, especially in light of the aforementioned rabbi's criticism.
Take care.
Rabbi Flom

As David Ben-Abraham pointed out Islam isn't Avoda Zara. I am not sure however if his entire choice was convert or die. He was the Messiah in the eyes of MANY people. A big problem with that with the Turkish government was, the Messiah was the forunner of a Jewish kingdom in Israel which was under Turkish rule, which in essence signalled a Jewish rebellion against the Turks. The Turks didn't really want to kill him because that would have created a "big time" martyr. Had he just renounced being Messiah, he could have also spared his life. The reason that the whole thing was a shocker was, even if it was permitted to convert to Islam, HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE MESSIAH !!!! Of course,that really didn't stop some of his followers. They felt he did it to save the goyim!! Actually, for 125 years after he died, some Jews still felt he was the Messiah. About 26 years ago, a group of non-Jewish Turks wanted to become Israeli citizens under the "law of return" (an Israeli law granting automatic citizenship to all Jews) not because they were Jewish per se, but because they believed that Shabtai Zvi WAS the Messiah.
Take care.
Rabbi Flom

B"H
Rabbi Flom,
Thank-you for these very important clarifications. By the way, Rambam also wrote a letter to the Jews of Yemen, encouraging them to remain faithful to their religion and NOT to convert to Islam.
Sincerely,
David

Even though it’s true that only for Avodah Zarah (or killing and Arayos) that you are obligated to give up your life for in all cases. But when there is a Gezeras HaMalchus (decree from the king), then one must give his life for changing even his shoelaces. Even if it didn’t come from the king, but someone is threatening your life in order to brake you from your religion (which excludes when they just want it for their own pleasure) then you must give your life for it if it’s in front of 10 Jews. Even if Islam is not Avodah Zara, but it’s still Minus and Apikorsus, which it’s forbidden to agree to.

Nobody here is claiming to be a messiah, nor do we know of any messiahs. But I cannot help wondering if I am the "Very Controversial Person." It would have been indiscreet to call the person "she". If I am please let us know. In Judaism there is an exception to every rule, and I thought I am the exception. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Dear Rav Chaim,
Thanks for your response, but I would like to discuss two of your points.
1)"Even if it didn’t come from the king, but someone is threatening your life in order to brake you from your religion (which excludes when they just want it for their own pleasure) then you must give your life for it if it’s in front of 10 Jews." By Shabbtai Zvi, even though a simple level, having him convert is called "breaking the religion" as opposed to doing it "for his (the non-Jew's) own pleasure", I don't think that this is necessarily true.(I AM NOT saying that my way of understanding is the only way.) The only reason that the caliph wanted Shabbtai Zvi to convert was because if Moshiach was here, then the Jews would have to set up a kingdom in Israel, and the caliph wasn't happy about that.(The Turks ruled Israel.)Therefore I think it could be called "hanaas atzmo" (his own pleasure).
2)"Even if Islam is not Avodah Zara, but it’s still Minus and Apikorsus, which it’s forbidden to agree to." Although many Rishonim say this, the Rambam argues.i.e. The Ritva on Pesachim 25a&b and the Radvaz (Book 4 #92)say that "Minus & Apikosus" is tantamount to Avodah Zara ( and you would have to give up your life for it) because if you would accept mohammed as THE prophet, you're giving up the whole religion. The reason that the Ritva and the Radvaz spend so much effort proving this, is because this IS AGAINST the opinion of another Rishon, the Rambam. The Rambam says this in the beginning of his Iggerres Shmad. (Actually, I have a number of points that I don't understand in the Iggerres Shmad, but then again, there are tons of things I don't understand.) (If you can get a hold of the Sefer Zikaron for Rav Chaim Shmulevitz from Machon Moriah, Rav Yitzchok Setz has extensive footnotes on the Iggerres Shmad and in footnotes 7& 10 talks about this machlokes.Also, from the Radvaz & Ritva,you can see that there is something brewing beneath the surface. )
Take care.
Chaim Flom

It’s an interesting point you bring up. I think it depends on what is considered for their own use. I think that it means that the Goy only wants his own pleasure. He doesn’t care if he’s a Shomer Shabbos or not, as long as he gets his coffee etc. Over here, the Caliph is particular that he shouldn’t be a Shomer Shabbos or any other Mitzvah, but be completely Moslem. Though the cause of this could be because he didn’t want an uprising, but right now he wants him Davka not to be Jewish, so that can be considered as to remove him from his religion.

Dear Rav Chaim,
As I mentioned in my letter, I wouldn't say that my pshat (explanation) that Shabbtai Zvi was a case of "hanoas atzmo" (i.e. that the caliph did it for his own pleasure, as opposed to doing something for the sake of uprooting the religion)was the only way to learn. Using your example I'll show why I feel it is reasonable. When the non-Jew would tell me to boil coffee on Shabbos, even if he knows that it is forbidden for me to do it Shabbos, that isn't relevant to him: He's not doing it to have me violate Shabbos, he wants coffee!! Here too, the caliph didn't want Jews to clamor that Moshiach is here and say we need to take over Israel. Converting was the most compelling thing for him to have Shabbtai Zvi to do to show people that he WASN'T Moshiach. Therefore I feel it was "haoas atzmo".
Take care.
Chaim Flom