I have a family member who made me really upset right after Ariel Sharon's terrible aneurism/stroke. He said that he thought HaSh-m was punishing him for giving up the West Bank.
I was really angry because I had been praying for Sharon's recovery all day, and I felt his comment was cruel and out of line.

Then he brought up other rulers in biblical times that received punishments for doing things that were not sanctioned by G-d. This family member (who happens to be my brother, David) also reminded me of how I was weeping and weeping all week long during the heart-wrenching removal of the last Jewish people holed up in the synagogue there. Then my brother shrugged and said "you can't have it both ways".
WHile my brother can be tactless and is sometimes flat out WRONG on things, on this, I had to take a step back. Is he right? Is it impossible to mourn both things?

Shalom,
Yocheved

It is definitely Kosher to mourn both. We have no prophets to tell us if what he did was the best thing or not. However one thing is certain. Ariel Sharon spent his life defending and protecting the State Of Israel and for that we all owe him a great deal of gratitude and feelings of sadness over his condition is proper.

It is sad that we have not the voices of discernment of old...
but I am glad that my mourning is appropriate, for I am deeply sorrowful over both situations.
Thankyou.

Quote "However one thing is certain. Ariel Sharon spent his life defending and protecting the State Of Israel and for that we all owe him a great deal of gratitude and feelings of sadness over his condition is proper."

I'm not so sure. Even if someone did something benificial for people, but they had not the best intentions, are we supposed to have gratitude for tehm.

The Gemara in Shabbos 33b says (and is paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf)


R. Yehudah, R. Yosi, R. Shimon and Yehudah ben Gerim were sitting together.

1. R. Yehudah: This kingdom (Romi) has done great deeds - they established markets, bridges and bathhouses!

2. R. Yosi was silent.

3. R. Shimon: Everything they did was for themselves!

They established markets to seat harlots [to take revenue from them], they established bathhouses for their pleasure, they established bridges to collect taxes! (Avodah Zarah 2B - this is Hashem's rebuttal of Nochrim who will request reward in the future. Maharsha - R. Yehudah agrees with R. Shimon, just he was careful not to say so lest the kingdom find out.)
See the Gemara in Avodah Zara there that also drives home this point.

It was in the news shortly before last summer's expolsion, how a group of kabbalists did a Pulsa du Nora (Liturgy to call for the death of someone) prior to the expulsion of Jews from their homes. Is there a kesher between what they did and Sharon's current state? Were they right in what they did? Is there any legitamacy (sp?) to this whole thing?

Just looking for answeres.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rav Chaim:

I'm not so sure. Even if someone did something benificial for people, but they had not the best intentions, are we supposed to have gratitude for tehm.

Why should we assume that Sharon did not have the good of the Jewish people as his inerest?

Secondly are we not to have Hakoras Hatov to people despite their intent,as we are to show the Egyptians who certainly did not have our benefit in mind?

quote:

Originally posted by Rabbi Y. Kacev:
Secondly are we not to have Hakoras Hatov to people despite their intent,as we are to show the Egyptians who certainly did not have our benefit in mind?

The Chovas HaLevavos writes that it is simple logic that Hakoras HaTov depends only on intent. If someone wanted to do a favor but was unable to we must give Hakoras HaTov, while if someone did a favor without intent there is no obligation.
I have asked a number of Roshei Yeshiva a question similar to yours, but never received a fully satisfactory answer. However, the general consensus was to accept the logic of the Chovas HaLevavos.

quote:

However, the general consensus was to accept the logic of the Chovas HaLevavos.

Whose consensus is this?

quote:

Originally posted by Rabbi Y. Kacev:

quote:

However, the general consensus was to accept the logic of the Chovas HaLevavos.

Whose consensus is this?

Presumably the Roshei Yeshiva he spoke to.

I don't think it is appropriate to equate Ariel Sharon's life to those of heathen nations collecting taxes and establishig houses of ill repute.

As for the situation of INTENT over ACTIONS, I was taught precisely the opposite by one of my Rabbis. He used teh analogy of Dr. Heart vs. Dr. Mind, and Dr. Heart INTENDS to give freely daily, but really only gives free Tzedakah treatments to the poor when he feels like it (when his heart is in the mood). Whereas Dr. Mind gives daily to the poor whether he feels like it or not, because it is the training of his mind to do the right thing regardless his emotions. So the lesson is that intentions don't help the sick get well, only actions do.

Quote "Why should we assume that Sharon did not have the good of the Jewish people as his interest?"

For one, he doesn't have any Chezkas Kashrus, and there is no obligation to Dan him L'Kaf Z'Chus. In my assessment, his fighting was done to promote a secular Zionist state, which would be characteristically of those leaders of that time, and since there is nothing to tell me otherwise, Hamotzie M'Chavero Aluv Haraya. You would need to prove that his intentions was to make a non political safe haven for Jews in order to meet the requirements to be obligated to have Hakaras Hatov to them.


Quote "Secondly are we not to have Hakoras Hatov to people despite their intent,as we are to show the Egyptians who certainly did not have our benefit in mind?"

There is a major difference to the two cases. The Egyptians, by accepting Yaakov and his children into the land, they were directly with intent to benefit the Jews. We don't have to go to alternative motives, then we'll never have Hakaras Hatov. The act itself was intended to help the Jews.

This is not to be confused with our issue, that someone does something for themselves or to help others, while you are just a standby recipient of the act. Like the Gemarah in Shabbos and AZ where the Romans (and other nations) were doing acts to benefit themselves, while Jews Agav also gained by it. Since the intent was not to help the Jews, then they don't need to have any Hakaras Hatov for it. Same too to the Secular Zionist leaders, since their intent (unless we see Mifairush it's Muchacha Milsa that any particular person's intent was to make unpolitically a safe haven for Jews) was to create a secular Zionist state, and the Torah and the Torah Jew was a standby Agav recipient of the good that came out, then we need not to have Hakaras Hatov.

It would be similar to the rules of Amirah L'Akum. In all cases, the Goy does for his own reasons (Adatah D'Nafshai.) But if he does it do benefit the Jew, then it can't use it on Shabbos, since it's considered as done for a Jew. If it was done for himself or other Goyim, and the Jews just have a benefit Agav, since the light can be used by many people, then we don't consider the Malacha done for a Jew and is permitted to derive pleasure from it.

Quote "I don't think it is appropriate to equate Ariel Sharon's life to those of heathen nations collecting taxes and establishig houses of ill repute."

That was not the point. The point was that in order to be able to claim that someone has done someone a favor, he must have intent to do it for them, not being a side benefactor because of the circumstance. This is learnt from that Gemarah, since the intent (whatever it might be) was not to help the Jews, so they can't take credit for helping them.

Quote "As for the situation of INTENT over ACTIONS, I was taught precisely the opposite by one of my Rabbis."

This is not what we're dealing with. You're talking about intent without action. We're talking about action without intent. So what you need both, intent and action.

This then begs the question - If Ariel Sharon is punished for his wrong doing so swiftly, what about those who do more wrong then him and have no (visible) retribution for their aveirah's ? Obviously we CANNOT even have an ounce of understanding as to Hashems doings and therefore it is irresponsible to pin Ariel Sharons condition to the situation in Israel.

quote:

Quote "As for the situation of INTENT over ACTIONS, I was taught precisely the opposite by one of my Rabbis."

This is not what we're dealing with. You're talking about intent without action. We're talking about action without intent. So what you need both, intent and action.

THAT is very clarifying, thankyou for that point.

I still don't think the question of his intents is as clear as you say. Even if his intent was only to establish a secular state of Yisrael...he was still trying to establish YISRAEL. Not India, not Iran, but Yisrael. What about what Hashem said about blessing those who bless us and cursing those who curse us?

Don't misunderstand, I am as distressed about Yisrael being secular as any other religious Jew would be. But at least we have Yisrael, and mourning the loss of a leader who fought to establish it seems appropriate. I didn't mourn Arafat!

We CAN prove what Sharon DID DO (shortcomings included) but I think that it would be impossible to prove that his motives were SOLELY for selfish reasons. Am I Hash-m, that I can see into men's hearts? That burden rests with the prosecution, in my opinion.

QUOTE
For one, he doesn't have any Chezkas Kashrus, and there is no obligation to Dan him L'Kaf Z'Chus. In my assessment, his fighting was done to promote a secular Zionist state, which would be characteristically of those leaders of that time, and since there is nothing to tell me otherwise, Hamotzie M'Chavero Aluv Haraya. You would need to prove that his intentions was to make a non political safe haven for Jews in order to meet the requirements to be obligated to have Hakaras Hatov to them.(QUOTE)

RESPONSE:
I am in complete disagreement with this. Sharon was a General after the state was created. He was not fighting to create a state, he was fighting to defend the state from attack by hostile Arabs who had intent on driving the Jews into the sea. His intent was on saving Jews! Are you saying his intent on saving klal Yisroel was only on the condition that they remain part of a secular state? Otherwise he would have just sat by and let them be annihilated. That is plain nonsense! Every Jew who survived owes him hakores hatov for saving their lives!People who deny him this because they allow their political biases to get in the way, will have to answer for their lack of gratitude!

I have also never understood the rants of those who say we own no hakoros hatov to the Israeli government because it is secular. What about all the Torah and mitzvos that is flourishing because of the state they created? Can you say we are doing it despite them? Has the government not supported them for years so they can sit and learn? Have they not exempted them from the army so they can sit and learn ? This also was not done with good intentions? This TOO we need show no gratitude for????

I likewise feel we owe him a debt of gratitude, and that mourning him is proper. HaSh-m knows--he has done far more for Yisrael than I! (sadly)

Other than raising observant children, that is. On that account, I have done much. I'm not privvy to his family situation nor how observantly he raised them.

Quote "I am in complete disagreement with this. Sharon was a General after the state was created. He was not fighting to create a state, he was fighting to defend the state from attack by hostile Arabs who had intent on driving the Jews into the sea. His intent was on saving Jews! Are you saying his intent on saving klal Yisroel was only on the condition that they remain part of a secular state?"

I don't see how this helps your position at all. Even if he was promoted to general only after the creation of the state, he could still be fighting to SAVE THE STATE and not to save individual Jews. We have NO PROOF otherwise, and we have no reason to say otherwise. If there was no state of Israel, would he organize bands of armies to save Jews from perils all over the world? I don't see it.

Quote "That is plain nonsense!"

I could agree with this statement depending on which part of your statement one would read it on

Quote "People who deny him this because they allow their political biases to get in the way, will have to answer for their lack of gratitude!"

I don't think the answer would be too hard, especially "up there" they don't have some other political bias getting in their way.

Quote "What about all the Torah and mitzvos that is flourishing because of the state they created?"

I can't believe you're asking me this when this was my whole point and proof from the Gemarah in Shabbos. Just because you may be a side benefactor the person is not given credit for it. My whole existence is due to Hitler. If it wasn't for him, my grandparents would have never met, nor my parents (since my father's family was in America by the turn of the century.) Am I supposed to have gratitude to him for my existence? (the double standard could only come from political biases.)

Every point that you brought up is not living in reality. Ben Gurion did not make the "status quo" because of the goodness of his heart and respect for Judaism. He felt that it could only last another generation and after that everyone would be secular (similarly to what was happening in America.) His daughter, I heard, called this his biggest mistake. But don't insult our intelligence to say that their intent was to help the Yeshivos produce generations of G-d fearing Jews and produce Torah scholars.