Strife is explicitly forbidden by Torah law. Velo yihyeh keKorach? How are you fulfilling that by disregarding the authority of Chazal to promulgate ordinances?
Isn't it Pinchas that killed Zimri in an act of ULTIMATE peace? STRIFE is never standing up for what is Emes and is not a Chillul Hahsem rather a Kiddush Hashem
It is the silence of the Chachomim that didn't want to make "strife" that lead to tbe Churban Beis Hamikdash. Sometimes "strife" in the short term prevent much upheaval and downfall in the future. Obviously it needs Daas Torah and Mesorah when and when not to engage in "strife" Lisheim Shomayim.
Also on this topicwe find the name of Hashem is erased for Shalom with a Sota, yet we also see Moshe divorced his wife to receive Nevuah at all times. When things are vital to the continuum of Klal Yisroel it IS shalom to make פירוד.
... and "Emes" doesn't mean a concept that corresponds to reality, but being in accordance with Hashem's Will?
I've seen such ideas before, and in noted sefarim. BUT I do not like such transvaluation of terms. You're trying to make a point by intentionally muddying the language. It is taking a term that already has connotations and associations, redefining the term, but trying to keep those connotations and associations -- without ever proving it's justified given the new definition.
I would prefer to speak about cases where Shalom is a higher value than Emes. Much more clean than eliminating any possibility of talking about "That which corresponds to reality" because you stole the word that used to refer to that idea. Much less 1984 NewSpeak.
Similarly, in your case, perhaps there are times when qiddush hasheim trumps shalom. (Eg: We erase Hashem's name for the sake of shalom bayis, for a sotah.) I think it's more that there are times when shalom in the long term trumps the short-term -- and its pursuit would be a qiddush hashem.
Strife is explicitly forbidden by Torah law. Velo yihyeh keKorach? How are you fulfilling that by disregarding the authority of Chazal to promulgate ordinances?
ReplyDelete:-)
Deletecan we find out where this is from?
ReplyDeleteAs RYGB wrote, it's from R Dov Katz's Tenu'as haMussar. More details: R/Dr Leonard Oschry's translation of vol I, titled The Mussar Movement.
DeleteAwesome
ReplyDeleteIsn't it Pinchas that killed Zimri in an act of ULTIMATE peace? STRIFE is never standing up for what is Emes and is not a Chillul Hahsem rather a Kiddush Hashem
ReplyDeleteIt is the silence of the Chachomim that didn't want to make "strife" that lead to tbe Churban Beis Hamikdash. Sometimes "strife" in the short term prevent much upheaval and downfall in the future. Obviously it needs Daas Torah and Mesorah when and when not to engage in "strife" Lisheim Shomayim.
Also on this topicwe find the name of Hashem is erased for Shalom with a Sota, yet we also see Moshe divorced his wife to receive Nevuah at all times. When things are vital to the continuum of Klal Yisroel it IS shalom to make פירוד.
... and "Emes" doesn't mean a concept that corresponds to reality, but being in accordance with Hashem's Will?
DeleteI've seen such ideas before, and in noted sefarim. BUT I do not like such transvaluation of terms. You're trying to make a point by intentionally muddying the language. It is taking a term that already has connotations and associations, redefining the term, but trying to keep those connotations and associations -- without ever proving it's justified given the new definition.
I would prefer to speak about cases where Shalom is a higher value than Emes. Much more clean than eliminating any possibility of talking about "That which corresponds to reality" because you stole the word that used to refer to that idea. Much less 1984 NewSpeak.
Similarly, in your case, perhaps there are times when qiddush hasheim trumps shalom. (Eg: We erase Hashem's name for the sake of shalom bayis, for a sotah.) I think it's more that there are times when shalom in the long term trumps the short-term -- and its pursuit would be a qiddush hashem.
Nothing really to add!
Delete