Adeloyada:
Equating the Ukrainians with Amalek - Not!
with special guest Professor Boris Kogan of Touro College
Adeloyada:
Equating the Ukrainians with Amalek - Not!
with special guest Professor Boris Kogan of Touro College
Yotzer Ohr u'Borei Choshech
Rischa D'Araisa Season 4 Episode 20:
Mishteh V'Simchah Isn't Out of Bounds!
Super Soul Parties and Our Perushei HaMegillah Recommendations
https://jewishpodcasts.fm/yeshivaofnewark/32505
"Duh" Mah Lehashiv
Voicing and Venting over the lines of Jew and Gentile, Liberal and Conservative, and Man and Woman
https://jewishpodcasts.fm/yeshivaofnewark/32181
Relates in part to the post and comments at
http://rygb.blogspot.com/2022/02/lo-techanem-and-liberals.html
I received the email below from a talmida of mine from last year who is now in high school. My response follows her email.
Hi Rabbi Bechhofer,
Dear __, לאי"ט
It is very demoralizing that your teachers should feel it permissible to make such remarks, especially without any discussion or analysis. For every issue has two sides.
When I encounter attitudes such as the one expressed by your first teacher, what comes to mind immediately is what does he think about the righteous gentiles who saved Jews from the Holocaust? Suppose the tables were turned and non-Jews were being annihilated by some Jewish pseudo-Nazi group: Would he put his life on the line to be a "Righteous Jew " and save non-Jews? His line of thinking essentially compels him to answer in the negative. Of course, then every Polish, every Dutch, every Dane, every Belgian, every French, etc. individual who risked his or her life saving Jews would seem to be a fool. And those who did not risk their lives were totally justified. The Avenue of Righteous Gentiles at Yad Vashem might as well be called The Avenue of Foolish Gentiles…
Lo Techanem must be balanced by the essential character of Jews to be rachmanim, bayshanim and gomlei chasadim. The Meiri (one of the greatest Rishonim) writes that it does not apply to a non-Jew who is your friend, acquaintance and neighbor. But he also writes that it does not apply. He adds more. אבל אם היה שכנו או חברו מותר שהוא כמוכרן לו הא כל שהוא מן האומות הגדורות בדרכי הדתות ושמודות באלהות אין ספק שאף בשאין מכירו מותר וראוי וכבר אמרו שולח אדם ירך לנכרי. "...Any non-Jew who is from the nations that follow the parameters of [civilized] religions and believe in the Divinity, there is no doubt that even if you are not acquainted with the non-Jew, it is permitted and appropriate [to bestow gifts upon him], as Chazal have said, a person may send a cut of meat to a non-Jews..." (Meiri, Avodah Zarah 20a and numerous other places).
There are numerous later sources that follow
along the same lines in regard to various similar halachos.
For example, the Be'er HaGolah (one of the great poskim,
the great-grandfather of the Vilna Gaon) writes in Choshen
Misphat 266:
וממה שכתב הרמב"ם הטעם מפני שהוא מחזיק ידי רשעי עולם, נלענ"ד דס"ל
דלא אמר
רב בסנהדרין אלא בעכו"ם עובדי כוכבים ומזלות, ולא בעכו"ם שבזמן
הזה, שמודים
בבורא עולם ונימוסיהם להחזיר אבידה.
and in 425:
שלא אמרו חז"ל דבר זה אלא על העכו"ם שהיו בזמניהם, שהיו עובדי
כוכבים ומזלות,
ולא היו מאמינים ביציאת מצרים ובחידוש העולם. אבל אלו הגויים אשר
אנחנו האומה
הישראלית חוסים בצלם ומפוזרים ביניהם, הם מאמינים בחידוש העולם
וביציאת
מצרים ובעיקרי הדת, וכל כוונתם לעושה שמים וארץ, כמ"ש הפוסקים
והביאו הרמ"א
באו"ח סי' קכו בהג"ה ... אנו מחוייבים להתפלל לשלומם.
Rav Kook writes in אגרות ראי"ה, איגרת פט:
העיקר הוא כדעת המאירי שכל העמים שהם גדורים בנימוסים הגונים בין
אדם לחברו
הם כבר נחשבים לגרים תושבים בכל חיובי אדם.
That the opinion of the Meiri is the primary one.
I am reminded of Rabbi Aryeh Levin as described in A Tzaddik in Our Time:
And, similarly, what Rabbi Frand relates about Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky:
Rabbi Kamenetsky relates that a family member of his, Rabbi Tzvi Kamenetsky, was trying to get in touch with a friend who was staying at the Carribean Hotel in Miami Beach. Rabbi Tzvi Kamenetsky called the front desk and asked to speak to such and such a person. The operator rang the room and there was no answer. She then asked if he wanted to leave a message. He said, “Please tell so and so that Rabbi Kamenetsky called.” The operator (who sounded like an elderly black Southern matron) said to him, “Rabbi Kamenetsky? Are you related to the famous Rabbi Kamenetsky?” He responded, “Yes he was my grandfather.” She answered back, “He was your grandpa! He was a good friend of mine, Rabbi Kamenetsky!”
She went on to explain that when Rabbi (Yaakov) Kamenetsky
came to the hotel, he gave “some kind of Bible class” every
morning in the lobby of the hotel. “Every single morning
before he gave the class, he would come by my desk, give me a
nod, and say ‘Good morning!’. When he finished the class he
would walk by my desk again and say ‘Have a good day!’ That
Rabbi Kamenetsky, he was a great rabbi, but he was a great
MAN!”
This is the same Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky that we have mentioned
in the past who always used to greet the nun who walked the
streets of Monsey. He used to say hello to her as well. One
does need to be the genius that Rav Yaakov was, one does not
have to be the proficient expert in Shas that Rav Yaakov was,
the great and clever intellect that Rav Yaakov was. One merely
needs to try to be the mensch that Rav Yaakov was.
https://torah.org/torah-portion/ravfrand-5767-yisro/
These actions of Reb Aryeh Levin and Reb
Yaakov could easily have been categorized as Lo Techanem.
After all, some say that to bless a non-Jew is to give him חן
and therefore included in the prohibition. They could very
easily have been "machmir."
However, Mussar teaches us that
except under extraordinary circumstances, the paramount values
of middos tovos must guide our behavior and illuminate
our pathways. Accordingly, in matters of bein adam l'chavero
the "chumrah" is to treat everyone possible
(excluding, as the Meiri notes, wicked people, of course), as
tzelem elokim and worthy of matanos
chinom. To do otherwise would be to "develop" our
tendencies to callousness, pettiness, and even cruelty.
As to what Rabbi __ said, it is really a tautology (a statement in which the conclusion is equivalent to the premise). If you define "liberal" as "evil," it goes without saying that all liberals are evil. He also goes on to say that liberals are, by definition, "corrupt, communist, anti-religion, and in essence just bad." So, if we find a "liberal" who is not corrupt, not communist, pro-religion or in essence not just bad," we would be compelled to say he is not a liberal!
Moreover, clearly there are many non-liberals who were far more wicked that your average liberal. Indeed, to be truly evil you must truly be illiberal (see Hitler and Stalin).
Looking to Wikipedia, we see two definitions of Liberalism that don't sound very evil at all:
In 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt defined a
liberal party in the following terms:
The liberal party believes that, as new conditions and
problems arise beyond the power of men and women to meet as
individuals, it becomes the duty of the Government itself to
find new remedies with which to meet them. The liberal party
insists that the Government has the definite duty to use all
its power and resources to meet new social problems with new
social controls—to ensure to the average person the right to
his own economic and political life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.
In 1960, John F. Kennedy defined a liberal as follows:
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the
label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want
people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad,
who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with
the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its
members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal."
But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and
not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid
reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the
people—their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs,
their civil rights, and their civil liberties—someone who
believes that we can break through the stalemate and
suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is
what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm
a "Liberal."
So who are the "Liberals" who, by definition, are evil? I assume he doesn't mean people who support gun control and universal health insurance, or are against tax-cuts for the rich. I assume he means people who support abortion and homosexual rights/marriage and more lenient treatment of criminals. Perhaps he also included people who advocate for women's rights and better treatment of minorities.
I think, however, that even such people (remember, since he didn't give us a real definition, I am only guessing what he meant) are very often not evil but misguided or wrong. "Evil" implies a deliberate attempt to deprive others of life, liberty or happiness for the purpose of one's own non-ethical goals and aspirations - which are usually grounded in the quests for fame, power, excesses and material pleasures. I don't think all, or even most, liberals are motivated by such evil motives. They are more often than not quite altruistic. But without Torah, they lack guidance as to how to channel that altruism properly. To be sure, there are evil liberals - but there are also evil conservatives. Most Americans basically want to be good people. Unfortunately, many of them don't have guidance as to how to go about it.
I hope these thoughts are helpful, please ask me to clarify whatever is unclear, and pose questions that you have on what I have written!
Sincerely yours,
בברכת התורה
יג"ב
Rischa D'Araisa Season 4 Episode 17:
Kavei Chochmoh:
Palmistry, Astrology
and Rashi Impostors