Audio Roundup CIII
by Joel Rich
Question: As a general rule, does the end justify the means in Judaism? Either way, please cite at least two exceptions (the more the merrier) to your general rule and explain the underlying reason for the exception.
Esther had to be willing (was required) to give her life to defeat the enemy because the whole community was at risk.
Analysis of the give and take between Mordechai and Esther – 1) You aren’t the only one who could do it; 2) The moment may pass; 3) Understand why you’re chosen (he was sure that hashgacha chose her) – there’s a common destiny – no individual is immune.
Interesting description of spontaneous acceptance of a holiday and how the walled city dwellers felt more secure – wrongly so!
Matanot l’evyonim reflects the solidarity of the Jewish people.
A convert must commit to joining Jewish destiny.
Calling the megillah a sefer focuses on past history, Iggeret focuses on message for future (e.g. Jewish unity).
Amalek as a philosophy (vs. race) quoted in the name of R’Chaim. Discussion of how Nazi Germany and communism fit in this characterization.
Kabbalistic – There’s a little of amalek in each of us, mitzvot are to defeat this tendency.
R’Sobolofsky on shuda d’daynei (judicial discretion). Interesting – he explains the Dvar Avraham as stating that hefker beit din (which according to some is the source of shuda) had Dina Dmalchuta as an outgrowth of it. I thought it’s the other way around??
Good practical halacha summary followed by some hashkafa (philosophy) based on (imho) R’YBS (whole aveilut yeshana thing) plus R’AW (all Jewish tzarot are one big tzarah – lack of beit hamikdash).
R’AL – do you know why we don’t paskin like the S”A by showers?
Sources on learning for $ (analyzed by Rambam (no) and Tashbetz (yes)) [R’DR – I never understood the tashbetz remark concerning the Rambam being an MD and thus had a biased view about making a living – assumedly the Rambam learned a profession to be consistent with his own opinion on the need to earn a livelihood?]
Reviews the practical problems with everyone learning all the time (e.g. mental health, fallacy of composition…). His take, only a few (with capability and desire) should be in Kollel full time (winnow out over time) and even they should give back to community.
See new kinot with R’YBS commentary (me – trust me, it’s worthwhile). Lesson here is to remember the individual. It’s sometimes easier to relate to the masses. In this lecture he ties this concept to holocaust survivors. Also, one of my favorite Kotzker’s – my version – Anyone can raise the dead, raising the living is the real challenge.
Women’s roles in society – Rules of vows indicate differences in current vs. past views.
What is it? You know it when you see it? Ecstatic, emotive, urgent…(me – different). Individual examples within Talmud pro and con and an attempt to reconcile conflicting sources.
Matchmaker, matchmaker make me a match. Can prayer impact your match or is it all “bashert”? Differing opinions (me – just be all you can be!)
First a general framework for understanding halachic commercial law, then specific Intellectual Property applications (historical case of printer’s typeset).
R’Aryeh discusses definition of shaving (giluach/hashchata definition) and electric shavers. Bottom line – don’t believe advertisements ( me – what? I’m shocked, shocked), must know real facts; is it process or results.
In U.S. most allow shavers, Israel, no.
Patriotism? Review of classical sources from highly positive to practical accommodation to highly negative. R’YBS on ger v’toshav (citizen and stranger) dialectic – where we have common cause, we work together, yet there will always be a gap.
Are the halachic statements on community relations a mitzvah/halacha or just good advice? Were halachic approaches over time impacted by local conditions?
I had hoped for a general discussion of internal inconsistencies; this is limited to mincha/maariv – d’avad kmar, etc. (what is the proper time for each prayer?). Some limud zchut (benefit of the doubt?) for common practices today.
Personal reflections from R’Taragin on R’Amital’s emotional connection to prayer (especially high holidays) and the people. No fake pretenses; his humility, creativity, sense of duty and “normalcy” will be missed.
A review of recent medical literature on the effects of fasting on pregnant women followed by a review of the Talmudic sources on the varying halachic forces of different fast days and requirements for fasting. Current opinions also surveyed.
Looking for a rational basis for all mitzvot versus just taking them as fiat (and some positions in between).
When encountering new ideas from other cultures, there are a few choices – accept (if they can fit within your pre-existing narrative), reject or modify. Here discussion of moslem philosophy and it’s interaction with Jewish philosophy.
R’Amital did not have a formal sh”ut sefer but answered many questions for Yeshivat Har Etzion –
1) Bringing sefer torah to where soldiers are praying (ok)
2) Counting Sabbath desecrators for a minyan (yes, except for narrow exclusion)
3) Benefitting from heater turned on in barracks on Shabbat by non religious (don’t have to leave)
4) Read megillah after plag but before Tzeit in army situation (ok if needed)
Also, some interesting response re: camp moshava
R’A Lichtenstein’s moving Hebrew eulogy for his “brother” R’Amital. Written English translation can be found here: link
Differing opinions on our role (if any) in expediting his arrival (me – praise the lord and pass the ammunition)
History of “Modern Orthodoxy” as a reaction to reform (R’Hirsch) – Torah and Culture? Torah and Parnassah? Torah and ?
Teaching children about the churban, sinat chinam et al – Some practical tips.
The end does not justify the means. One exception is to be able to mete out capital punishment to a meisis, we are allowed to plant witnesses behind a barrier, and it is learned from the gzeiras hakasuv “lo sachmol velo sechaseh alav.”
My rebbi zt”l used the phrase “hamatara lo mekadeshet et ha’emtzaiim” in his sefer Perach Mateh Ahron, but I don’t recall where.
Ends do not justify the means. One exception is all of the cases where lying is permitted (e.g. shalom bayis, stopping people from being embarressed, etc.)
If the end is avodat Hashem and doing his will, and the means are mitzvot haTorah, then isn’t your question irrelevant? There are however cases where the end and the means are identical/ For instance in limud torah the end is the mitzvah of limud, whether or not other goals are achieved such as the aquisition of knowledge. That is why there is schar psiyyot, in Judaism you get an “A” for effort.
If the end is avodat Hashem and doing his will, and the means are mitzvot haTorah, then isn’t your question irrelevant?
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Don’t think so but I suppose it is definitional – for example, what if I could be mekarev people by telling them lies that could not be uncovered?
KT
response to David:
What about doing the right thing at the wrong time? I don’t mean davening after zman tefila, but showing mercy to people who don’t deserve it? Yet chazal say if we are merachem on people who don’t deserve it, we will end up not showing mercy to those who deserve it.
There is a letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Sometimes we can follow the letter of the law and violate the spirit of the law (which is sometimes called being a naval birshus hatorah). Other times we can allow ourselves to be overtaken by the spirit and forget about the letter of the law.
Amplifying Joel’s response, we have a situation where we may have an ignoble deed for a greater end: can we have people be mechallel shabbos to see how to keep shabbos? It is a significant issue in Kiruv – can one invite someone who will drive on Shabos to see what experiencing a Shabbos meal is like? Some say yes. To them the end do justify the means. Others say we cannot let them do one aveira now. They hold the end cannot justify the means.
Joel – can your question be about “chateh sheyizkeh chaveircha” (see Shabbos 4a and Tosfos s.v. vechi there) – you do a small aveira to save your friend from a big aveira? That can be viewed where the end (preventing this guy from being chayav misas beis din) justifies the means (violating a small isur)?
Talmid,
that as well.
KT
Talmid- If someone shows mercy to someone who doesn’t deserve it he is not doing mitzvat Hashem (Shaul and the Amalekim). Naval b’rshut ha Torah isn’t a good example since the end is the persons own personal satisfaction. An example could be a “legal fiction” or ha’arama like mechirat chametz or hetter mechira. There is also “et la’asot lashem heferu toratecha. Chachamim basically annulled yibbum, amitzvah of the Torah because they were worried about the consequences.
Talmid- If someone shows mercy to someone who doesn’t deserve it he is not doing mitzvat Hashem (Shaul and the Amalekim). Naval b’rshut ha Torah isn’t a good example since the end is the persons own personal satisfaction. An example could be a “legal fiction” or ha’arama like mechirat chametz or hetter mechira. There is also “et la’asot lashem heferu toratecha. Chachamim basically annulled yibbum, amitzvah of the Torah because they were worried about the consequences.
Just for the record, the commenter “The Talmid” is NOT “talmid” who frequently posts. I think I had the name first but will stop posting under that name to avoid confusion.
To talmid-
Sorry about the confusion with the names, I’ve been using this moniker for over 18 months. After you posted I added another word to my posting name to reduce confusion, but with all of the commenting changes – I think 6 in the past 3 or 4 months – Haloscan, J-Kit, Disqus, back to J-Kit, back to Disqus, now on WordPress, the added name has not stuck. Sorry.
To David Tzohar -
Yibum is a bad example because we don’t fulfill the mitzvah by ignoring it – being passive, shev v’al taaseh. I thought the question – do the ends justify the means – is when the means is an action, not being passive.
Ha’aramah – I never thought of it this way, but I’m glad you mentioned it, it’s something to think about
Joel-Does not the sugya of Mitzvah HaBaah B’Averah as understood by Chazal and Rishonim discuss the issue of whether the end justifies the means both with respect to a Torah or Rabbinic based mitzvah or prohibition?