|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
רבני שו"ת מורשת |
|
|
|
הרב אישון שלמה
מסחר וצרכנות כהלכה
|
|
|
הרב אלנקווה יוסף
כללי וטיפול בחרדה, חינוך ילדים ודיני אבלות
|
|
|
מר גלברד שמואל
טעמי המנהגים ומקורותיהן
|
|
|
הרב לאו דוד
שאלות הלכתיות
|
|
|
הרב ערוסי רצון
משפט התורה, משנת הרמב``ם ושאלות הלכתיות
|
|
|
הרב עמית קולא
הלכה ומחשבה
|
|
|
הרב אברהם יוסף
שאלות בהלכה, הלכות שבת וחג.
|
|
|
הרב שרלו יובל
שאלות בהלכה; מחשבה ומשנת הציונות הדתית
|
|
|
מכון התורה והארץ
מצוות התלויות בארץ
|
|
|
רבני מכון פועה
גניקולוגיה ופוריות, טהרת המשפחה, חתנים
|
|
|
מכון עתים
ייעוץ ומידע במעגל החיים היהודי
|
|
|
מכון שלזינגר לרפואה והלכה
רפואה והלכה
|
|
|
מכון שילה
פסיכולוגיה קלינית-טיפול זוגי ומשפחתי, טיפול ב
|
|
|
הרב איר שמחוני
שלום בית, ייעוץ זוגי, הורות
|
|
|
הרב ברוך אפרתי
הלכות צבא וסוגיות אזרחיות
|
|
|
הרב משולמי כתריאל
מודעות והגשמה עצמית
|
|
|
הרב יעקב רוז`ה
אבלות, זיהוי חללים והתרת עגונות
|
|
|
אמונה
|
|
|
הלכה בתחום הצבאי, שבת ומועדים וטהרת המשפחה
|
|
|
בריתות
|
|
|
הרב ראובן בר-כץ
זוגיות, קשיים בחיי הזוגיות והאישות
|
|
|
רבני דרך אמונה
הלכות מדינה, משנת הרב קוק, משנת הציונות הדתית
|
|
|
רבני מכון משפטי ארץ
דיני ממונות
|
|
|
הרב שמעון בן שעיה
גישור כהלכה - זוגיות, שלו``ב, גירושין, אישות
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RRBBMMTranslated by Moshe Goldberg, HaifaBBMMRR
|
|
|
Yehoshua in Confrontation As Opposed to Kalev, Who Seems to Compromise - by Zvulun Orlev, MK
(
/Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, Dean of tגיליון
39
פרשת
שלח
, Point of View
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the difficult affair of the "Sin of the Scouts," one important element is the outspoken positions taken by Yehoshua Bin Nun and Kalev Ben Yefuneh, who clearly oppose the opinions of the other scouts. This is unusual in that common experience shows that people tend to join the majority opinion and to avoid opinions which cause controversy, even if they are correct in an absolute sense. Most people do not argue with the majority opinion. Yehoshua and Kalev did not act in this way. They courageously dared to state their opinions in public, even though they knew that nobody was ready to listen to them. They even put themselves into physical danger because of their views: "And the entire nation threatened to stone them" [Bamidbar 14:10].
Two Ways to Disagree with Those in Error
How did Yehoshua and Kalev guard against the thoughts of the other scouts and avoid being influenced by the majority? Weren't they afraid for their safety when they dared to openly defy the other leaders? Quoting Bamidbar Rabba, Rashi comments on the verse, "Moshe called Hoshaya Bin Nun Yehoshua" [13:16], "He prayed for him, Let G-d save you from the ideas of the scouts." The Chafetz Chaim asks: Why didn't Moshe also pray for Kalev? After all, he agreed with Yehoshua and was also exposed to the ideas of the scouts. His answer is that there are two ways to serve G-d when "the forces of error gain strength in the world." One way is to make loud and public declarations about the correct path, openly and courageously disagreeing with those who are wrong. Those who follow this approach do not make any compromises and they argue forcefully about important principles. The other approach is to remain silent while in the presence of those who are wrong, hiding one's true opinion, and not openly opposing their views. Only at the proper moment does such a person reveal his true opinion and refute the arguments of his opponents, when he sees an opportunity to win the dispute.
Both approaches have their benefits and their shortcomings. The Chafetz Chaim illustrates this with an example. A man who stands for a long time in a very cold place will eventually lose his internal body heat and die. This is like a person who holds back, waiting for the right moment. But if he fights openly for his faith, not only will his internal strength not cool down but his faith will become stronger. On the other hand, if he openly shows his true opinion at too early a stage, he might be injured by his opponents, including physical violence. However, while holding back in order to avoid open conflict might lead a person to become so weak that he will be forced to join the erroneous side, it has the advantage that the others will not try to harm him. Another advantage of this approach is that when the right moment comes he will be able to prove his opponents' error. The sudden revelation of his approach will help to convince the listeners.
Here is how the Chafetz Chaim explains the situation: Based on the holy inspiration of "Ruach Hakodesh," Moshe understood the personal traits of both Yehoshua and Kalev, and he chose the best path for each one to succeed in his mission while together with the scouts and their serious error. Yehoshua was best in the strong approach, that of open conflict with the sinners. Kalev, on the other hand, used the second approach of silence at first followed by a sudden surprising and convincing argument. And that is why only Yehoshua needed Moshe's prayer to save him from the ideas of the scouts – he was directly in danger of being harmed by the others.
In summary, the Chafetz Chaim says that both of the above paths are equally acceptable to the Almighty. A proof of this is the comment of the Tosefta that sometimes Yehoshua is mentioned before Kalev and sometimes Kalev is mentioned first. We might have thought at first glance that Yehoshua is greater than Kalev, since Moshe taught him the Torah and G-d chose him to replace Moshe as a leader. However, with respect to the proper way to react to a group of mistaken colleagues, both approaches are valid. Every person must act in the way that is best for his own personality, his skills, and his experience.
Yehoshua and Kalev in Modern Times
In many ways, the political dilemmas that face us today – mainly in our ability to influence the Jewish character of the country, the status of education, social values, and other matters – are similar to the dilemmas that faced Yehoshua and Kalev. A basic principle of the approach of religious Zionism is that we are closely linked to the general population, fully integrated into the institutions of the land in all walks of life, and that we share the responsibility for leading the country, even though we are dissatisfied with various aspects of the life here. How should we react? Should we use an approach of struggle which might increase the divisions or do we spend our time in discussions, attempts to reach a compromise, and a peaceful approach? Should we always try to be part of the coalition government – accepting compromise – in order to have an influence on the country, or would it be better to remain in the opposition where we can maintain a strong stand based on our principles, without any compromise?
Evidently the best approach is for every individual, every movement, every political party, and every community to act in a way that takes advantage of their strengths, traits, personality, and relative advantages. Every plan of action that is chosen should be treated with patience and tolerance. As the Chafetz Chaim wrote, "Both approaches are good and acceptable to the Almighty," as long as everything is done in the name of G-d.
|
|
|
|
|
|