Page 81 - Tzurba M'Rabanan Volume1

ןנברמ אברוצ ׳ב הרז הדובע תוכלה · 79

questions that arise from these two Gemarot. Deah, Siman 254:1) defines the chillul Hashem as
First, is it really a problem for gentiles to do follows: “The nations of the world will say, ‘how
good deeds and receive merit for it? Surely this despicable is the nation of Israel who don’t sup-
situation should be encouraged? The Ram- port their own poor.’”
bam writes that a non-Jew who keeps the seven However, the Gemara in Bava Batra quotes
Noachide mitzvot is considered a righteous a verse from Yeshayahu, “beyvosh ketzira,” as the
gentile. He states further that if Jews are able, source of the prohibition of receiving charity.
3,4
they must enforce non-Jews to keep these mitz- Rashi neither explains what the nature of this
vot. Furthermore, the Rambam paskens that if prohibition is, nor why there is no problem here
5
non-Jews perform mitzvot other than the seven of chillul Hashem as he explained in the Gemara
Noachide laws they will receive reward for doing in Sanhedrin. Furthermore, in Kovetz Shiurim,
7
them. How does this relate to the Gemara in Rav Elchanan Wasserman suggests that the
6
Bava Batra that implies the opposite? Further- prohibition of “beyvosh ketzira” might be a Torah
more, why did the Gemara in Sanhedrin ignore violation. Yet Rav Wasserman doesn’t enumerate
the prohibition derived from the verse in Ye- which Torah violation this refers to.
8
shayahu? Finally, Rashi explained that the prohi- We asked earlier why the Gemara in Bava
bition in Sanhedrin was one of chillul Hashem – Batra did not address the problem of chillul
desecrating G-d’s name. Why did this not arise in Hashem, and why the Gemara in Sanhedrin ig-
the discussion in the Gemara in Bava Batra? nored the prohibition derived from Yeshayahu
Let us start by answering why the Gema- “beyvosh ketzira.”
ra viewed non-Jews receiving merit for giving One could posit that Rashi viewed both sugyas
charity in such a negative light. Rabbeinu Ger- as two branches of the same prohibition – name-
shom explains as follows: “How could Rava ly chillul Hashem. There are two types of chillul
accept the money, thereby causing the exile to Hashem. The first is where Jews do not treat each
continue due to the merits of this charity?” i.e., other in a manner befitting that of G-d’s people.
the problem is that by accepting this charity, the This is the type mentioned in the Gemara in San-
non-Jew will continue his reign over the Jews hedrin, as explained by the Levush (and might
and they will remain in exile. This is specifical- only apply in public etc.).
ly a problem regarding charity, as we will clarify However, there is second type of chillul
later on in the essay. Hashem. This second type has its source in the

The Opinion of Rashi prophet Yechezkel.
1. Two Aspects of Chillul Hashem Yechezkel 36:19-22
Rashi explains that the issue in the Gemara in I scattered them among the nations, and they
Sanhedrin (when receiving the money in pub- were dispersed through the countries: I pun-
lic) is one of chillul Hashem. The Levush (Yoreh ished them in accordance with their ways and

3. Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 8:11
4. The Chidushei HaRan (Sanhedrin 56b) states explicitly that gentiles are also obligated to give charity.
5. Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 8:10
6. Ibid. 10:10. Therefore, even if it is not considered part of their obligation, it should still be encouraged. See Sefer Teshuva Miyira, Matanot Aniyim
10:10 of the Aderet for an extensive discussion on this subject.
7. Kovetz Shiurim, ch. 56
8. In chapter 56 in his second answer he suggests that it might be due to the prohibition of lo techonem (Devarim 7:2).

This volume is not to be distributed. Copies are for the personal use of purchaser only.