Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 006

Sunday, September 30 2001

• Techeiles
• Hashem judging on RH
• Re: Rosh HaShana
• Re: Rosh HaShana
• Umi domeh lach?
• Re: Avodas Yom HaKippurim- texts of the Avodah
• Three Motzoei Y"K points
• Chayim and Chayim Tovim (2)
• Re: chayim vs. chayim tovim
• Re: yom hazikaron
• RE: rambam's iqqorim
• [none]
• Re: kefirah or not?
• Ayin Hora
• Re: judging the avot favorably
• Re: Prozbul
• RE: Sources for kol isha
• Re: Ayin Hora
• Re: WTC stories & hashgacha
• WTC stories, Hashgacha pratis and kiddush HaShem
• RE: WTC stories & hashgacha
• Re: WTC stories & hashgacha

I didn't provide the file,  I forwarded it from R' Mendel Singer.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>q: Can Chazal tell HKBH when the schedule for RH is?
>a: yes - and possibly even to making one day into two...

Indeed, isn't there a Medrash where the angels ask HKBH when RH is, and
HaShem answers something to the effect: "I don't know, let's go down and
see" ?

...
>C) re: the change of Minhag from 1 Day to 2.
>LAD In general - changing established minhaggim is problematic.  One Caveat: 
>if the minhag  was in flux and not universally accepted as psak, it can swing 
>the other way.

I have a recollection that Gemara RH (or, perhaps it was "Reb Artscroll" in
the footnotes) talks about this.  If someone can tell me approx which dafim
it might appear, I will, b'n, look for it.  (But, I might also be confusing
this with the issur of shofar on RH/shabbos, which, iirc, changed during
the time of the Tannaim/Amoraim . . . )

-- Eric

On 26 Sep 01, at 12:36, Eli Turkel wrote:
> (BTW today in Jerusalem there are different customs within the same
> neighborhood for when to layn the Megilla for Purim)

To which neighborhood are you referring? AFAIK the only places where
Megilla is not read on the 15th (only) are Har Nof (where one shul reads
both days) and Ramot (where most places held two days, at least until
Ramat Shlomo opened and made much of Ramot into "ro'in"). RSZA held that
any place that was within the municipal boundaries of Yerushalayim reads
on the 15th, including Ein Karem, which is some distance from any other
settled area of Yerushalayim (he was asked the question with respect to
Hadassah Hospital).

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Eli Turkel wrote:
: However, the second day is a later innovation. Thus, early in Jewish
: history G-d judged us only on one day. At some point it became a safek
: and it is less clear what G-d did. later it was made into one long day
: and that was my question.

I'm arguing that HKBH judges us whenever we invite Him to -- be it via
kiddush levanah or yoma arichta.

Perhaps I should flaunt my extreme rationalism a tad more than usual here.

What does it mean that HKBH judges us altogether? How does a notion of
judgement go into that cause-and-effect concept of sechar va'onesh that
I've been pushing here and that RGS did us the favor of documenting from
the rishonim?

As noted (but I forgot by whom) when we were discussing Unsaneh Tokef a
couple of years ago, the sefer that "me'eilav yikarei" is understood to
be the person's neshamah. So it would seem that even using the judgement
metaphor -- and any description of HKBH's activities are metaphors --
this notion of assessment rather than court case comes through.

My aside there means that the causality model is also just a
model. However, it helps in describing some of those aspects that
the justice model does not. OTOH, it's pretty cerebral, and lack the
motivational impact of looking at Yom haDin in terms of judgement.

Din, justice, need not be implemented bis judgement. There are other
ways in which each party can get what's coming to them.

I would argue that what causes the judgement is our response or lack
thereof to the mo'ed, the appointed time. Whether or not we respond
when appropriate and do teshuvah is what changes one's personal state
(be it by repairing the damage or cleaning off external lichluch) and
therefore causes the more favorable gezar din.

I do not mean by this that HKBH isn't involved. Quite lehefech -- after
all, it's He who created a sevivah of "behimatz'o". Even if I'm equating
the process itself with "dirshu H'". In addition, even if we say that
A causes B, it is He who set up and maintains that causality.

(Loosely connected to this is my impression that people don't have
a problem having a relationship with HKBH. Rather we have a problem
staying in touch with that part of ourselves that is relating to Him.)

This unity of reacting to the invite to justice with the process of
justice itself shtims with the unity of the yeitzer hara and the satan --
the one who goads us to cheit and the one who prosecutes us for it.

Similarly, we can address the question of how easily do we think the satan
can be fooled? Fooling the satan is equivalent to combatting the yeitzer
hara. It's an interesting war in which just trying to launch the battle
is itself a win. Any gesture by which we try to fool the satan is another
attack in that battle. LAD, the main point isn't to fool him, but to
keep oneself busy trying to, trying to keep one's yeitzer hara off guard.

Also, FWIW, since the yeitzer hara is one thing we share in common with
elephants and donkeys, and shows no ability to learn from past experience
or to plan for the future, it's not really our more intelligent side.

Back to "dirshu H' behimatz'o"... I'm reminded of the S"A haRav on Y"T
sheini shel goliyos. Succos and Pesach are spiritual concepts, they are
lema'alah min hazeman. HKBH created a connection between those supernal
concepts and given days. Chazal created another connection for the next
day. However, what one is connected to is the very same Succos.  It is
no less Succos just because the connection is man made.

Similarly, I would think that the 2nd day of R"H is no less a reflection
of the concept of Yom haDin, and to HKBH's availability, just because
the connection was made in later history than most.

Particularly if this connection is via the conduit of the person himself.
I don't know if you can mix a S"A haRav and Nefesh haChaim and get a sane
result, but R' Chaim Vilozhiner holds that man is the only conduit between
shamayim and aretz. This would imply that the SAhR's connection to the
supernal, timeless, Succos is the fact that we respect the mo'ed -- or ch"v
that so many of us know they're choosing not to.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

I just wondered how we can say these words in Shemoneh Esrei, "umi domeh
lach"? Doesn't imply that we think HQBH failed when He said "na'aseh
adam bitzlameinu *kidmuseinu*"?

Is it a limited comparison "mi domeh lach" as a "Melech meimis umchayeh"?
Is it an issue of the "ki-" in "kidmuseinu" vs an actual dimyon?
Is there a difference between dimyon and demus that I'm missing?

-mi

Query: which shuls followed the Nusach Sefard as opposed to the Nusach
Ashkenaz version of the Avodah? I heard a fascinating shiur on this from
RHS. According to Rhs and RYBS, the Beis Yosef was magiah much of the
nussach. Check out one daf in the Tur and you will see no Tur text at
all. the Tosfos Yom Tov claims that the Nussach ashkenaz text is based
on one shita in the Yerushalmi . Therefore, it is based on at least one
shita in Tannaim. However, Nussach Sefard follows the Seder haAvodah as
described in the Mishnayos in Yoma. Anyone in an Nussach Ashkenaz Shul
who davened Mussaf in a Nussach Sefard Shul based on this problem?

    Gmar tov to all.
    Steve Brizel
    Zeliglaw@aol.com

1. We say in Avinu Malkenu, kosveinu besefer chayim tovim, and then again,
kosveinu besefer parnasa vechalkala. In shemoneh esrei, we say besefer
chayim beracha veshalom ufarnasa tova. Are chayim and parnasa separate
sefarim or one?

2. In "zechor lanu bris rishonim" some pesukim are introduced with
"ka'asher amarta" and others by "kemo shekasuv". What is the pattern?

3.  I had mentioned some time back that one should not eat fish at the
seudah hamafsekes,  and had to retract because I could not find mention
of it.  Today I saw that Reb Scroll brings a Mateh Efraim (608:1) to that
effect.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> What is the distinction between chayim and chayim tovim, and when do
> we ask for one and when the other.

From: "SBA" <sba@blaze.net.au>
> The Otzar Hatfilos Siddur's peirush Anaf Yosef explains that we first
> ask for 'stam' Chayim' and later on we get 'bolder' and request 'Chayim
> Tovim' k'derech' beggars who begin with something minor
> and slowly increase their demands.

The Chasam Sofer z'l further expands on this and explains the difference
in all these distinctions - ie - Zochreinu LeChaim, (Mi Chomoicho)
..LeChaim "Berachamim", (Uchesov) Lechaim "Tovim" and Besefer Chaim
"Brocho" etc and Lechaim "Tovim Ulesholom.".

I saw it in the likutim in the CS siddur and if anyone wants to original
source, please let me know. .

SBA

On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 12:40:07AM -0400, Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
: e.g. in yaaleh viyovo (vihoshieinu vo lichayim [tovim - Sephard])...

There is an implication here that the "tovim" in "vihoshi'einu vo
lichayim tovim" is not redundant even though the sentance earlier
asked "zochreinu bo litova".

I would therefore surmise that "chayim tovim" is something other than
combining a request for life with a request for a good one.

As for birechas Avos, my guess why we don't ask for "chayim tovim" is
because we're asking the "Melech Chafeitz Bachayim" and that He act
"liMa'ancha". IOW, we're not just asking for life, we're noting that
He would get some chance of getting avodah out of us only if we live.

In birchas Gevurah, there is no bakkashah. It's a rhetorical question,
stating a fact:
    Who is like You, the Ba'al haRachamim, who remembers His creatures
    for life, through Rachamim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 10:15:13AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: Is there something subtle I'm missing? Yom HaZikkaron is from the
: Biblical "zichron trua"; malchioth and shofroth are nowhere (as far as
: I recall) Biblical allusions to the day of Rosh HaShana...

But yet it's the berachah of Malchiyos that is combined with Kedushas
haYom, not zichoronos. It is implied that despite the pasuk, we see
R"H as being more about centrally malchus than the other two themes.

-mi

RYGB writes:
<As the distinguished poster (thanks, I guess, although the next line kind 
of makes me wonder how real a compliment I am receiving)>

no need to wonder any more. All compliments sincerely proffered. Of
course, this respect does not -- as I'm sure RYGB agrees in principle
-- confer any special privileges for expressed opinions where there
is disagreement, other than that of a respectful hearing. thus, the
invitation to clarify. I'll withdraw my follow on line if that came
across too sharply.

<I am ready to clarify, but I do not know what.> if you wish to
take/waste the time, you might start with a chain of reasoning that lead
you to conclude that not only was the thesis not proven, as i inferred
the opposite from reading exactly the same material you did, but that
he actually proved an anti-thesis.

<RGS obviously understood my perspective, I assume RMF does as well>

Well, no, I do not. I don't understand reasoning which led you to suggest
he had actively proved the opposite of what he (, I, and numerous other
readers with no particular dawg in this race) thinks he did.

I did not comment RGS's exegesis of your own thoughts since I thought
that was pretty original as well and had no particular reason to think you
shared them. But since it is mentioned, I will also remark that I disagree
with Rgil here as I felt that he was going overboard in an attempt to
characterize the disagreements shapiro cites as only "slight" variations.
There is nothing slight about the majority of them, and indeed RGS often
abandons the attempt to characterize them as slight when he considers
each one separately. Instead he finds various other ad hoc reasons
to discount the import of different shapiro paragraphs. e.g. "there
is little information how many.." (iqqor 3), shapiro only points out
something that is well known (iqqor 5), "you can almost sense the glee"
(iqqor 8), "I don't think he has a leg to stand on" (iqqor 11), "all he
has is a debatable Ibn Ezra" (Iqqors 4 & 10)etc. Whether you agree with
RGS or not on each iqqor (and I'm afraid i do not), these are generally
not slight deviations and I had no reason to guess that you followed the
twist (no pejorative usage meant) of his thoughts for each one of them.

For those of you who have been sending me off-line e-mails, please note
that my home e-mail address has changed.

Mechy Frankel                 W: (703) 588-7424
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com   H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

The Rambam only said that what he wrote in Moreh Nevuchim might have hidden 
or misleading meaning.  So why do all these scholars ignore what he wrote 
unequivocably in his Peirush HaMishnayos (i.e. his 13 ikkarim)?  There is no 
hidden meaning there.

The answer that these scholars will probably give is that this was only an 
exoteric teaching for the benefit of the masses and that the Rambam does not 
believe it.  I have trouble calling the Rambam a liar and a hypocrite.  It 
seems totally contrary to his worldview that he would intentionally give 
over a wrong belief about the world.  Aderaba, he struggled to give over 
true beliefs to people.  Who before him worked so hard to educate the masses 
about true beliefs?  The MN, however, was not meant for the masses which is 
why he hid things in it.  The Peirush HaMishnayos was for the masses so why 
would he include wrong beliefs?

One of our listmembers recently told me that the Rambam in MN tends to take 
a premise he believes to be incorrect and argue that, even based on that 
faulty premise, other of his beliefs are still correct.  In the case of 
Creation Ex Nihilo, the ambivalence in Rambam's conclusion (in MN) that the 
world was created from nothing can be due to his arguing from faulty 
premises.  Even according to these faulty premises one still comes to the 
(albeit somewhat ambivalent) conclusion that the world was created from 
nothing.  However, removing those premises (e.g. in Peirush HaMishnayos), 
Rambam in no longer ambivalent.  (I may have misunderstood this brief 
conversation)

I had suggested that the 13 ikkarim are a pesak halacha.  Rambam may have 
ambivalently accepted Creation Ex Nihilo in MN, but once he accepted it he 
paskened based on it.  I'm not sure if this makes sense.

Gil Student

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 12:58:36PM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: IMHO I would allow for some flexibility in how to interpret the ikkarim IF 
: the person doing so was otherwise Shomer Mitzvos - IOW Observant.  I  would 
: only presume kfira if a person was otherwise non-Observant.

I wouldn't consider someone who isn't mekayeim chovos halvavos to be shomer
mitzvos. The fact that you do presumes your answer.

-mi

From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
> In Areivim 7:407, Shlomo (SBA) gently criticized me (among others) about
> my "enlightened" views concerning "ayin horas" and elimination procedures.
> However, I did not mock the belief in "ayin horas",  I was primarily
> critical of  the use of certain "magical" type ...

Agreed you didn't mock but you seemed to have difficulty in not to be
'completely dismissive' about it.

> The Gemaras cited by Shlomo do not provide much support for a belief in
> the prevalence of the baleful influence of the "ayin ha'ra".  B.M. 107b
> contains the view of Rav that death is due predominantly to "ayin
> ha'ra", but this is disputed by Shmuel and other Amora'im who find other
> causes for death.

They are disputing the reasons for death NOT the fact that AH does or
does not exist.

> Berachot 55b ..... One hugs oneself and says, " I am descended from Yosef
> who is not subject to an "ayin ha'ra"... few people in the times of Rav
> Ashi ...could claim ... such ancestry - and none, today.

> Yet, this was given as an allegedly practical prescription for warding
> off the "evil eye".

"Alleged"?? It seems like a very clear undisputed gemoro.

Re the ancestry question: Shmuras Haguf Vehanefesh quotes the
Yaavetz that ALL Jews are called Bnei Yosef.
He also notes 'ayin M'harsha (which I haven't ....yet.)

>                                     ....the message here is that if
> you are not concerned about an "ayin ha'ra" then you're "immune".  That
> should be the advise given to those who ask, in all innocence, whether
> they need fear such a thing.

The Gemoro says 'Man delo kopid lo kopdinon" with regard to zugos,
but not regarding AH.

> I am not familiar either with the Zohar or the Chida on this subject.
> Without knowing the specific language used by the Zohar, is it not
> possible that the point was to walk, dress, and act modestly as not to
> arouse the envy of others, and certainly not to be envious of others -

The Zohar as translated in SHV: "Meod Tzorich Lizoher m'AH"
(P. Acharei Mos)

If you see the quotes in SHV you will see Rashi as well as others
fully accept this concept.

> ......My main objection to having an active belief in "ayin ha'ra" is that
> it is psychologically disabling and religiously destructive.   A "true"
> believer looks at the world as a mysterious, hostile environment filled
> with "evil eyes".   Whatever untoward happens to the believer is
> attributed to those hostile eyes .... They, however, are also not
> excelling - to say the least - in the biblical injunction of "Tamim tih'yeh
> im Hashem.."

I don't know how you can say this regarding something that we are warned
about by Chazal, Rishonim and Acharonim.

Having said more Tehillim lately than I have for a long time, let me refer
you to the Yehi Rotzon following Tehillim (which, AFAIK, EVERY siddur
includes.
(Referring to "Yaldei Amcho Beis Yisroel").."Vesatzileim me'Ayin Horah.."
(And BTW also "V'al Yimshol Askeroh >>V'shedim[n]<<<..- another recent
topic).

------------------
Acharei Kosvi Zos...Doesn't EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US say every
morning - after the brochos - 
"Yehi Rotzon...shetatsilenu hayom uvechol yom....m'ayin hora..."

SBA

I wrote:
>The Maharatz Chajes quotes the teshuvah and expands on it in his Mevo 
>HaTalmud (I think around chapter 21). He is clear that Chazal did not have 
>a mesorah on these things but knew who were the good guys and
>who were the bad guys. For the good guys, Chazal would take every 
>opportunity to darshen in his/her favor, even to great extremes. The 
>opposite for the bad guys.

I was thinking that perhaps the reason for this is what the Rambam explains 
in his peirush to Avos 1:6.  Rambam says that being "dan lechaf zechus" has 
different levels.  For an average person we must assume in an ordinary 
situation that he is not doing anything wrong.  However, for a tzadik we 
must assume whenever there is even a remote possibility that he is doing 
good.  For a rasha we must do the opposite.  Even when it seems like he has 
done good, as long as there is a remote chance we must assume that he is 
doing bad.

Taking this approach to learning Tanach, we have the Maharatz Chajes's 
explanation.  When read about a tzaddik, like David or Reuven, we must 
assume that anything he did was good.  Even if he sinned, it was for a good 
purpose like teaching teshuvah.  However, when we read about a rasha we must 
assume that everything he did was bad.  Even when he did mitzvos it was for 
a bad purpose.

In other words, I am suggesting that, according to the Rambam, Chazal (and 
we) are halachically forced into their derashas.

Gil Student

In a message dated 9/20/2001 5:33:49pm EDT, mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com writes:
>                             So I'm still left wondering. Why prozbul
> now? Or am I just imagining all this.?

Put this under the Zechor Y''mos Olam Category... 

Re: Prozbul
1) Maybe to simply heighten awareness that this still works and how it works 
lest it becomeg obscure - and become a "meis mitzvah".

2) Simlarly this is analagous to the proposal of taking down the Eruv once in 
a while because hotza'ah in a carmelis is becoming obscure

3) Maybe People should still salt some meat.  In a generation or 2 this has 
become a lost art. E.G. my wife has NEVER salted meat. Ironically I did many 
times as a mashigach, and FWIW I saw my Mom salting all kinds of meat and 
broiling livers etc. ... 

4) Perhaps this is the source of the chicken Kapparos revival, because many 
forgot about it.  

5) Maybe checking Sha'atnez even when the odds are unlikely that a North 
American Garment is not kosher. Because if we ignore it for common garment s 
people might forget Toas Sha'atnze when they run into truly suspicious ones.

6) After all Bedikas Hametz is still required even when we KNOW 100% for sure 
that all the house is clean, that we won't be home and that the Hametz is 
sold and we will do a bittul...

Shalom and Regards
Rich Wolpoe
Moderator - TorahInsight@yahoogroups.com
"Knowledge without Insight is like a horse in a library" - Vernon Howard    

Hello, 

Does anyone have a good list of mekoros (gemara through recent shu"t)
regarding kol isha in general, and particularly regarding women singing
together.  Prohibition on the woman to sing, prohibition on the man to
listen would also be useful.  I'm trying to present this inyan to a recent
ba'alas teshuva who is interested in researching on her own before
presenting specific situations to a Rov for p'sak.  I'm sure all the
recent books about modesty and women's halachah have their own mekoros,
I'm mainly interested in a complete list of gemaras and references in
shulchan aruch, perhaps from a shiur that follows the inyan logically from
start to finish.  Please email off-list to jcohen@dclab.com.  

Thanks, and g'mar chasimah tovah.
Avraham Cohen

I don't think the question is whether ayin hara exists, but whether it
means something other than what it means as a middah -- jealousy (as in
one of the 5 midos ra'os listed in Pirkei Avos).

IOW, what is the makor for considering a supernatural force of its own
rather than midah kineged midah for flaunting something and causing
jealousy in others?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 01:37:54PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Assuming for argument's sake that RSC is correct, do you agree or disagree
: with my statement:
::                                                                   But
:: according Rambam/Ramban, couldn't one say that someone who normally came to
:: the WTC at 8am every day could have died even w/o deserving death (= olam
:: k'minhago noheg), unless Hashem felt that this person was particularly
:: righteous and therefore interfered with the natural order?

Well, I don't agree with the premise, so I'm answering this only as a
hypothetical: Yes, if we ignore the fact that we now have a third option,
those are your only two choices.

However, /we/ do now have that option: a person can get what's coming to
him even without interferance with the natural order. Nature has wiggle
room that the Master Weaver could well be able to use to produce the
appropriate results for each and every person.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

I have followed this trend , the comments and the stories while trying to 
absorb the stories of those neshamos, Jewish and Gentile who perished on 
September 11.2001. In our neighborhood , two prominent Rabbonim, one 
Sephardic and one Chareidi spoke prior to a local asifas Tehilim. The 
Sephardi rav spoke in a very emotional style and  berated the entire 
bneighnorhood for reading newspapers, watching TV and having computers with 
Net access. The Chareid rav urged all to be more makpid in Tznius,and Mayim 
acharonim . Many of us in the audience who had escaped from Manhattan or 
downtown Brooklyn were astounded at the assertions that these were the cause 
of the terrible events. WADR, I also felt that such an analysis on the day of 
the event was made with a lack of appreciation that this was a national 
tragedy, as opposed to just a siman minhashamyim of the oncoming yimei hadin. 
Perhaps , I am overstating the case, but I do think that this was not the 
incident to think about a specifically Jewish response . 
    Why? We all know that the Ribono Shel Olam acts in a mysterious manner 
and that even Moshe Rabbeinu did not receive the answer to the question of 
theodicy or why HaShem permits tragedy in the running of His World. This is 
an area where all efforts , whether those of hester panim or mipnei 
vchatoseinu , ultimately fall short. 
    WADR, the issue is not how , why and for what purpose HaShem let this 
happen, but where was man beforehand and what is the appropriate action. 
Without straying too far awy fronm the subject, where was the FBI and CIA?  
Why was a Mossad warning ignored? Why was security so scandalously easy to 
break ? IMHO, there was a huge human failure in these areas which led us to 
feel that all was safe and the US would never be struck in its financial and 
political centers. 
    Previously , on this list, there has been much pilpul over whether Arafat 
and Co. are the equal of the Nazis , Yimach Shamam , for the purposes of 
considering them as political descendants of Amalek. We all know that this 
debacle was planned by Bin Laden and his associates in various locales. As R 
Lichtenstein pointed out, Kiddush HaShem is not dependent on one's shemiras 
hamitzvos and that the kiddush Hashem and Mesiras nefesh by the firemen, 
policemen and EMS workers saved the lived of thousands others . They placed 
their lives on the lines to save those whose lives were snuffed out and those 
who were innocently affected because they were Americans and the ethics of 
the US, are based in large part on monotheism and chesed. IIRC, the 
Novomominsker pointed out the notion of kiddush HaShem, albeit from a 
different perspective.
I would urge the potential author /compiler of the stories to think long and 
hard before publishing a volume based on miracles of survivors,. I think that 
the scar tissue is way too fragile for such a volume right now. Comments?
    Steve Brizel
    Zeliglaw@aol.com

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> However, /we/ do now have that option: a person can get what's coming to
> him even without interferance with the natural order. Nature has wiggle
> room that the Master Weaver could well be able to use to produce the
> appropriate results for each and every person.

How is the result under the Master Weaver theory different from Rav
Dessler's result?  In both cases, everything is according to Hashem's plan.
Is the only difference the mechanism (which leads to the same result)?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 04:01:50PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
:> However, /we/ do now have that option: a person can get what's coming to
:> him even without interferance with the natural order. Nature has wiggle
:> room that the Master Weaver could well be able to use to produce the
:> appropriate results for each and every person.

: How is the result under the Master Weaver theory different from Rav
: Dessler's result?  In both cases, everything is according to Hashem's plan.
: Is the only difference the mechanism (which leads to the same result)?

The differentce isn't much. My point was that the Rambam's objection to
that result is based on the fact that his notion of teva didn't allow
for hashgachah. Therefore one who gets hashgachah perati is operating
outside of nature, and isn't necessarily the norm. Given today's notion
of a non-deterministic teva, I don't see how one can be sure the Rambam
would disagree.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

*******************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]