Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 074

Tuesday, September 23 2003

• Re: Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view
• Hashgacha Pratis etc.
• Re: Two questions on nusach hatefila
• R. Chaninah Sgan haCohanim
• view of the masses
• RE:Women and kaddish
• RE:Women and kaddish
• Re: ze sefer toldot adam
• Re: First day Slichos
• Fwd: [Areivim] different minhagim about what time to say Selichos
• Halachos Not in Shulchan Aruch
• Re: Hashgacha Pratis etc.
• Re: view of the masses
• Re: Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view
• Re: First Day Slichos
• tehillim
• Re: tehillim
• Re: Learning Hashkafa
• Learning hashkafa
• Re: Learning Hashkafa

At 11:39 PM 9/20/2003 +0300, [R Daniel Eidensohn] wrote:
>I personally find this assertion rather astounding. Do you have any
>sources which are consistent with this approach?

The story about the Kotzker and Shedim.

>In sum: What sources are there that I - as a litvack - need to take
>in to account the chassidic point of view in my public discussions of
>hashkofa? Is it because of shalom bayis or because of changes in the
>higher worlds? Sources please!

Sevara. Hashem would not allow so many people to have a mistaken belief
and not change his hanhogo as a result.

YGB 

Daniel:

Kudos re your comments to RYGB - while he did a tremendous service to
our community by underscoring the need for better chinuch in the area
of Hashkafa/Machshava, I too was very much taken aback by his comments
on the Hashgacha issue. I believe, however, that the issue is much more
fundamental than misnagdim v. chasidim. To my mind, the real question,
(as is indicated by the sources you quote along w/ those quoted by Levi
and the many others) is what gives an individual the right to state
that the "current perspective" is different than that of the Gedolei
HaMesorah? RYGB does not seem to contest the fact that the position Levi
says is held by many "early authorities" is in fact the one maintained by
these Baalei HaMEsorah - instead he suggests that because the Baal Shem
Tov (in the 1700's?) came up w/ a "revolutionary" idea which is now what
most pple are familiar w/ and comfortable (psychologically speaking)
with - Levi doesn't have the right to be machria as it were and p!
resent the "contrary" position as being the correct one.

The Baal Shem's idea was indeed revolutionary - it departed from what
kimat all RISHONIM said on the matter. RYGB suggests Levi was wrong for
attempting to resolve an area which "we may not be have the right ... mi
yaaleh ...." YET RYGB appears himself to have done this very thing -
Clearly he is a proponent of the "current perspective" he spends much
time talking of the great contribution of the revolutionaty idea etc.-
and thus takes issue w/ Levi. Of course the Rishonim were aware of the
Agadic statements cited by Levi and took them into account (perhaps in
the very way Levi suggests See also Ramban Shaar HaGemul w/ Chazon Yoel
pgs 102-104).

I suppose then what I am saying is - in the same way we would not simply
choose the halachik position based on what is popular or makes us feel
good - we must not do the same - despite that it may be the "current
perspective - in the area of hashkafa. I think this is a very important
point - One that deserves further discussion.

kt 
wac

R Gershon Dubin wrote:
> When we say in Shabbos shacharis, "vechasuv bahem shemiras shabbos",
> should that not be in the singular, as this lashon implies that
> shabbos is written on both luchos?

> Also, why is the pasuk brought in "vechen kasuv besorasecha",
> veshamru, shouldn't it be "shamor es yom hashabbos lekadesho"?

I actually think these are different aspects of the same question.

(The following is based on what I'm usually thinking while davening
these words, when I'm thinking about what I'm saying at all. Like
other posts of mine of this sort, they often are built from what comes
to mind with nothing but a siddur before me. There is no maqor for any
of the below.)

You assume that the point of the paragraph is to tell us what the
luchos say about Shabbos. However, the luchos are not primarily source
texts in and of themselves. Rather they are luchos ha'eidus that the
Torah really is a beris between us and HQBH.

The quote "Veshameru" is all about Shabbos as an os beris. It's being
used as a proof that the fact that the luchos contained shemiras
Shabbos was a particular factor in the kelil tif'eres that would cause
such simchah in an eved ne'eman like Moshe Rabbeinu. Why? Because the
thing they testify to is the thing Shabbos is an os for.

We therefore speak of what the luchos, the "eidim" contain, not the
text of what was written on one lu'ach.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905

In recent daf yomi and several other places the Talmud brings statements
from R. Chaninah Sgan haCohanim who seems to have been in charge of the
procedures in the Bet haMikdash under various high priests.

The gemara however seems to treat his statements like that of any other
Tanna and mentions in several places other Tannaim who disagree with him.
In the recent one in zevachim we pasken like the chachamim against
R. Chaninah.

I find this hard to understand. If indeed he is providing testimony as
to how things were done how can later generations come and say we don't
agree. Are they claiming that the procedure in the Te,mple was done wrong?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

RYGB writes
<<My personal assumption is that HKB"H adjusts his relationship with
the world to accord with the prevailing spirit in Am Yisroel (I do not
venture what is the cause and what is the effect). Therefore, since the
Besht's revolution was so successful, it must be taken into account -
even if you do not agree with my personal assumption - because the masses
believe in the Besht's position.>>

Certainly Rambam does not agree with this approach. He describes what
the vast majority pf people / am haratzim think and says this is the
simple view which is not correct and then proceeds to give his own view.
He certainly does not give credit to opposing views because most people
believe in it. The masses in general will not follow any complex train
of thought, the current idea that advertisement or ideas need to be
presented in small bytes is not new. Does that mean that Hashem cannot
work in complex ways because the masses wouldn't be able to follow it?

I find it astounding that Hashem would change the way he runs the world
to conform with the views of the masses.

Shana Tova,
Eli Turkel

RMS
>:> It's equally a problem. However, that's not what's happening
>:> lema'aseh. The radicals are looking to change gender 

>: Many would strongly dispute that --- and I think that there is very
>: good evidence that the problem is on both sides - with radicals trying
>: to change gender roles, and conservatives trying to restore an illusory
>: previous state.

RMB
> Huh? With the one exception of qaddish, what can you possibly argue is
> a conservative move in women's gender roles?

> Recall, a mere century and a half a go, even school wasn't under
> consideration. Women in the non-Jewish world didn't have the variety
> of options any American chareidiyah has today. Never mind those in
> MO's more conservative camp.

I would say that much of the current discussion (not just about women's
role) is precisely about the creation of an illusory previous state.
The societal changes that have occured in the role of women and the family
are so dramatic that trying to maintain an identical role in one area
while allowing for different roles in others does create a pursuit of an
illusory previous state - the role of women is fundamentally different,
even though it may not be recognized in general To just state a few
obvious ones:

1) The notion that a woman's role is both to raise children and to
earn money for the family while the husband sits and learns..(viewed as
possibly proper for a few yehide segula, but clearly not a societal norm)

2) The increasing emphasis total separation of the sexes in all aspects -
something that was clearly not the norm going back to the lvush are just
two areas. Those could be multiplied. you can't go back home again..

Meir Shinnar

Dr. Shinnar wrote:
>2) The increasing emphasis total separation of the sexes in all aspects -
>something that was clearly not the norm going back to the lvush

Interesting. Yet the Seridei Eish, the scion of German Neo-Orthodoxy,
requires separation of genders at public events, absent kiruv necessities
(SE 2:8). R. Bentzion Uziel does also (Mishpetei Uziel, CM no. 6).
RM Feinstein even requires a mechitza at public events (Igros Moshe
OC 1:39). [Note that RMF considers weddings to be private affairs]

Perhaps we need to re-evaluate the halacha so that it conforms with modern
practice. Isn't it odd that RYY Weinberg, RBZ Uziel, and RMF didn't?

Gil Student

In message , Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>I noticed in here a road not taken.

>Basing yahadus on Shema is a deveiqus approach. Zeh seifer (as being
>suggested by RYGB and RGS) would be a temimus approach. Who today is
>following a ve'ahavta-based derekh?

The Beis Ya'akov movement and the other girls schools?

After all, is not the focus of yahadus as taught in such schools is a) 
marrying and supporting a ben torah; b) having, supporting and enabling 
one's children to grow in Torah; and c) doing chesed in the community?

Or can you genuinely describe what is being taught as being either about 
deveiqus (yes there is some davening, but it is not stressed, and it is 
assumed that it can and should give way to the demands of others) or 
temimus (while there is some emphasis, especially in some schools about 
learning Rashis and Rambams, again, it is assumed that these will and 
should give way to other priorities namely the family and the 
community).

>It's clear from Hillel's words to the prospective geir, an approach to
>kol haTorah kulah can be built based on bein adam lachaveiro, but who
>has explicated such an approach?

Well there is a fair bit of pop psychology about in the form of books 
aimed for the women's market (why you should marry a ben torah or of 
that ilk) - and there are the equivalent of mussar shmussen in the girls 
schools and at ladies lectures.  But unless you were speaking, you would 
never have heard them, and sophisticated Torah roots, are, for obvious 
reasons, generally lacking.

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

Seth Mandel wrote:
> Does anyone know when the custom of starting slihos Saturday night
> began? Does anyone have more data points about which communities did
> it which way?

In MiVolozhin L'Yrushalayim R. Meir bar Ilan writes that his Dad (the
Netziv) used to grumble about the newfangled custom of saying Selichos
at midnight the first night instead of before dawn, as was the old
fashioned custom. RMbI was born c. 1880.

David Riceman

Any serious discussion on the subject (Avoda style) may want to refer
to the RMO in:

- The 1st halocho of Hilchos Rosh Hashono - OC 581:1 ...V'omdim B'Asmores
- one gets up in the Ashmores to say slichos. I have not yet found
a good translation (or explanation) for ashmores, but the MB's intro
to the siman says "because the end of the night... is an time of
goodwill...". (The gemoro on Brochos IIRC divides the night into 3
(some say 4) ashmoros.)

- The 1st halocho of the 10 days of Tshuva - OC 402:1 - ...and one says
Viduy 3 times before dawn.

Wishing everybody a Ksiva Vechasima Tova, etc. :-)
- Danny

I seem to remember the Gra having been quoted as saying that we are
obligated to follow halachos from the Gemara, even if they are not
brought down in the Shulchan Aruch. Does anyone know where the Gra is
quoted as saying this? I can't remember.

Also, can you think of any examples of halachos that are not mentioned
in the SA but are still followed?

Gil Student

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 11:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Warren Cinamon wrote:
> Daniel:
> Kudos re your comments to RYGB - while he did a tremendous service to
> our community by underscoring the need for better chinuch in the area
> of Hashkafa/Machshava, I too was very much taken aback by his comments
> on the Hashgacha issue. I believe, however, that the issue is much more
> fundamental than misnagdim v. chasidim. To my mind, the real question,
> (as is indicated by the sources you quote along w/ those quoted by Levi
> and the many others) is what gives an individual the right to state
> that the "current perspective" is different than that of the Gedolei
> HaMesorah? RYGB does not seem to contest the fact that the position Levi
> says is held by many "early authorities" is in fact the one maintained by
> these Baalei HaMEsorah - instead he suggests that because the Baal Shem
> Tov (in the 1700's?) came up w/ a "revolutionary" idea which is now what
> most pple are familiar w/ and comfortable (psychologically speaking)
> with - Levi doesn't have the right to be machria as it were and p!
> resent the "contrary" position as being the correct one.

Your comments ignore the fact that Chassidus possesses many great
scholars, bnei aliyah, yere'ei shomayim and perhaps even ba'alei ruach
ha'kodesh who were oleh ha'shomayma (as in the Besht's letter to R'
Gershon Kitover). One cannot "mach avek" there positions. Reb Tzadok
alone is a force to contend with that cannot be ignored, and there are
many Gedolei Chassidus who were aware of the shittos of the Rishonim
and rejected them. Summah aleinu l'havin lammah.

> The Baal Shem's idea was indeed revolutionary - it departed from what
> kimat all RISHONIM said on the matter. RYGB suggests Levi was wrong for
> attempting to resolve an area which "we may not be have the right ... mi
> yaaleh ...." YET RYGB appears himself to have done this very thing -
> Clearly he is a proponent of the "current perspective" he spends much
> time talking of the great contribution of the revolutionaty idea etc.-
> and thus takes issue w/ Levi. Of course the Rishonim were aware of the
> Agadic statements cited by Levi and took them into account (perhaps in
> the very way Levi suggests See also Ramban Shaar HaGemul w/ Chazon Yoel
> pgs 102-104).

Those present at the Aishdas Shabbaton know that I am far from "a
proponent of the 'current perspective.'"

> I suppose then what I am saying is - in the same way we would not simply
> choose the halachik position based on what is popular or makes us feel
> good - we must not do the same - despite that it may be the "current
> perspective - in the area of hashkafa. I think this is a very important
> point - One that deserves further discussion.

Halachah requires hachro'oh. This issue doies not.

YGB 

Yosef G. and Shani M. Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu
ygb@aishdas.org

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 13:01:22 +0300 (IDT) Eli Turkel wrote:
> RYGB writes
> <<My personal assumption is that HKB"H adjusts his relationship with
> the world to accord with the prevailing spirit in Am Yisroel ... >>
...
> I find it astounding that Hashem would change the way he runs the world
> to conform with the views of the masses.

I do not find it astounding (obviously) - tzaddik gozer v'HKB"H mekayem.
I fail to see why Puk chazi my ama devar and Hanach lahem l'Yisroel. im
einam nevi'im heim bnei nevi'im heim should necessarily not be an
indicator of hanhogas ha'olam in Agada as in Halachah.

YGB

Yosef G. and Shani M. Bechhofer
sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu
ygb@aishdas.org

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Since there is such a solid nonchasidic consensus that hashgocha
> protis is a function of spiritual level - why insist that the
> contrary chassidic point of view needs to be accepted? ...

Is there solid consensus? Amongst rishonim, and earlier acharonim,
perhaps. But amongst those after the Besh"t's chiddush -- even
non-chassidim? Certainly mussar bought into it, and from there to other
Litvaks (cf REED).

There is a general lack of consensus over which non-Besht opinion even
amongst the sources that you cited. In fact, amongst later voices, only
the Meshech Chochmah is unequivicably in the Rambam's camp. More so, many
(perhaps even most) rishonim and early acharonim DO posit a universal HP
for people. It's WRT domeim, tzomei'ach and chai that the Besh"t really
broke new ground.

(RMMS did a pretty solid survey of the subject. I recommend
returning to <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/protis.pdf>. I'm
very glad I took the time to post a summary on Avodah
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol09/v09n042.shtml#12>, otherwise I
wouldn't remember whatever of the igeres that I do.)

I said "perhaps" amongst pre-Besht sources because there is a nequdah I
don't understand. How can one have bitachon (of any definition) without
belief that his fate is in the "Hands" of hashgachah? I don't see how
the Rambam or Or haChaim (to give 2 very diverse examples) can expect
bitachon from people. After all, perhaps this occurance was teva/mazal
and not for some deeper plan?

And, if you argue that subjection to teva/mazal is itself part of The
Plan, then how can you give it as an alternative to HP rather than
a subtype?

But all this reminds me of this discussion we had a while back about
emunah and bechirah. How does someone choose whether an ikkar emunah
seems plausible to him?

If I'm struggling with an inyan emunah, I can take it on two levels:
a theoretical discussion of one or various shitos, or an existential
discussion of how I find meaning in my life. Which existential answer I
come to in the latter role is similarly hard to modify by will. It will be
whichever I find plausible, whether the reason for my being at home with
the idea is philosophical argument or accident of educational history.

The theoretical discussion is not complete without the Besh"t's shitah;
and for most contemporary O Jews (including the majority of those
reading this live or off a web search), the existential question can't
be addressed at all if we neglect it.

FWIW, I think that in modern, non-deterministic, physics, something on
the quantum level or a chaotic system made from quantum parts (IOW, all
of them) can be fully teva and yet still have room for HP tailoring. I've
posted on this in the past, so I'll stop with just a reminder as to the
resolution that fits my own existential need.

...
> In particular it is the view of the Kuzari(5:20). Everything is
> ultimately caused by G-d but according to one's level the causal
> chain is shorter. Lower level people need the intervening factors of
> nature or mazel.

This is by the way a major chiddush in and of itself. The Kuzari is
defining teva as a causal chain, not an alternative source of causes.
He has causes being only HQBH and the alert human being's bechirah.

Also a formulation that might be fully HP. It depends whether the Rihal
felt that teva/mazal is deterministic -- in a manner 180deg from the
suggestion I make above. If teva is deterministic, then a longer causal
difference between whether one experiences "Yad" Hashem directly or
the output of a sequence of events caused by that "Yad". In both cases,
He allows His choice to determine your fate.

> Ramban(Devarim 11:13): G-d does not do miracles constantly... The
> doing of miracles is conditional on the behavior of the majority of
> the people....

HP isn't the same as neis. I question the relevency.

> Maharal(Rosh HaShanna 16b page 110): The explanation that the
> complete tzadik is written for life is that everything concerning
> him is for life even if the mazel is for death...he will be guarded
> against the chance causes of death by G-d...Concerning the wicked it
> is the opposite even his mazel is for life G-d writes him for death.

HP for tzaddiqim and resha'im, not for those in between. Also a
chiddush unlike the Rambam.

> Shomer Emunim HaKadmon(Introduction of publisher page 32): "Before
> everything one must know that there is no activity large or small
> that is by accident i.e., without G-d's hashgocha...this is true
> even for the processes of nature...they are also ultimately from
> Him...there is no incident that occurs without the intent and
> hashgocha of G-d." The author then proceeds to explain that there
> are 10 levels of hashgocha protis....

Does this have a parallel to ten levels of mal'achim?

And notice that while having different levels puts this seifer at odds
with the Besh"t's shitah, it is still nothing like the one you're
considering the (non-chassidic) consensus.

In a later post, R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
> <sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu>
>> My personal assumption is that HKB"H adjusts his relationship with
>> the world to accord with the prevailing spirit in Am Yisroel...

> I personally find this assertion rather astounding. Do you have any
> sources which are consistent with this approach?

While I find this a pretty big chiddush too, its parallel to "tzadiq
gozeir veH' meqayim" takes the edge off any astonishment.

My own feeling is that since we can't really understand what it is He
does, each shitah is merely a different approximation of an ineffible
Truth. They're models we use to understand and find meaning in our
world. However, models can oversimplify. The famous story of the blind
men describing an elephant in conflicting manners comes to mind.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

R' Seth Mandel wrote:
>  From the R'Mo, as well as the way he states the minhog in Darkhei Moshe,
> it is clear that on the first day, slichos were recited in "ashmores
> haboqer," just as they were on the other day. Nor do any of the nos'ei
> kelim mention the custom of doing it late Saturday night. And for that
> reason, the acharonim don't even mention here the issue of not doing it
> before hatzos (the source of which is qabbolo), since it apparently was
> not done at night, but rather in the pre-morning hours.

In this electrically lit age, when many people would find it hard to wake
up for selichos in ashmores haboker, it is common to recite selichos after
dawn, before shacharis. On the first day, however, this would make us
unable to recite the pizmon of "BeMotzaei Menuchah," which, besides the
opening line, contains a number of references (e.g. "beza'akasam be'od
layil") to the fact that it is night. Hence, according to my guess,
the custom of doing it late Saturday night, which most people (though
not all!) find easier than waking up in ashmores haboker, the only
possible alternative.

KVCT,
D.C.

> 1. If one holds that everything is decided on RH then tehillim especially
> from others can't help.

Machlokes rishonim in R"H 16 whether our tefillos for a choleh to get
better work only according to the opinion that a person is judged daily
(rashi) or according to all shitos (tos).

Kv"t,
-Chaim

R Harry Maryles wrote:
> The fact is that the vast majority
> of people who recite Tehillim at times like this, DO NOT understand
> what they are saying. But for the most part they are recited in a
> most sincere state of mind with the intent that these "Tefilos"
> should be "accepted" by God toward the end of ending our troubles...
> or healing a sick individual who is in dire straits. It isn't just a
> question of saying Tehillim versus learning Torah. It is question of
> why Tehillim has any efficacy at all.

Wouldn't the deveiqus of the experience have value even without knowing
what the words mean? That, AIUI, is the point of the story of the
uneducated farmer who could only "daven" the aleph beis" -- that the
experiential deveiqus is more important than the intellectual havanah.

I'm reminded of the distinction between the verbal tza'aqah and the
preverbal za'aqah [gedolah umarah]. Sometimes the sheer emotion of the
experience robs you of words, and you still express something by crying
out meaningless sounds. For example, those of yelulei yalal or ginunei
ganach. RYBS describes the qol shofar as that of ze'aqah.

According to you, most frum Jews shouldn't bother davening, either.
After all, you're defining avodah shebeleiv entirely in terms of
understanding each word as you're saying it. Nevermind that most of us
aren't even paying attention to the act of saying it altogether. How
much of tefillah I don't understand at all -- and we here are of the
mi'ut even trying to learn the taytch!

In an earlier post, which I misplaced, RHM wrote (with probable errors
in retyping):
> Tehillim and Tefilla are not synonymous. IMHO if we want to daven to
> Hashem Yisborach for a Choleh or the Matzav then we should Daven
> EVEN IN ENGLISH (emphasis his) if need be so that the Bakashos can
> be exact and direct....

This follows from your cerbralized understanding of what kavanah is.

I wanted to raise a side-note: You describe tachanunim, not tefillah.
Tefillah is the shaping of the self into being an oveid H' by following
texts written by greater avadim than us. Tachanunim is the raw plea
for chein.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> The interesting thing about haskafa is that it is a recent conceptual
> construct; the word itself is not even found before one or two generations
> ago. The reason, I think is clear. Hashkafa, as opposed to older terms,
> refers to a more facile, easy to digest summary of Jewish belief,

A Rose by any other name is still a rose. 

The fact that the term "Hashkafa" is a relatively recently minted
term does not mean that it didn't exist before. The closest thing in
english to it is "philosophy" but it is really more than that. It is
a combination of philosophy and practice. The coining of the term is
merely an attempt at identifying something which we all already have
to one degree or another whether, we recognize it or not.

HM

From: Mlevinmd@aol.com
> The interesting thing about haskafa is that it is a recent conceptual
> construct; the word itself is not even found before one or two generations
> ago. The reason, I think is clear. Hashkafa, as opposed to older terms,
> refers to a more facile, easy to digest summary of Jewish belief,
> that attempts to avoid the complexity and the real challenge of Jewish
> thought. A related term among Dati-Leumi is "machava". This term removes
> some of the "hashkofo's" definitiveness and finality and allows a bit
> more complexity. However, it also loses authoritativeness in the process.

Maybe there's a new term, but the idea of thought about Judaism, thought
about God, theology and metaphysics, is as old as any other part of post-
revelatory Torah.

What are Sifrei Emet, if not (in part) hashkafa?  How we are to think
about and approach God, and live our inner lives, rather than how we
are to think about and approach law and behavior?

> Both terms lavoid the immediacy of living Jewish and substitute
> intelelctual meandering for the skin-to-skin experience of direct
> worship. Gemoro learning gets you going, sweating and cogitating precisley
> on that engaged level. Gemoro study is much closer to real life than
> the artificial and sometimes empty exercise we now call hashkofo.

Funny, the hashkofo proponent would probably make the same claim for
the primacy of hashkofo. As the kabbalist would make the claim for
the primacy of kabbalah - that as it is closer to real life than the
intellectualist maunderings of gemoro, which are almost as much about
textual issues as about halacha itself, it gets you engaged in how to
lead one's inner life.

Also, part of Aishdas' purpose used to be learning hashkofo, and how
that would shape one's approach to halocho. The MMGH learning program
fell apart after a while, and Aishdas seems more aligned to mussar qua
behaviorism, but hashkofo still guides the individual's approach to which
behaviors and convictions one chooses to work on, and how one will work
on them.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

You are right, but...

My pobnt was not that hashkofo shares material with other parts of Torah
but that it is a subset of such material, a subset which is poorer,
easier, lighter and in other ways diminished.

That's OK; not everyone needs to function at highest levels; however,
the problem arises when it becomes confused with the total set of
Torah alttitudes or becomes substituted for it. The next step is to
view someone who invokes the entire set as one who does not possess or
understand the right hashkofo.

M. Levin

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


[ 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         ]