Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 072

Saturday, September 20 2003

• Re: tehillim
• Re: tehillim
• Re: tehillim
• Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view
• Re: Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view
• Re: Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view
• Yehuda Levy's book
• Re: tehillim
• Re: driving
• Re: driving
• Re: driving
• Working on Ga'ava
• Berachos (Forwarded from Areivim)
• Re: tehillim
• Re: tehillim
• Re: Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view

R' Eli Turkel asks <<< what are the benefits of saying tehillim on behalf
of someone else? ... the saying that "prayer changes us and then the
gezerot don't apply since we have changed" makes sense only when praying
for oneself not when praying or saying tehillim for another person. >>>

My understanding is that HaShem looks at the whole picture when making
His decisions. A person's own zechuyos might not be enough to warrant his
refuah, but if others need him and deserve to have him, that can turn the
balance in the other direction. Therefore, whereas yesterday our zechuyos
might have been insufficient, we say Tehillim and daven so as to transform
ourselves into people who have the zechus to keep the choleh with us.

Similar logic applies to ANY case where one person davens for a different
person.

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 9/18/03  Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> writes
[in] Avodah V11 #71:
> While we discuss the benefits of saying kaddish let me ask what are the
> benefits of saying tehillim on behalf of someone else?

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

Decree on RH based on considerations that include what from human point
of view is the future as well as the past--e.g., Hashem's foreknowledge
that you WILL say Tehillim, or that you are the kind of person who says
Tehillim, therefore deserving of Decree X rather than Decree Y.

> 2. If one holds that "nature" rules the world except for special
> tzaddikim it still seems that only the deeds of the tzaddik can help
> but not prayers of outsiders.

Among the accomplishments of a tzaddik may be his ability to inspire an
unusually large number of people to say Tehillim, and to do so with an
unusual degree of kavanah.

> 3. If one holds that prayer in general is for "oneself" rather than
> to change the world then saying tehillim for a sick person can indeed
> change us if not the sick person.
> However, the saying that prayer changes us and then the gezerot don't
> apply since we have changed makes sense only when praying for oneself
> not when praying or saying tehillim for another person.

By davening properly, I have so changed myself that I no longer deserve
to lose the person whom I love and esteem, for whom I am davening.

My mother said about a friend who davened very hard for her husband to
live--and he did live an extra two years, despite advanced cancer--"Zi
hut im git oisgebeiten."

Toby Katz

On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 01:16:06AM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: My understanding is that HaShem looks at the whole picture when making
: His decisions. A person's own zechuyos might not be enough to warrant his
: refuah, but if others need him and deserve to have him, that can turn the
: balance in the other direction. Therefore, whereas yesterday our zechuyos
: might have been insufficient, we say Tehillim and daven so as to transform
: ourselves into people who have the zechus to keep the choleh with us.

Barukh shekivanta!

RYBS gives this explanation to the role of "Mi sheBeirakh". It changes
the personal suffering into a communal one.

Unlike a court, which if it sentences someone to prison justly, may
still be unfairly depriving his wife and children of his presence,
earning capacity, and affection, causing all of his family bushah,
etc... HQBH takes EVERY affected party into account. (The Mashal is
RYBS's as well.)

On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 02:52:07AM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: Decree on RH based on considerations that include what from human point
: of view is the future as well as the past--e.g., Hashem's foreknowledge
: that you WILL say Tehillim, or that you are the kind of person who says
: Tehillim, therefore deserving of Decree X rather than Decree Y.

WADR, I believe you're mistaken. As it says when HQBH saves Yishma'el,
man is judged "ba'asher hu sham", not based on the past or the future.

What a person is now is a product of his past. And what he inspires
people to do in the future is a product of his present.

Which is how teshuvah can work. As you later write:
: By davening properly, I have so changed myself that I no longer deserve
: to lose the person whom I love and esteem, for whom I am davening.

It's who you are now.

:-)BBii
-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      

[RYGB, in JA:]
>I once asked the principal of a yeshiva high school why the standard
>curriculum does not include the study of Jewish thought - excerpts from
>the Kuzari, Derech Hashem, Michtav Mei'Eliyahu - anything? He answered
>me quite candidly, saying that the study of such works and issues would
>likely provoke students to raise significant questions, and there was
>a real concern that the teachers would not be equipped to answer the
>questions satisfactorily. Better, he contended, not to raise questions
>in students. minds than to raise questions that would remain unanswered.

I asked R' Mendal Weinbach - head of Yeshiva Ohr Someach - the same
question a few years ago. "Given that all the sources indicate that one
must be knowledgeable in hashkofa, Why is it that a person is considered
a successful bal tshuva when he stops talking about G-d and hashkofa and
focuses on the gemora? He replied, "Hoshkofa is problematic since it is
very interesting and attracts a person's attention. Today we don't have
the mental capacity to be involved in both hashkofa and gemora and it
is better to be devoted to gemora."

>  A flaw in the book, is Prof. Levi's tendency on occasion to advance
>resolutions in areas in which we may not have the right to advance
>a resolution. A good example of such an area is the issue of Divine
>Providence. A scholar of Chassidus, Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet, once
>said to me that the greatest revolution that the Baal Shem Tov succeeded
>in accomplishing was in the area of Hashgachah Pratis (specific or
>special Divine providence). As Prof. Levi notes (p. 304, backed by a long
>endnote): "...We find in the writings of the early authorities that only
>righteous individuals, each according to his degree of righteousness,
>merit special Divine Providence." As we know, this is not the current
>perspective on Divine Providence. Although Prof. Levi chooses to raise
>the contrary position on the basis of some seemingly contradictory
>remarks in Chazal, as Rabbi Schochet noted, the progenitors of today's
>perception are the fathers of Chassidism.[7] As the Rebbe Reb Bunim of
>Parshischah put it, anyone who does not believe that when a person draws
>a stick out of the sand, that God dictates where each particle of sand
>falls into the hole, denies Divine Providence.

>Prof. Levi proposes to reconcile the two schools of thought (ibid.):

>    ...This contradiction is readily resolvable. Everything that
>    happens is, in fact, an act of God, but God's course of action is
>    also governed by His desire to rule the world according to the
>    deterministic and statistical laws of nature. Generally, these
>    laws, rather than an individual's rights and needs, determine
>    these acts of God. However, occasionally such rights and needs
>    do influence the course of events; when they do, this is referred
>    to as hashgachah peratith. Divine Providence does in fact control
>    everything. "Every blade of grass has an angel standing over it,
>    telling it 'Grow.'" However, the special providence, hashgachah
>    peratith in the narrow sense, is reserved for righteous people;
>    only they merit a personal relationship on the part of God.

>I do not dispute the rational character of Prof. Levi's suggestion. I
>think it has much merit. But I do not know mi ya'aleh lanu ha'shomyma -
>who will go up for us to Heaven to ascertain if God acts accordingly!

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? The resolution R' Levi posits is
one found in the rishonim and achronim. 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.

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. In
contrast for the individual, he lives if he has enough merit and he dies
if he has too many sins... It is important to know the general rule that
miracles are not done either for good or bad - except for the completely
righteous or the completely wicked. In contrast for the average person,
the world continues according to the laws of nature whether for the good
or bad.

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. That means G-d
leaves him exposed to chance causes of death. Death is not inevitable
because the mazel might be so strong that it will guard him but it is
a strong possibility. That is why chazal tell us that one should not
travel with a rasha because he is accompanied by the angelic agents of
destruction...however there are times that he doesn't actually die...This
is expressed by Dovid (Shmuel I 26) that death is divided into 3 causes
1) G-d directly causes 2) natural 3) chance...

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. [The Munkatcher Rebbe( Minchas Elazar 1:50 & 2 at end of sefer)
poskened that it was prohibited to read this section of the Shomer Emunim
since it disagreed with the Besht]

Meshech Chochma( Shemos 13:9): Divine Providence is manifest for each
Jew according to his spiritual level as the Rambam explains in Moreh
Nevuchim (3:18): Divine Providence is not equal for everyone but rather is
proportional to their spiritual level. Consequently the Divine Providence
for the prophets is extremely powerful each according to their level of
prophecy. The Divine Providence for the pious and saintly is according to
their level of perfection. In contrast the fools and the rebels lacking
spirituality are in essence in the same category as animals... This
concept that Divine Providence is proportional to spiritual level is
one of foundations of Judaism...

Kuzari(5:20):Kuzari (5:20)[Hirschfeld's translation][One might justly 
say that everything is ordained by G-d, and another is equally right in 
making man's free will or accident responsible for it, without however 
bringing it outside the divine providence. If you like you may rend the 
matter more intelligible by means of the following classification. 
Effects are either divine or natural origin, either accidental or 
arbitrary. The divine ones issues forth actively, having no other causes 
except G-d's will. The natural ones are derived from intermediate, 
preparatory causes which bring them to the desired end, as long as no 
obstacle arises from one of the other three classes. The accidental ones 
are likewise the result of intermediary causes, but accidentally, not by 
nature or arrangement or by will power. They are not prepared to be 
brought to completion and standstill and they stand apart from the other 
three classes. As regards the arbitrary actions they have their roots in 
the free will of man, when he is in a position to exercise it. Free will 
belongs to the class of intermediary causes and possesses causes which 
reduce it chainlike, to the Prime Cause. This course is not compulsory, 
because the whole thing is potential, and the mind wavers between an 
opinion and its opposite, being permitted to turn where it chooses. The 
result is praise or blame for the choice, which is not the case in the 
other classes. An accidental or natural cause cannot be blamed although 
some of them admit a possibility. But one cannot blame a child or a 
sleeping person for harm done. The opposite was possible just the same 
and they cannot be blamed because they lack judgment...If all incidents 
would be the result of the original will of the Prime Cause, they would, 
each in its turn, be created anew in every moment. We might then say 
that the Creator created anew the whole world this very moment. The 
servant of G-d would be no better than the wicked as both would be 
obedient and only do that for which they are fated. A conviction of this 
kind has many objections, while the refutation of appearance is most 
difficult as we said before. The objection made against those who assert 
that some matters are removed from the bounds of Providence by human 
free will is to be refuted by what was said before, viz, that they are 
completely outside the control of Providence, but are indirectly linked 
to it. ... Now since events must be either of divine origin, or arise 
out of one of the other classes, and the possibility exists that they 
are all providential, the people preferred to refer them all to G-d, 
because this encourages belief most effectually. He, however, who knows 
how to distinguish one people from another, one person from another, one 
time from another, one place from another and certain circumstances from 
others will perceive that heavenly dictated events mostly came to pass 
in the chosen and holy land, and among the privileged Israelites people, 
and in that time and under circumstances which were accompanied by laws 
and customs the observation of which was beneficial while their neglect 
wrought harm. Matters natural or accidental were of no avail against the 
undesired effect, nor could they do harm at the time of pious conduct.

    Daniel Eidensohn

[R Daniel Eidensohn:]
>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? The resolution R' Levi posits is
>one found in the rishonim and achronim. 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.

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.

YGB

In a message dated 9/19/2003 8:38:09 AM EDT, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> I asked R' Mendal Weinbach - head of Yeshiva Ohr Someach - the same
> question a few years ago. "Given that all the sources indicate that one
> must be knowledgeable in hashkofa, Why is it that a person is considered
> a successful bal tshuva when he stops talking about G-d and hashkofa and
> focuses on the gemora? He replied, "Hoshkofa is problematic since it is
> very interesting and attracts a person's attention. Today we don't have
> the mental capacity to be involved in both hashkofa and gemora and it
> is better to be devoted to gemora."

Or perhaps as R' Dr. C. Soloveitchik said "Having lost the touch of his 
presence they seek now solace in the pressure of his yoke"

SS&KVCT
Joel Rich

RYGB's review of Yehuda's Levy book points out significant biases.
The author is entitled to his own opinions. On those where RYGB agrees,
he praises. On others, such as providence, where he disagrees - he refers
to "Prof. Levi's tendency on occasion to advance resolutions in areas
in which we may not have the right to advance a resolution"

I would say that the entire book seems to have that problem. The fact that
RYGB agrees (as we know from previous discussions) with RYL's assessment
of Zionism doesn't change the fact that RYL has a very peculiar definition
of zionism, which leads to his conclusions - a definition that would be
scarcely recognizable by any zionist.

As there are many flavors of zionism, the underlying term must be the
common denominator. The only truly common thread is the one defined
by Prof Lebovitz z"l - zionism is the decision that we didn't want to
be ruled by others. Most flavors (but not the Uganda flavors) add that
we want to rule ourselves in Eretz Yisrael (essentially the Jerusalem
platform). This is not a supreme value, merely a value, and most of the
criticisms of RYL (like many, a closet zionist who hates the term because
of past fights) are irrelevant to the actual definitions. RYGB's review
shows that as RYL is devoted to fighting past battles, he contributes
little to understanding the present.

Meir Shinnar

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> My understanding is that HaShem looks at the whole picture when making
> His decisions. A person's own zechuyos might not be enough to warrant his
> refuah, but if others need him and deserve to have him, that can turn the
> balance in the other direction. Therefore, whereas yesterday our zechuyos
> might have been insufficient, we say Tehillim and daven so as to transform
> ourselves into people who have the zechus to keep the choleh with us.

I've heard this explanation before but I do not find it a satisfying
one. Why use the medium of Tehillim to gain Zechyos, especially when
the vast majority of those saying it do not understand the meaning of
the words? Wouldn't it be better to sit down and learn Torah? Is
SAYING tehillim better than LEARNING Torah, even if that Torah
learning is learning Tehillim itself(instead of justt sayinf it)? If
we can set aside an hour for SAYING Tehillim why not use that same
hour to learn Torah instead? Wouldn't this be more productive in
building up Zechuyos?

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 if need be so that the Bakashos can be exact and direct,
and not say an "amorphous" Kapit'l Tehillim whose words may bear some
relavance to the situation. 

[Email #2. -mi]

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Among the accomplishments of a tzaddik may be his ability to inspire an
> unusually large number of people to say Tehillim, and to do so with an
> unusual degree of kavanah.

How do you define Kavanah as it applies to the masses saying Tehhilim? Do
you mean that the mere "saying of the words"... that many of those saying
tehillim do not understand but as long as everybody knows that they are
"davening" for a Yeshua... is Kavanah? To me this seems to be somewhat
infantile... like telling a young child to Daven eventhough the child
does not understand the words.

There is a famous story (I'm sure I've mentioned it here before) of a
man who, seeking to do Teshuva, came to the Baal Shem Tov on Yom Kippur
and informed him that he was so uneducated that he couldn't even read
hebrew. He asked him what to do? The BSHT asked what he DID know and he
answered that he knew the Aleph Bais. So the BSHT told him to recite the
Aleph Bais, which he proceeded to do with all his might... very loud
and very disturbing to the rest of the BSHT's Chasidm davneing. They
complained to the BSHT and he is puported to have answered something to
the effect: Rabbosai ...it is through this BT's Teffilos that we will
br granted our Yeshuos!

I have never liked this story because it implies that Kavanah is more
important than the deed itself. As long as our intentions are L'Shem
Shamayim, it doesn't rally matter what we know, as long as "we're doin'
it for God!". If one is completely ignorant of Torah but everything he
does is done in God's name with the utmost of Kavanah, one is better
than one who performs all of the mitzvos B'diuk as spelled out in the
Torah but doesn't quite measure up to the Kavanos of the aforementioned
ignoramous. This is comprable to being a Jew in the heart... the Reform
position. Now I'm not Chas V'Sholom saying that a sincere but ignorant
Reform Jew is better in the eyes of God than a not so sincere Orthodox
Jew. But the similarities are there.

I believe I've mentioned the following before, too. A corroboration of
my view is mentioned by RYBS in "Halakhic Man". IIRC he tells over the
story of his father, R. Moshe, who as a young boy wanted to say the
Piyutim (...or was it Shiur HaKavod?) that the Shaliach Tzibur said
after Aleinu on Rosh Hashannah night. When his father, R. Chaim saw
this he told his son not to do that. R Chaim said that if he wanted
to do something constructive he should instead open up a Gammarah Rosh
HaShannah and start learning.

HM

Although "hachovel b'atzmo af al pi she'eino rashai, patur; acherim
she'chavlu bo chayavim" (Choshen Mishpat 420:31) we see in 427:10 (re:
SAKKANA) that "kol ha'oveir al devarim eilu u'k'yotzeh bahem, v'amar
hareini m'saken b'atzmi u'mah l'acherim alai b'kach, o eini makpid b'kach,
MAKKIN OTO MAKKAT MARDUT (caps mine) v'hanizhar me'ehm alav tavo birkat
tov".

There's an halacha (Orach Chayim 128:35) that a Cohen "she'harag et
ha'nefesh afilu b'shogeg" doesn't duchen, but the Rema there indicates
"d'im asah tshuva noseh kapav". I once saw a tshuva (I don't remember
where) that if this was in a car accident caused by the Cohen, even
if he did tshuva he can never duchen again because of the severity of
the offense.

Josh

Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/17/2003 11:37:51 AM EST, dr@insight.att.com writes:
>> The Torah's example of manslaughter is as a result of chopping wood, yet
>> I recall no halachic attempt to proscribe woodcutting. Similarly people
>> die every day after being hit by cars, and I can recall no halachic
>> proscription of driving.

> I enclosed part of the interduction to the Sefer Shmiras haGuf v'haNefesh
> who discusses this issue at lentgh. Please point to:
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/shmirasHagufVehanefesh.pdf>.

> note on pg. 44 WRT driving, I would like to add that the Torah permits
> "Uvilechticha Baderech" which according to the Gemara (Brochos 11a) is
> Rishus not for a Mitzva, even though "Kol Hadrochim Bchezkas Sakana"
> Yerushalmi Brochos 4:4 (Rashi Breishis 44:29) (note also Yerushalmi
> Shabbos 2:4). Also the known issue that a woman who dies in childbirth
> is burried in a seperate place because she was Moser Nefesh (see Shabbos
> 32a) even though the Mitzvah of Pru Urvu is not on the female.

All of these are examples of endangering one's self, not of endangering
others.

> IAN"D it is quite obvious that one is not allowed to endanger someone
> else that is Poshut Teitch in Ki Yipol Hanofeil

In my original post I distinguished between the Aseh of maakeh and a
possible lav (??) of endangering others by pointing out that the aseh
restricts objects, not actions. Are you suggesting that ki yipol hanofeil
is a separate lav? What is it's extent?

> and see C"M 382:1.

Again that restricts objects, not actions. In addition it's a din in
nizkei mamon, not shmiras hanefesh.

David Riceman

BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
> Although "hachovel b'atzmo af al pi she'eino rashai, patur; acherim
> she'chavlu bo chayavim" (Choshen Mishpat 420:31) we see in 427:10 (re:
> SAKKANA) that "kol ha'oveir al devarim eilu u'k'yotzeh bahem, v'amar
> hareini m'saken b'atzmi u'mah l'acherim alai b'kach, o eini makpid b'kach,
> MAKKIN OTO MAKKAT MARDUT (caps mine) v'hanizhar me'ehm alav tavo birkat
> tov".

My question was about death, not damage. In particular, I know sources
which say that one may not do certain things which may lead to one's own
unanticipated death. I was asking whether any such halachoth applied
to other's unanticipated death.
  Here are two possibilities:

H. Rotzeah  12:6 (could that be the machloketh with the Raavad?)

ibid. 12:12

though again, both of those could be attempts to prevent injury rather
than death.

The chiluk BTW is that adam muad l'olam, so he has a positive obligation
to avoid injuring people. But murder requires kavannah.

David Riceman

One of my sons tells me that one of his Yeshiva friends claims that the
Steipler wrote that one should not work on the midda of not being a ba'al
gaiva before the age of 20. Neither of us believe that the Steipler ever
said any such thing.

Can anyone confirm that there is no such thing in the Steipler's
writings? Alternatively, can anyone point to a place in the Steipler's
writings where he does say such a thing?

Thanks. 

-- 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. 

R'n Luntz wrote:
<<It is not Robert's custom, but a lot of Sephardim have the custom
of making brachot prior to washing but after kiddish on shabbas (every
shabbas), I have eaten at some Gibraltarians with that custom - it is
a way of making sure you make up the necessary number of brochas, and,
at least as I have seen it, they never bench before going on to make
hamotzei, they just seem to get up at some point in the middle of tasting
all these bits of food, such as olives etc (which of course you have
tasted in the correct order as identified by the pasuk!), and wash.>>

What about berachos she'einan tzerichos? What about beracha acharona on
those "tasties" before going to wash?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 9/19/03, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> T613K@aol.com wrote:
>> Among the accomplishments of a tzaddik may be his ability to inspire an
>> unusually large number of people to say Tehillim, and to do so with an
>> unusual degree of kavanah.

RHM wrote: 
> How do you define Kavanah as it applies to the masses saying
> Tehhilim? Do you mean that the mere "saying of the words"... that
> many of those saying tehillim do not understand... is Kavanah?
> To me this seems to be somewhat infantile... 

Balance of long posting snipped.

Part of it was a lengthy riff on the idea that between davening and
learning Torah, the latter is preferable. This on a forum whose members
spend hours each day neither davening NOR learning, but blowing smoke
in the cyber-cave.

Needless to say, I never said that it's a good thing for am haratzim
to mouth words they don't understand. Nor did I ever say that talmidei
chachamim should stop learning Torah and say Tehillim instead.

How he got from my posting to his response is a mystery. I think we
have here a reverse Rumplestitskin, one who weaves straw from gold.

Toby Katz 

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Part of it was a lengthy riff on the idea that between davening and learning 
> Torah, the latter is preferable.  

The balance of the long posting that you snipped deserves an answer and
not merely a dismissal. There is certainly more to it than the difference
you boiled it down to. 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.

I realize fully that this has been the Minhag in Klal Israel for many
generations and I am not rying to stop Klal Israel from continuing
the custom. In times of trouble we seem to have always turned to
Tehillim. But... WHY? When did the custom start? And who started it?
Does anyone have any idea about the history of saying Tehillim for
the puropses mentioned in this discussion? Are there any historical
records about when this was first done? Was it during Tannaitic times,
Amoraic... or was it during mediaeval times or even later.

And what about the story RYBS told about R. Chaim Brisker telling his
young son (RYBS's father) not to say the Shiur HaKavod with the
Tzibur but rather to open up a Gemmrah instead? Was he not "bucking"
a long held custom as well by advising his son not to follow it?

> This on a forum whose members spend hours 
> each day neither davening NOR learning, but blowing smoke in the
> cyber-cave.

And exactly what is your point here? ...That we are guilty of spending too
time much time on Areivim? That we could be learning Torah instead? Well,
you may be right about that. But just because we are guilty of not living
up to our potential doesn't mean that we shouldn't be. Besides this has
little if anything to do with the question at hand. All it does is blur
the issue by sidetracking it with self criticism.

> Needless to say, I never said that it's a good thing for am haratzim to mouth 
> words they don't understand.  Nor did I ever say that talmidei chachamim 
> should stop learning Torah and say Tehillim instead.  

> How he got from my  posting to his response is a mystery.  I think we have 
> here a reverse Rumplestitskin, one who weaves straw from gold.

Tehillim is gold? ...and I am turning it into straw? I don't think so. I
asked an Hashkafic question.

You are presuming Tehillim is gold. But as RYBS said in "Halakhic Man",
when... after writing it, David HaMelech asked God to accept his Tehillim
God did not respond to him. Once again, I am not God forbid denigrating
David HaMelech's Tehillim. I am simply asking why during times of trouble
we turn to saying it rather than davening more specifically about the
actual issue at hand even if that would mean we would end up Davening
in english.

I do not think that my post deserved the type of denigrating dismissal
that you gave it.

HM

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.it.northwestern.edu>
> [R Daniel Eidensohn:]
>>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? The resolution R' Levi posits is
>>one found in the rishonim and achronim. 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.

> 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.

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

There seems to be an assumption in certain circles that the chassidim have
won or at least that the misnagdim lost. This appears to be the basis
of the rather strong criticism that the Novominsker Rebbe expressed in
Yeshurun (vol 10) against R' Eliach's book on the Gra. R' Eliach notes
in his introduction that the understanding of the dispute between the
Gra and the Chassidim has been told primarily from the chassidic point
of view and that he was interested in presenting the other side of the
dispute. The Novominsker indicated that the Gra's opposition was maaseh
satan and was not justified by the facts.

If you are merely indicating that we need to avoid controversy by not
saying anything that would offend the chassic world - I could accept that
that point has some validity. I was told by R' Weinberg RH of Ner Israel
that I could write about any issue in Yiddishkeit in my next sefer but
I should not deal with the Chassidic-Misngadic dispute. Similar advice
was given my by R' Moshe Halberstam. Both of them indicated that this
was a question of shalom bayis - but not that I needed to acknowledge
the chassidic point of view.

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!

          Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ 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         ]