Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 004

Tuesday, September 30 2003

• davening in place where your friends are or in a 'friendly' place - desirable ?
• Re: tehillim
• R. Shlomo min Hahar
• RE: Takanat Rabbeinu Gershom
• Re: tehillim
• mahgiach of Mir
• Re: Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view
• Re: Hashgocha Pratis etc.,
• Re: kneeling
• RE: Aseres Ymei Tshuva (was Re: cholov Yisrael) 2
• Re: Aseres Ymei Tshuva (was Re: cholov Yisrael)
• Re: time of selichot
• selichos query
• newly found manuscripts of rishonim
• Re: newly found manuscripts of rishonim
• Re: Fw: Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view
• Re: Not Blowing the Shofar

From: "Mishpachat Freedenberg" <free@actcom.co.il>
 <snip>
> Actually, this brings up an interesting point. There are many Ashkenazi
> shuls to daven in here in our city that are all within reasonable
> walking distance. There are two Ashkenazi shuls in particular that my
> husband generally davens in -- one that I am friendly with almost 100%
> of the "attendees" and one that I know a smaller percentage of the
> membership, but I'd say I know maybe 15% of the women davening there.
> Well, the second shul is much less friendly in general but this is the
> shul that I prefer to daven in because their shaliach tzibbur is
> incredible and I love the davening. It is certainly the more serious in
> terms of Torah learners [the men who are members there] and the shul is
> roomy and I can hear very well and I can have tremendous kavana there
> and there aren't usually any noisy kids that are allowed to disturb. The
> women there are serious daveners and I haven't heard too much idle
> chatter there at all. I don't need friends around when I'm davening --
> Hashem is there and that's more than enough. 

RRF brings up a very interesting point here, which I have noticed
myself.......

It seems that sometimes (if not always), it is better to daven in a
place that is not so friendly / populated by your friends.....

I was reminded of an interesting vort I once heard from the famed
'Elizabeth'er Rav' Rav Pinchos Teitz z"l (on one of his daf hashavua
radio broadcasts, IIRC).

IIRC, Rav Teitz commented on the famed beis haknesses of Alexandria in
Mitzrayim, where there were different sections for different professions
(e.g. sections for shoemakers, smiths, etc.). What is the logic involved
in dividing a Shul by profession - is a Shul a place of business - do we
want the men to 'talk shop' in Shul ? Rav Teitz z"l answered that no, on
the contrary this was an idea intended to enhance the holy atmosphere of
the Shul........How so ? We are taught that 'uman sonei es ben umanuso'
(a worker hates his fellow tradesman [someone in the same profession -
his 'competition']). The Rabbis realized this and desired that people
should not be chatting in Shul - so they figured that if you seat a man
next to his 'enemy', that would put a damper on such chat.

Also, I once heard someone say, in comparing davening in a large,
relatively empty Shul vs. davening a smaller, more crowded congregation,
that an advantage to the former is that people are not seated that
close to one another (geographically), thereby making it harder and
less tempting to talk with one's neighbor, as opposed to in the latter
situation.

I think that these matters are worthy of consideration when we seek to
improve tefilla in our botei kenesios and botei midroshos....

Mordechai

R Harry Maryles wrote:
>> 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.

> That's exactly what the story implies. I have heard that exact
> expalnation of the purpose of saying Tehillim... that it is way of
> attaining D'veikus and thereby Zechuyos for the Choleh... or to
> change a bad Matzav.

> Is a person's intent more important than an act mandated by the
> Torah or Chazal?

This question isn't raised by the story. After all, the BST isn't cited
as telling the masses to daven the alef-beis along with the ignorant
farmer. It's only the man who is unable to daven the proper matbei'os who
"gets away" with not doing what chazal mandated.

And had the same level of kavanah been put to the matbei'ah, of course
the zechus would have been greater.

> I have a difficulty with that because it implies
> that the entire purpose of those acts is to acheive D'veikus and if
> D'veikus could be achieved without performance of the Mitzvos than
> we could skip right over them....

Ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar.

> In fact, AIUI, Chasidus does indeed
> say something like that: i.e., that the goal of all Mitzvos is
> D'veikus and that man's capacity to achieve it requires the medium
> of Mitzvos in order to do so....

As you yourself write -- their view is that man requires mitzvos to
acquire full deveiqus. that's not being denied.

Tachanunim are themselves a mitzvah de'Oraisa. The man's inability to
engage in tefillah doesn't deny him that mitzvah. After all, R' Elazar
ben Dordiya was koneh olamo with the observance of a single lav, or
perhaps with teshuvah for a single lav.

>> 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.

> Crying is not praying....

If this were true, then teqi'as shofar would not be part of mussaf RH.
Shofar is a wordless te'aqah. In fact, it's WRT the mitzvah of shofar
that RYBS discusses tze'aqah vs ze'aqah.

...
> When one looks at Chazal's construction of any prayer they will see
> that it is verbalized and specific. Chazal could have simply said to
> us: If you want to gain favor from HaShem, just cry as hard as you
> can! They didn't do that....

Actually, the did. I reiterate: you're confusing tefillah with tachanunim
by calling both "praying".

Yes, they mandate a matbei'ah tefillah that can be understood on many
levels. But that's only one aspect of Jewish prayer.

>> 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.

> I accept your correction as possible teleological one but it is not
> definitional. At its more elementary level prayer is designed to
> either praise God or beesech Him for help.

You need to source this assertion. It's NOT how the word is taken by
the Gra (who makes the tefillah / techinah distinction), RSRH or RYBS.
All of them note the hitpa'el construction of "lehispallel".

-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 looked up the Beis Haleivi on the beginning of Shemos. He says that
is a person would ahve done an aveira anyway, the fact that there is a
ptur, such as Pikuach Nefesh, does not patur that person form onesh. In
the English translation, there is a note referring to Shut Tzitz Eleizer
that uses this Beis Haleivy L'Chalocho - an observant physician should
take call on Shabbos because otherwise the non-observant doctor will be
punished for violating shabbos even for pikuach nefesh.

M. Levin

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 09:54:19AM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote: 
: Does anyone know/is there a good work out on what caused R' Gershom to 
: make his takkana disallowing polygamy? Given the oft repeated position 
: that Halacha defines morality, was there some non-moral(eg economic) 
: basis for this takana? 

Try R Yisrael Shtepansky's 4 volume work on takanot(Takanot BeYisrael) I'm
sure it is in Gottesman Library, published by Mossad Harav Kook. Vol 4,
pages 78-129 on Rabbeinu Gershom's takanot. Of interest is the novel (page
114 ) opinion of R YaAvetz, ( R Yaakov Emden (Sheilat Yaavetz V 2 15) who
surmises  influence of Christian surroundings on Ashkenazi R Gershom, as
opposed to Sephardim who never accepted the  cherem, because they were used
to 2 wives of the Moslems. See also Ginot UVradim who refers to R Gershom
"HaShochen BeArei Edom" (who dwelled in the cities of the Christians), and
other Achronim mentioned by Stepansky who support or reject the explanation
of RY Emden.

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> R Harry Maryles wrote (WRT the moral of the BSHT/Am HaAretz story):
>> Is a person's intent more important than an act mandated by the
>> Torah or Chazal?

> This question isn't raised by the story. After all, the BST isn't cited
> as telling the masses to daven the alef-beis along with the ignorant
> farmer. It's only the man who is unable to daven the proper matbei'os who
> "gets away" with not doing what chazal mandated.

> And had the same level of kavanah been put to the matbei'ah, of course
> the zechus would have been greater.

I might agree with you if the story were told over that way. But the
emphasis in the story is the intensity of the supplicant Am HaAreatz.
No where in the story is the point you just asserted made.

>> I have a difficulty with that because it implies
>> that the entire purpose of those acts is to acheive D'veikus and if
>> D'veikus could be achieved without performance of the Mitzvos than
>> we could skip right over them....

> Ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i efshar.

I purposely used the word: implies". I can't 'prove' to a certainty,
my proposition. If I could do that, there would be nothing to
discuss.

>> Crying is not praying....

> If this were true, then teqi'as shofar would not be part of mussaf
> RH.

That the blasts of the Shofar of Tekiah, Shevarim, and Teruah are
representative the different ways a baby cries is a nice Drasha. But
our D'Oraisa obligation to hear Tekias Shofar does not include those
breakdowns. Hearing one simple Tekiah is enough to fulfil the Torah's
mandate. Ther breakdowns of the three different types of Tekios is
D'Rabbanan, and therefore no proof that there would be no Tekias
Shofar would not be part of the Musaf. Tekias Shofar is a Chok. Tiku
BaKodesh Shofar BaKeseh L'Yom Chagenu, Ki Chok L'Yisroel.

> Shofar is a wordless te'aqah. In fact, it's WRT the mitzvah of shofar
> that RYBS discusses tze'aqah vs ze'aqah.

Once again, a nice Drasha but no Rayah. I remain unconvinced.

> ...
>> When one looks at Chazal's construction of any prayer they will see
>> that it is verbalized and specific. Chazal could have simply said to
>> us: If you want to gain favor from HaShem, just cry as hard as you
>> can! They didn't do that....

> Actually, the did. I reiterate: you're confusing tefillah with tachanunim
> by calling both "praying".

HOW... did they?

> Yes, they mandate a matbei'ah tefillah that can be understood on many
> levels. But that's only one aspect of Jewish prayer.

Amourphous crying is not a substitute for a clear expression and
whenever possible it should be the preffered method. If someone cryries
incoherently because he does not know the proper way to express himself
It behooves his teachers to teach him how to pray rather than to encourage
him to cry incoherently.

>>> 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.

>> I accept your correction as possible teleological one but it is not
>> definitional. At its more elementary level prayer is designed to
>> either praise God or beesech Him for help.

> You need to source this assertion. 

If you look at the Amidah which is the essential Teffilah mandated by
Chazal, you immediately notice the twofold aspects of Teffilah that I
pointed out.

Example of praise: "HaKel HaGadol HaGibor V'Hanorah, Kel Elyon"
All words of exhaltation or praise. It continues along these lines:
"Gomel Chasadim Tovim V'Koneh HaKol" and so on.

Examples of Bakashos: Refaenu... Barech Alenu... Hashevenu...
V'Lamalshimim and so on.

I submit that this is all the proof I need to show that the primary
purpose of prayer is designed to either praise God or beesech Him for
help since this is how Chazal constructed Shmoneh Esreh.

At its essence prayer is simply man's communication to God since He
no longer communicates directly (thru Nevuah ) with us. Chazal simply
constructed the form it should take.

IIRC even the Rambam who is a Daas Yachid in saying that Teffilah is a
Doraiso still maintains that at least the simple "Modeh Ani" or the like
in the morning, is required to fulfil the D'Oraiso requirement and does
not say that amourphous crying would... Does he?

HM

> I pointed this out to someone who learns in the Mir (in Brooklyn) and he
> discussed it with the mashgiach (I don't know his name).  He directed us
> to R' Shlomo Wolbe's Alei Shur that quotes the Alter of Kelm as saying the
> same

The mashgiach of Mir In Brooklyn is R. Azriel Erlanger, who is the
son-in-law of R.Shlomo Wolbe.

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> The clearest indicator of the BESHT is that hashgocah protis applies
> to non-man. I could not find any reference to it in Michtav M'Eliyahu,
> Alei Shur, Shiurei Daas or Sifsei Chaim (in volume I in the section on
> hashgocha protis for non-man).

The Sifsei Chaim, Pirkei Emunah ve-Hashgachah vol. 1 devotes ma'amar
4 to the issue of whether there is hashgachah peratis on non-humans.
He brings down three views:
1. The Ramban's (pp. 82-83): Hashem's individual providence is only on
those who recognize and cling to Him.
2. The Ramak's (pp. 83-87): Individual providence applies to animals only
when it relates to people. [This seems to be the view of R' Aryeh Kaplan
in Handbook of Jewish Thought vol. 2 19:7-8 pp. 288-289.]
3. The Gra's (p. 87ff.): Individual providence applies to everything
created. He quotes R' Yonasan Eybeshutz and Radal who agree.

What you call the view of the Besht he brings down in the name of the Gra.

Ma'amar 5 discusses the varying degrees of Divine providence. That is
where he interprets the "teva" of the rishonim as referring to indirect
providence. See p. 109ff.

Gil Student

At 12:34 PM 9/29/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>>>RYGB wrote:
>>>> Sevara. Hashem would not allow so many people to have a

>>>How do you reconcile such an "assumption" w/ Malachi 2:6 (See also Rambam
>>>Yesodei HaTorah 1:11) ?

>> Sorry, you're going to have to be a bit more explicit...

>Sorry - it is Malachi 3:6 and what I mean is the following: "ani HaShem
>- Lo Shanisi" seems to imply that the essential nature of HKB"H is not
>subject to change - surely the issue of Hashgocha's HaShem would one such
>essentila quality - This idea is further expressed by the Rambam (Yesodei
>HaTorah 1:11) when he says that nothing done by man can effecutate change
>in Hashem - ayain sham vetimzah.

The hanahaga of Hashem alternates between din and rachamim, gilui and
hester, and according to the mekkubalim, in almost infinite arrays of
sefiros and partzufim. What does not change is:

1. Hashem's essence, d'leis machashovo tefisa bei.

2. The underlying "ki omarti olam chesed yiboneh," a corollary of which
is the covenant with Am Yisroel.

>Accordingly - I wonder how your "sevara" is yesharah. It would seem
>that the mere fact "so many people" share a "mistaken belief" in no way
>influences the essence of HKB"H - if it did what about other popular false
>beliefs i.e. xtianity and the like - would Hashem no allow himself to
>become physical etc. because so many believe it - the early xtians were
>Jews. Similarly (although not 100% analogous) what about belief in false
>mesiahs other than Yeshu - many Gedolim thought Shabtai Zvi was mashiach -
>yet Hashem did not make this the case just so they would not be wrong.

There is a significant difference between the false perception of someone
as Moshiach and the bold assertion that hanhogas Hashem is X. Given
the personalities involved, we assume they are in the position to know
something of that hanhogo.

BTW, the Ritva in Eruvin 13b indicates halachos are relative, I see no
reason why hanhogos are not.

[Email #2. -mi]

At 12:13 AM 9/29/2003 +0200, RDE wrote:
>The issue of hiddgen hashgachah - as R' Micha Berger has pointed out -
>is not a clear indicator of the BESHT. Hidden hashgacha can be translated
>into the Kuzari or even according to the Rambam as the Lubavitcher Rebbe
>himself pointed out. Thus there is no necessary chidush - which is where
>this whole thread got started. The clearest indicator of the BESHT is that
>hashgocah protis applies to non-man. I could not find any reference to it
>in Michtav M'Eliyahu, Alei Shur, Shiurei Daas or Sifsei Chaim...

>In sum:  There is no justification for R' Bechhofer criticising Prof Levi 
>for proposing a non BESHTian understanding of hashkofa protis because 
>every one of the above mentioned sefer do exactly that. Not a single 
>example of a non chassidic sefer conforming to R' Bechhofer's requirements 
>has been cited. Thus even assuming that the BESHT's view is cited in the 
>Sifsei Chaim - he clearly presents an understanding of hashkofa protis 
>which ignores it.

Forgive my mystification. The MME in vol. 5 p. 308 clearly alludes to the
post-Besht conception ("seforim ha'kedoshim"). IIRC his discussion of
rotzei'ach b'shogeg in vol. 4 is very closely linked to the conception
as well. The fact that you have decided on a "test marker" for adoption
of the conception is not mechayev those who were not focused on the
same marker!

In any event, my ideal is "Perakim b'Machasheves Yisroel" by R' Shaul
Yisraeli. I am willing to critique others who do not attain that benchmark
as well!

GCT,
YGB

Eli Turkel wrote on Areivim:
>It would seem to me that when doing kor-im it is the head that should
>not touch the bare floor and so one needs something between ones head
>and the floor. However, most people seem to put something between their
>knees and the floor.

Lichora you need both.  I swing my tallis in front of me to use for my
arms and head.

Gil Student

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> I took the time to look this up this morning.
> The KSA [130;2] explains that by us doing that little bit extra, hopefully
> Hashem will reciprocate. Vezeh leshono:

> "Ro'uy le'odom sheyisnaheg bayomim elu gam bechumros she'eyno noheg bohem
> bechol hashono - ki gam onu mevakshim me'es Hshem yisborach sheyisnaheg
> imonu bechassidus..."

And he continues 
"Veho'ochel kol hashono pas palter, 
lo yochal bayomim elu ki im pas yisroel.."

I thought that there may be a direct remez to the above halocho
 in the Pizmon of today's Selichos:

"Bein keseh le'osor hishlachnu ro'ah se'or..."

sba

Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2003 at 14:21, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>> I have no problem with doing more mitzvos. I have no problem with
>> learning extra and giving more tzedaka and seeking out more mitzvos
>> aseh to do. My problem is with changing hanhogos to a way you perhaps
>> SHOULD be behaving, when you know well that you won't continue it. It
>> feels dishonest.

> Adina and I were talking about this on Yom Tov, and she thinks that
> my approach is that of a Litvak (not surprising) while the approach
> that holds that changing hanhogos during AYT even with no intention
> of maintaining the new hanhaga is a chassidic approach.

The Rama (neither a chasid nor a Litvak) lists being nizhar on pas
akum as one of the things people do only during aseres y'mei tshuva.
The gmara assumes that pas yisrael is an issue of makom shenahagu,
and the Rama is clearly addressing places or people shelo nahagu. It
is therefore neither a mitzva nor a hanhagah that "you perhaps SHOULD"
be doing, so it fits neither paradigm.

My suspicion is that it is, for the Rama, an example of an ascetic
practice, and that he is recommending occasional asceticism (by which
I mean time every year set aside for asceticism). There is rabbinic
precedent for this: Chazal (I think it's a midrash Tanhuma) say that
beinonim fast throughout aseres y'mei Tshuva, and it's only the real scum
(like me) who wait for Yom Kippur to fast.

David Riceman

>All this discussion has been about the Selichos which we say in Elul and 
>Tishrei. What about Baha"b and Taaniyos?

I always thought the answer was: "Originally the latter were said during 
Slach Lonu - and are still said there by those kehillos not influenced by 
the Gro's apparent dislike of the practise."

I just looked this up in Hil. Taanis, OC 566:4: "The minhag is to say lots 
of slichos in the brocho of Slach-Lonu, and some have the minhag not to say 
slichos until after the 18 brochos, and this was how the kadmonim were 
noheig in EY and it's the correct minhag."

That said, the Yekkes say it in slach lonu on  Baha"b and Taaniyos.

- Danny

I am wondering - re the historical development of the selichos that we
say at this and other times - how much of it is is a gradual process of
accumulation / gathering of selichos from various mechabrim / places that
were later combined (by printers perhaps) to create the large corpus of
selichos before us today or was it lechatchila this amount of selichos ?

To put it in another way, 300-400-500-600 years ago in Ashkenazic
kehillos did they say the app. pesicha, three/four selichos, one akeda
and one pizmon that would be typical for one of the days of the aseres
yimei teshuvoh in our contemporary compilations of selichos, or did
they perhaps only say half or a third of that, slowly, that, having been
before the days of printed selichos, was all they had ?

If the latter is the case (as I suspect), then the minhag in some
Yeshivos/Yeshivishe minyonim in EY at present to say just a few selected
selichos, slowly and with kavonnoh, rather than racing through every
piece printed, would actually be like the old/original practice / minhag !

I guess looking at old machzorim / selichos / siddurim would help answer
this question, but I don't have a collection of those right in front of
me at this moment.....

(Same question can licheora be asked re Kinnos as well)

Comments please.....

Mordechai

From: Eli Turkel <turkel@cem.tau.ac.il>
> 3. CI attitude towards manuscripts seems more mystical than halachic
> 4. A Tur in Chishen Mishpat quotes Yad Ramah ang and makes no
> sense. Even the Bach says he doesn't understand it. R Shimon Shkop
> in Shaare Yosher shows that a line is missing in the Tur based on
> new versions of the Yad Ramah. CI aggrees in pricinciple but claims
> that the halacha is true in spite of the error and ends with the
> phrase

I recall seeing b'sheim both the CI and the SR that we ignore any newly
found manuscripts of rishonim which would change the halocho from what
we have been mekabel.

IIRC the reason being that HKBH would not have allowed Klall Yisroel
to be nichshol all these years - and had it been relevant or indeed the
halocho so - it would have been in our hands centuries ago.

 SBA

On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:11:38PM +1000, SBA wrote:
: I recall seeing b'sheim both the CI and the SR that we ignore any newly
: found manuscripts of rishonim which would change the halocho from what
: we have been mekabel.
: 
: IIRC the reason being that HKBH would not have allowed Klall Yisroel
: to be nichshol all these years - and had it been relevant or indeed the
: halocho so - it would have been in our hands centuries ago.

In Nefesh haRav, RHS quotes RYBS saying the same thing about the Me'iri.
Those of his shitos that were lost until the 20th cent are to be treated
like those of an acharon.

Frankly, I would think this shitah is anti-kabbalistic. It would turn
the Zohar into a rishon, as R' Shim'on bar Yochai's words barely entered
the halachic process, if at all, until then. This /reduces/ the role of
qabbalah in halakhah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
micha@aishdas.org        I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org   "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (413) 403-9905      "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>The clearest indicator of the BESHT is that hashgocah protis applies
>>to non-man. I could not find any reference to it in Michtav M'Eliyahu,
>>Alei Shur, Shiurei Daas or Sifsei Chaim (in volume I in the section on
>>hashgocha protis for non-man).

R' Gil Student wrote:
>The Sifsei Chaim, Pirkei Emunah ve-Hashgachah vol. 1 devotes ma'amar 4 to
>the issue of whether there is hashgachah peratis on non-humans.  He brings
>down three views:
>1. The Ramban's (pp. 82-83): Hashem's individual providence is only on
>those who recognize and cling to Him.
>2. The Ramak's (pp. 83-87): Individual providence applies to animals only
>when it relates to people. [This seems to be the view of R' Aryeh Kaplan
>in Handbook of Jewish Thought vol. 2 19:7-8 pp. 288-289.]
>3. The Gra's (p. 87ff.): Individual providence applies to everything
>created. He quotes R' Yonasan Eybeshutz and Radal who agree.

Thanks for your prompt response.
 
I found the discussion of R' Yonasan Eybeshutz. He doesn't seem to have 
a clear conviction but says that it is dispute between the Ramban and 
Rambam. This assertion that the Ramban held that HP applies also to 
animals is problematic since there are a number of very clear statements 
of the Ramban that are identical to the position of the Rambam. This is  
noted by the publisher of Shomer  Emunim Hakadmon when the author made  
a similar statement. In other words R' Eybeshutz is making an assertion 
that there is such a shita and ascribes it to the Ramban.  It is not  
clear that the Ramban  actually held such a position.

The position of the Gra is much more problematic. Firstly the position of
ascribed to the Gra is apparently that which we have assumed is that of
the Besht. It is now strange that this view was described by R' Shochet as
not only a chidush but the biggest change that Chassidus accomplished. It
is also strange that the Lubavitcher Rebbe did not mention the Gra.

Looking more closely at the words quoted in the Sifsei Chaim - it
seems that the Gra never said that hashgocha protis actually applies to
animals. He says that everything about everything in the world is known
by G-d, was known by G-d at creation and is all included in the Torah.
This seems to be the view of the Kuzari that everything is ultimately
from G-d but there are direct and indirect paths. However the indirect
path is not usually called hashgocha protis.

Anyway if you call indirect expression of ratzon HaShem to be hashgocha
protis and if you add that while HP is a function of a person's closeness
to G-d but that all that varies is whether the HP is manifest or concealed
- it would seem that there is absolutely no dispute at all concerning
hashgocha protis. There are just changes in terminology. This in fact
was suggested by R' Mordechai Kornfeld when we discussed the issue during
Rosh HaShana.

To complicate things a bit more my son just showed me a collections of Rav
Schach's statements about various topics "Lulei Torasecha" collected by
Rav Schach's grandson R' Asher Bergman on page 14 we find the following:
"Once R' Maier Heisler brought up the view shared by many rishonim that
there is no hashgocha protis on animals but only a general providence to
preserve the species. R' Schach responded: "It is definitely not so. Clal
Yisroel did not accept this view. In the Yerushalmi (Sheviis Perek 9)
it is written contrary to this view. And the view of the Yerushalmi is
cited by Tosfos in Avoda Zara 16b 'Even a bird is not caught without the
consent of Heaven'. R' Maier Heisler replied that the Gra's commentary
to Sefer D'Tzenusa also is contary to the position of the rishonim "All
events are hinted in the Torah even the minute details of each species
and of all members of the species and this includes all evens from birth
to death..." ....

It is also important to note that there doesn't seem to be any note
of a change in attitude in hashkofa protis in the writings against
the chassidim.

Thus we are left with three possibilities 1) There are and were always
two incompatible views concerning HP for animals 2) There was near
consensus until the Gra or BESHT and his chidush was accepted. 3) There
was always a single position regarding HP but that the description of the
intermediaries who are faithfully carrying out ratzon HaShem varies. In
the time of the rishonim these intermediaries are called nature, mazel
or accident while in recent times they are viewed as hashgocha protis.

Finally we find that the Michtav M'Eliyahu does not mentioned this view
of animal HP nor does the Ramchal, Malbim, Meshech Chochma, Shiurei Daas,
R' Wolbe - or R' Aryeh Kaplan. While the Sifsei Chaim mentions it as
solely the view of the Gra.

Given the above is it still problematic if Prof Levi presents an
understanding which fits well with the language of the Kuzari as well
as the Gra - but ignores the view of the BESHT as found in chassidic
seforim? I will respond to R' Bechhoffer's detailed response in another
posting.

                   Daniel Eidensohn

My host on 2nd night RH showed me a tshuva of Rav PZ Frank zt"l.
Apparently there was a certain Rav Shlezinger who held it was muttar to
blow shofar on shabbes in Yerusholayim, and he did.

The question was: Are you supposed to go and listen. Since he was blowing
anyways maybe you could be (or should be) yotzie your chiyuv.

I didn't (yet) read the answer; it was a few pages long.

- Danny

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


[ 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         ]