Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 012

Tuesday, October 14 2003

• Fw: women going to hear Parshas Zochor
• RE:hashgacha pratit
• Re: Yona's fish
• forcing oneself to cry on Yom Kippur
• Al Cheit and Sin.....
• Benching children on Erev YK
• Hedyotos...Eating in the Sukkah When it Rains
• new birth control?
• Re: O joining a C synagogue for qiruv
• Re: Al Chets
• Re: Al Chets
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila
• Re: duchenening during Ne'ila
• vending machines on shabbos
• Re: Suffering: Individual vs Community
• sechar va'onesh in this world
• Re: sechar va'onesh in this world
• Shofar on RH
• Re: hasgacha
• Simchas Beis haSho'eivah
• Re: Al Chets
• Re: O joining a C synagogue for qiruv
• Re: newly found manuscripts of rishonim
• Re: Hashgocha Pratis

"SBA" writes:
SM:
> R.n Freedenberg may not be aware of the fact that women going to
> shul on shabbos or Yom Tov is a "modern" custom; in previous generations
> women did not go to shul at all, unless there was a simcha (an afruf or a
> bris) or to hear t'qi'as Shofar. Women did not go for Parshas Zokhor,
> either. These"modern" customs, which depart so greatly from women's
> "traditional role," started in the 20th century.

See SA OC 84 in the Rahma and Baer Hetev S"K 2

Good Moed
meir zirkind

With regard to hashgacha pratit of nonhumans pre besht, see Moreh Nevuchim
3:17, where, in discussing the position of the mutazila, who believe in
such hashgacha, he mentions that there was one gaon accepted this shita.
Many think he is refering to R Saadia Gaon, ma'amar 3, chapter 10,
although that is not clear. R Kapach, in his edition, (p 312, footnote
69) refers to a tshuva by a gaon brought in harkavy's tsuvot hageonim,
p 191, where it talks about an animal she'eyn yotzro mekapeach scharo.

Meir Shinnar

On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 01:32:05PM -0400, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: Three days is the number for change, transformation and rebirth.
: There may also be a connection to the kabbalistic idea discussed here
: in the past of the neshomos of tsadikim reincarnated inside specifically
: fish.

MB:
> Particularly with the Gra's peirush, in which Yonah = neshamah and the
> entire story is about gilgul. However, I looked and didn't see anything
> about gilgul of tzaddiqim and fish.

accessible source to look at this issue is Ohr Hachaim on the posuk in
Breishis 1, "v'Yerdu bedgas Hayom". Interestingly, I once checked the
Gro's pirush on Yonah and he does not comment.

In Zmiras Divrei Yoel a number of chassidishe sources is brought in this
vein regarding the minhag to eat "loks" or salmon Friday night. May
be there is something chassidish about this that the Gro did not want
to mention.

M. Levin

>> In one place I davened, probably about eight years ago, the Rav
>> got up before N'eila and reminded everyone that the Malbim (IIRC) says
>> that someone who cries during davening over Yom Kippur is guaranteed
>> mechilla.

Phyllostac@aol.com wrote:
>I would like to see any such Malbi"m, if it exists, inside......sounds
>a bit funny to me......

It is actually a Zohar mentioned in Magen Avrahom in the very beginning
of Siman 621 that any one who, on Yom Kippur, is pained and/or cries
over the death of Nadav & Avihu will be forgiven for all his sins and
his children will not die in his lifetime!

Good Moed
meir zirkind

From: Rebelkrim@aol.com
> Did anyone ever notice that there are no al chet's corresponding
> to Samech? Instead of samechs, the nusach presents two aveiros with
> 'sins' - (siach sifsoseinu and sikur ayin). When we go to Shin/Sin
> (which historians will declare were originally two different laters)
> we have one shin (shvuas shav) and a sin (sinas chinam).

> [I suppose that 'sin' is more apt for 'al cheit'....]

Similar situation in Keil Odoyn...'Semeichim betseisom'.

BTW, using this 'exchange', I have been able to find a 'posuk' for my
granddaughter Simmy [Sima].

There is no posuk beginning with samech and ending with an aleph.
But there are plenty that begin with a shin/sin and end with alef.

Some problem/solution for Klonimus.

SBA

A few comments re the Brocho for children on Erev YK - the one that
starts with 'YHR sheyihyu bonay hachavivim..' [which the Machzor says
is from the baal Chayei Odom and Shaar Hamelech].

1) It is 'beloshon rabbim' ''bonay hachavivim". Presumably every father
benches each child individually - so why this style?

2) It mentions 'ulehovilchem lechupah' - which is NOT something you wish
to say to your married children.

3) Some of the nusach is not a direct brocho for the children - but
rather for the 'mevoreich' -! eg 'veyitein>>li<< Elokim parnoso bereivach'

Now [after YK] I see that the Satmar [Divrei Yoel] machzor - after
bringing this nusach, quotes another from the Chayei Odom [and IIRC is
also quoted in the KSA] which seems more appropriate.

The DY machzor adds - 'ukenireh d'im benoy nosui, omar zeh'

....

And, only partly in jest.

The way many of us say the 'al cheit's - wouldn't it be more appropriate
if we said 'AC shechotonu lefonecho bevidui peh' - last?

This way, by being mechaven, maybe we make up for all the others that
we didn't?

SBA

While perusing my favorite Sefer over Yom Tov I came across the following
quote from Talmud Yerushalmi, Brachos and Shabbos: Kol Mi SheHu Patur
MiDavar VeAsahu, Nikra Hedyot Hedyot in this context in the Gemmarah
is used in a derogatory way to means Yuhara (as defined in the Sefer
HaCharedim) which may be defined as doing a quasi-religious act as a
means of showing off one's Frumkeit... the famous "Chazer Fees'l" (pig's
foot). In discussion of this concept one needs to distinguish between
legitimate Chumra: where Lifnim Mishuras HaDin is to be encouraged,
and Yuhara: doing something that is totally unnecessary and cannot be
considered Lifnim Mishuras HaDin.

The Rambam and the Ramban both say that one is a Hedyot only when the
mitzvah that is done has no possible fulfillment by anyone but if there
is anyone at all that could fulfill his Chiuv (mitzvah requirement),
then, according to most Poskim an individual doing this act would not
only NOT be a Hedyot but in fact would just be considered a Machmir and
Tov Alav Bracha.

If NO ONE would be required to do the Mitzva, and one does it anyway
he is a Hedyot and guilty of Yuhara even if he does it L'Shem Shamayim,
when the Mitzvah is Bein Adam LaMakom. It cannot be called a Hidur either
as one cannot take an act that no one is Chaiv on and say HE is doing
a Hidur. That simply isn't a Hidur.

This leads to theMitzvah of Yeshivas Succah and the P'Tur of G'shamim
(rain).The Shulchan Aruch (OC:638) says that if it rains to the extent
that it ruins the food, then one is Patur from eating in the Sukkah.The
Rama there states that anyone who is Patur from eating in the Sukkah and
continues to eat therein, is Not Mekabel schar and is indeed considered
a Hedyot, and guilty of Yuhahra.

The Acharonim who discuss this issue and ask why then, is someone who
eats or drinks that which is Patur from the Sukkah such as water...
why is that to be praised and not considered Yuahra? Why not call such
a person a Hedyot as well? The answer given by the Maharshak is that
there is a difference between an individual who is in a state of Chiuv,
eating or drinking an optional food such as water and one who is not a
Bar Chiuva and completely Patur from everything.
There two reasons given why one is Patur from the Sukkah when it rains,
one is M'shum Tzar and the other is that it looks like Yuhaha. The first
reason perhaps can be used as an "out" saying that one wishes to stay in
the Sukkah because the rain in his soup doesn't really bother him. But the
second reason which is the one clearly stated in the Gemmarh and brought
down by the SA and the Rama should preclude anyone from doing so. As
the Gemmarah clearly states, it is akin to a master splashing water from
his cup into the face of his servant, in this case the "Master" (God) is
clearly indicating that he doesn't want his servant to eat in the Sukkah.

Yet, there is a segment of our people who are very Medakdek in Mitzvos who
do EXACTLY THAT! They choose to eat in the Sukkah no matter how much it
rains. How does this segment within Judaism justify their behavior? Why
are they not considered Hedyotos?

HM

This article: <http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994237>
discusses a new male contraceptive that works by suppressing sperm
production. Would this be a preferably kosher birth control method being
that there isn't any hotza'as zera l'vatala? (If I'm understanding the
dynamics of the contraceptive properly.)

Avi

On Friday 10 October 2003 19:14, gil@aishdas.org wrote:
> Arie Folger wrote on Areivim:
>> Actually, in one shul, the Utopia Jewish Center,
>> RHS OKed a plan where locals became members of
>> the then C synagogue, prayed in a separate room,
>> gathered strength, and after 10 years called for
>> a membership vote and turned the place O. In no
>> time they put up a me'hitzah.

> Very interesting.  The big C shul in Teaneck has started an alternate
> mechitzah minyan while they try to figure out what to do for the future
> (the old rabbi retired, the new rabbi has just been fired, and membership
> is a fraction of what it used to be).  Someone asked me on Rosh Hashanah
> whether he could daven at that mechitzah minyan.  All I could tell him was
> that I wouldn't.

> There are mar'is ayin issues with walking into the building during
> davening times

The key is that it was an organized takeover attempt from the onset.
(actually, I believe that the me'hitzah minyan was a satelite minyan of
YI of Hillcrest for three years before the period I described, and maybe
RHS hadn't yet issued his psaq.) But I think the key is the combination
of intent feasibility and organization. The tshuvah you quote of the
Arugas haBoisem is certainly not normative, and perhaps only for the
time when there was more movement towards C than towards O, a desperate
attempt to make shuls think thrice before tearing down the me'hitzah as
there would be no way back.

Arie

In Avodah V12 #11, Akiva Miller noted:
> Regarding REK's second point, about the relationship of sin and shin --
> it seems to me that when the poets get to the line between "resh" and
> "tav", they will use sin or shin words indiscriminately, whichever fits
> the meaning best. Has anyone else noticed any patterns there?

I seem to recall RSM previously mentioning that Hebrew and Arabic words
meaning the same thing were similar to each other except that a shin
in the Hebrew word was a sin in the Arabic word and/or vice versa.
My apologies for the fuzzy recollection.

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
>I seem to recall RSM previously mentioning that Hebrew and Arabic words
>meaning the same thing were similar to each other except that a shin in the
>Hebrew word was a sin in the Arabic word and/or vice versa.  My apologies
>for the fuzzy recollection.

Hebrew and Arabic have an exact correspondence: all roots with a shin
in Hebrew have an /s/ in Arabic, and all sin's correspond to a /sh/
in Arabic. Samekh corresponds to an /s/ as well. This point is relevant
regarding the proof that early Semitic had 3 "s" sounds which then were
reduced in all the languages to just 2. It is not directly relevant to
the practice of the poets, since any distinction in Hebrew between samekh
and sin had disappeared by then. Most early paytonim use sin and samekh
interchangeably. For example, hoAdderes v'hoEmuna, an ancient payyet said
in Shacharis on Yom Kippur, uses sigguy and segev in the samekh slot,
both of which roots appear with a sin in the T'NaKh.

SBA stated:
>>> to say morid
>>> hatol in the summer; R. Hutner did not institute that>>

>> Sure did.

>I think it is hakol modim that re Tal it is with a kometz

Hasidei Karlin-Stoloin say it with a patah.

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org

On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 09:53:23PM +0200, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
: SBA stated:
:> I think it is hakol modim that re Tal it is with a kometz

: Hasidei Karlin-Stoloin say it with a patah.

RSM corrected Ashirah Lashem -- RYBS also said it with a patach.

-mi

In our recent discussion of keeping web sites open on shabbos, there
seemed to be consensus that making money from a site on shabbos is
prohibited. It got me thinking about another similar situation which is
even more difficult to manage: vending machines.

Soda machines and vending machines are located at thousands of places
around a city. Would a Jew who owns those machines be required to turn
them off during shabbos to ensure that he is not making any profit
on shabbos?

Avi Burstein

>> Rav Soleveitchik said that normally when a clamity happens to an
>> individual - he needs to accept as we see with Aaron and get on
>> with his life. In contrast when it happens to a community - it is
>> appropriate to ask questions. Iyov apparently is an exception to
>> rule. I have the Akeidas Yitzchok on CD - but have no idea what
>> word to look for. Any help would be appreciated

> As usual, I'm no help with meqoros. However, I was wondering about
> your comment about Iyov. Iyov concludes with HQBH chiding him for
> seeking an answer.

In what sense is it unacceptable to ask questions when a calamity strikes
an individual? The Gemorah says (Brochos 5a) that if a person is suffering
he should examine his past deeds for sins. In other words, it seems to
be encouraging one to find the cause of his suffering. How is this not
'asking questions'?

Also, related to personal calamities...something I thought about when
saying Al Cheit on Yom Kippur - towards the end it lists the various
different punishments corresponding to sins one might have committed
(lashes, death by heaven,kares, etc.). But what about misfortunes that
might affect a person - like sickness or loss of wealth, R"l. Why are
these not included in the list (at least as a category encompassing
misfortunes in general)? Furthermore, the listed punishments act as a
kaparah ('atonement') for sins. Now the strictest of the punishments
seems to be either death by a court or kares, and there death affects
atonement for the sinner. But it can be argued that an extended period
of suffering in this world (perhaps due to a disease) is in fact a more
severe punishment than a quick death. What kinds of sins would bring
with them such punishment if even the most heinous crimes mentioned
in the Torah only make one chayav kores or chayav misa [which is just
quick death]?

        Leonid Portnoy

What is the Rabbinic Viewpoints on sechar va'onesh in this world, as
there seem to be many conflicting statements. If you saythat there is,
as for example the Gemoro Brochos (5A) seems to indicate, how does fit
into what seems to be the reality where we don't see the righteous or
Beinonim any better off in this world than the wicked?

> What is the Rabbinic Viewpoints on sechar va'onesh in this world, as
> there  seem to be many conflicting statements. If you saythat there
> is, as for example  the Gemoro Brochos (5A) seems to indicate, how
> does fit into what seems to be  the reality where we don't see the
> righteous or Beinonim any better off in  this world than the wicked?

The gemara speaks about taking lesson from one's suffering. That's
different than reward and punishment. Pain causes dissatisfaction with
the status quo, and therefore motivates change. Seeing suffering as an
educational opportunity does not mean there is a particular sin that
caused that suffering.

(By parallel, RYBS learns lessons from ta'amei hamitzvos, but he never
asserted that some mitzvah was /because/ of that ta'am.)

I wrote on Areivim that I believe in universal HP. Probably because
that's what I was raised with, and everything in the next sentence is
post hoc rationalization. Given the non-determinism of modern physics --
quantum non-determinism yeilds macroscropic results in chaotic systems --
I have no problem with belief in an event that is both fully teva and
yet still tailored by HP. This possibility, that teva and HP need not
conflict, is not raised by the rishonim.

Also, minute changes in a chaotic system can have macroscopic effects,
such as the infamous butterfly that flaps its wings in Africa determining
whether or not there will be tornados in the US. Therefore, if HP is
universal for people, I can not see how many events involving non-people
will have absolutely zero effect in the course of human life.

 -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

 From a friend regarding shofar on RH:

Yes, his name was Rav Shraga Feivel Frank. He had his own beit din in
Yemin Moshe & one Rosh HaShanah, which was also SHabbos, he blew the
shofar in his home. I heard this from someone who was there.

[Email #2. -mi]

This happened in the early 70's.

R' Frank was a nephew (IIRC) of R' Pesach Tzvi Frank.

Akiva

============
To expect the government to save you is to be a bystander in your own fate.
                Mark Steyn

Something to take note of that hit me as I stand here on a NY subway
train...

The way the Rambam presents his position sounds like he thought it was
a chiddush.

 From mesorah, the Rambam establishes that all people experience HP. He
then writes that all minim are simply collections of individual items
grouped for having some feature(s) in common. And since it's possible for
something to have more or less of some attribute, the item can be more
or less of that min. Therefore, while all people are recipients of HP,
any given individual can be more or less a person.

However, looking at the reisha we see that he believed that the relevent
ma'amarei Chazal taken at face value say that all people get full
HP. Which is why he needs to show philosophically why they shouldn't be
taken at face value.

(At least, that's the reasoning in the Moreh 2:17. In 3:51 the same
subject is mentioned tangentially. There the Rambam makes a kabbalistic
sounding argument. Man forms a connection to H' through yedi'ah, and HP
comes through that connection. Greater yedi'ah means better connection
means more HP.)

-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

R' JB Soloveitchik frames his Jewish thought and his perspective on
mitzvos about tensions between various dialectics inherent in the human
condition. Conflicting truths about man that are somehow both true.

For example, people construct a society in order to better serve their
needs. And yet, man's highest calling is to serve the society, rather
than themselves.

Perhaps the most classical such dialectic is the distinction Rabbi
Soloveitchik draws between Adam as he is portrayed in the creation
story in Genesis 1 and Adam as portrayed in Genesis 2. Adam I is at
the culmination of creation. All builds up to him. He is charged "to be
fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth and master it." Man the engineer
and technologist, forming the world to serve his needs. Majestic Man.

In Genesis 2, we're given a different view. From the time of his creation,
Adam is in communication is G-d. "It is not good for man to be alone", so
Hashem creates a woman "therefore man leaves his father and his mother and
cleaves to his wife." This is a person as relying on his relationships
and brings value to his life and the world through them. Adam II is
Covenantal Man, who seeks redemption.

Succos is very much Adam II's holiday. The farmer, having just brought
in his crop, has a propensity to credit himself for his success. Succos
re-addresses that, by reminding him that it's not his mastery alone
that brings food to the table. The succah teaches that it's not his fine
house and the engineering it represents that bring security to his life.

There is a dispute between R' Eliezer and R' Akiva (Succah 11b) as
to the nature of the succos in the desert that the mitzvah actually
commemorates. According to R' Eliezer (and Unkelus Vayikra 23:42, as well
as the Shulchan Aruch O"Ch 625"1, Gr"a ad loc), the original succos were
clouds of glory. According to R' Akiva, they were actual huts.

Perhaps they're basing themselves on different ideas about the
significance of the succah. In R' Eliezer's opinion, the succah is
commemorating Hashem's gifts to us. It's to remind us that there is a
Covenantal Partner in our efforts. R' Akiva has the original succah
being the product of a partnership. Man builds, but it's Hashem who
insures the success of that building. R' Eliezer focuses on our Partner,
R' Akiva on our willingness to join the Convenantal relationship. (See
Aruch haShulchan O"Ch 625.)

Each speaks to the farmer celebrating his harvest as he gathers it at
the end of the year. One speaks of the role of bitachon, trust in G-d,
which may otherwise be forgotten. The other speaks of the appropriate
end-state, of the synthesis of bitachon and hishtadlus, personal effort.

"And a mist came up from the ground, and gave moisture to the whole face
of the earth." - Genesis 2:6

"'And a mist came up from the ground': For the topic of the creation
of man. He raised the tehom [groundwater?] and gave moisture to clouds
to wet the earth and to make man. Like one who kneads bread, who adds
water and after that kneads the dough. So too here, 'He gave moisture'
and then 'He formed'." - Rashi ad loc

"And Hashem E-lokim formed the man, dust from the ground, and He breathed
in his nose a living soul; and the man was a living spirit." - Genesis,
ibid v. 7

"'Dust from the ground': He collected dust from the whole earth, all
four directions... Another opinion, He took his dust from the place
about which it says 'an altar of earth you shall make for Me.' He said,
'If only the dirt would be an atonement for him, and he would be able
to stand.'" - Rashi ad loc

In his work "Pachad Yitzchak", R' Yitzchak Hutner notes the steps of
creation of man, according to this second opinion in Rashi. First, G-d
adds water to the earth to make clay, then He forms man and breathes a
soul into him.

R' Hutner writes that this is exactly what we recreate during the nisuch
hamayim (water libation on the altar). The kohein pours water on the very
spot Hashem did. This is accompanied by the simchas beis hasho'eivah,
celebration and singing. Music is the most spiritual of the seven
wisdoms. It speaks and moves the soul on a fundamental level. Through
the Simchas Beis haSho'ievah we imitate G-d's breathing a soul into Adam.

We just came from Yom Kippur and teshuvah. When Hashem fulfills His
promise "And I will give you a new heart, and place a new spirit within
you." (Yechezkel 36:26) Simchas Beis haSho'eivah is a celebration of
man's ability to recreate himself, and therefore follows the steps of
our original creation.

To continue R' Hutner's thought with a couple of my own, in light of the
above: Repentance too can be seen in both R' Eliezer's and R' Akiva's
perspectives. One can seek atonement from Hashem, and thereby realize
the need to have a partnership with Him. Or, one can seek atonement
from the partnership itself. As the same R' Akiva says, "Praised are
you Israel. Before Whom do you atone, and Who atones you." Atonement
is both done by man through the Divine Presence, and is a gift from
Him. A dialectic.

I would like to suggest one additional point. This description is from
the second chapter of Genesis, it's the telling of the creation of Adam
II. It's not merely the celebration of our recent re-creation, it's the
celebration of our creation as beings in a covenantal partnership with
the A-lmighty. And therefore, it's not only on Succos as a postscript
to Yom Kippur, it is a fundamental part of the message of the holiday.

-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

On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 02:51:26AM -0400, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: It's very tempting to suggest that the authors of the exceptions listed
: above simply took some poetic license when they couldn't find a good
: enough word with a samech, but why is samech the only exception? I don't
: recall ever seeing a poem where the author switched an aleph for an ayin
: when he was stuck for a word. Nor was a taf ever used in place of a tes.
: And I'm talking even about authors who lived in places where the same
: sound was used for both letters.

Is there a place where different sounds are used?

-mi

On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 12:14:29PM -0500, gil@aishdas.org wrote:
: There are mar'is ayin issues with walking into the building during
: davening times, especially when the existence of a mechitzah minyan is
: not well known...

When I davened at the Torah Center of Hillcrest we were temporarily
without a building as they took down the condemned home they were in to
build an edifice. The local C synagogue offered use of their library. The
LOR, R' Zvi Flaum, asked R' Dovid Lifshitz. RDL permitted our using the
business but only because the TCH was going to use a different door for
enterance and exit and hung a sign identifying ourselves in the glass
over that door.

-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

On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 05:41:09AM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: In a message dated 10/09/2003 10:53:00 PM EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com
: writes:
:> It seems to me that if Shiv'im Panim LaTorah, then some might be relevant
:> and appropriate to one generation while being wholly inappropriate to
:> another generation. Perhaps HaShem kept those manuscripts hidden davka
:> because their time was not yet ripe.

: and now it's ripe just for intellectual purposes but not Lmaaseh (ie
: the jury is instructed to ignore this evidence)?

As I wrote, that's exactly what RHS wrote was RYBS's position WRT the
Me'iri.

-mi

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:48:42PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: I'd like to modify a statement I made in my postings regarding hashgocha
: protis. I had noted that I could not find a single non chassidic source
: which cites the BESHT's view - including the writings of R' Aryeh Kaplan
: ...                      Today R' Beryl Gershonfeld - held of Yeshiva
: Machon Shlomo- pointed out a footnote in R' Kaplan's notes to Derech
: HaShem Part Two #3 page 340.

FWIW, RAKaplan's is a chassidic view.

...
: Bottom line. The insistence that HP applies to all beings is essentially
: the chassidic perspective. The non chassidic position is that HP applies
: only to man and that it varies upon ones spritual level. On the other
: hand almost everyone would agree that G-d knows the details of every
: molecule and that the knowledge of the course of each molecule was known
: at Creation. This knowledge is not called HP.

This and my next comment are points I made more than once already, so I'm
not sure why your post doesn't address these points.

While one could argue that no rishon held of HP for non-people, there
are rishonim who clearly state that it's universal for all people --
and it does NOT vary with one's spiritual level. It's also unclear if
the rishonim who say all people get HP mean *only* people. A ma'amar
about what one should expect in life is inherently only discussing people
(not expecting anyone else to read the book <grin>).

: Chassidim are generally makpid to teach only the view of the BESHT while
: Litvaks - generally ignore the view of the BESHT and present the view
: of the rishonim. It is not the accepted practice amongst the gedolim
: (or even non gedolim) to present both views.

I think the underlying question is whether one is trying to write a survey
or a polemic, a guide to the subject or supporting a particular position.
This whole discussion started because RYGB wrote that the book was flawed
as a guide to the subject, since chooosing only one position makes it more
of a position paper.

-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

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


[ 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         ]