[Avodah] manipulating bodily energies

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, January 14, 2008 10:49 pm, R Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: I simply thought I was re-inforcing the concept of Echad as in Shema
: Yisroel - Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad. The MON in Monotheism is
: simply teh Echad in the Shema
: But if you want a dissertation on the Yichud of HKBH see the Kesser
: Malchus of ibn Gabirol - recited by some on Kol Nidrei night

Look. I don't say "Borkhuni leshalom" in Shalom Aleikhem. I used to
just say three verses. And if a guest came and was singing, I simply
skipped those two words rather than make an issue about it. Usually
people don't notice if you miss a word or two when the rest of the
group didn't. However, there is a meaning to having 4 verses (and
another to the variant that has 5). so I now use "Shivtikhem
leshalom", the 5th verse for those who say 5.

So, you're not going to get me contradicting you entirely.

However, I am not blind to the fact that while I just can't say the
words -- it just feels wrong -- the majority of the O world does.
Which means that I can't possibly insist that my interpretation of the
5th ikkar is the only one, and everything else is AZ. I might not be
able to understand how it isn't AZ, but to deny the majority position
as even eilu va'eilu?

And if I acknowledge that WRT angels, then WRT deceased people lo kol
shekein! A neshamah that once lived is far closer to asking a living
person to daven for you than asking a mal'akh.

The Gra, who didn't say "Borkhuni leshalom", limited davening at a
qever to using the qever as an emotional prod, a source of qavanah.

Others allow asking the meis to be a meilitz yosher.

Where I would see more clear problems arising is if someone asks the
meis to do something other than ask HQBH. To do it himself. Or "tzadiq
gozeir ve'E-lokim meqayeim". Turning the meis or mal'akh into a force,
a source of yeshuah, in and of itself.

I wrote:
:> And yes, many of the masses certainly do cross the line. Think how
:> precise one's kavanos at a qever have to be in order to be mutar.
:> How many people are aware of capable of towing that line?

That should be "toeing that line". (Thanks RJJB.)

: Nevertheless, WADR, isn't this a specious argument?  i.e. how is
: attacking the attacker a defense? The fact that Reform does more
: egregious things does not at%