[Avodah] 12 Step Programs

[Moshe Yehuda Gluck]

R' MB:
> Quote #2:
> :>> 6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of
> character
> :>> 7. Humbly asked God to remove our shortcomings
> 
> To which I commented:
> :> It just smells Xian. Something about turning to a deity for salvation
> :> rather than one redeeming oneself. Hakol biydei Shamayim chutz meyir'as
> :> Shamayim. We could and should ask for Hashem's help... But to ask Him
> :> to do it for us?
> 
> RMYG:
> : Ayin Maharsha Berachos 10a, s.v. Chatai'im K'siv, who seems to say that
> : asking Hashem to return one's self in teshuvah is part of Ha'rotzeh
> L'Taher
> : M'sayin Oso. Ayin sham.
R' MB: 
> AISI, the Maharsha speaks of assistance -- "mesayin", not of "letting go
> and
> letting G-d".

I don't see it that way. I understand him as saying that one can ask Hashem
to return one's self in Teshuvah, and Hashem will consider that a legitimate
request, and help him (presumably including removing his shortcomings) under
the rubric of M'sayin Oso. I understand M'sayin Oso as excluding a complete
spiritual makeover with no effort on the supplicant's part (as I think you
do) in the context of your standard Bah L'taher, who is taking concrete
steps to Teshuvah and needs some assistance. I think that the Maharsha, when
he applies this Chazal to someone who isn't doing anything other than
Davening to Hashem to make him return in Teshuvah, does not mean to limit
this person to getting only assistance. If his prayers are answered, he will
get a full spiritual makeover, without doing any other instigation by
himself.   
 
> I find it interesting that I was not bothered by #1, but no.s 6 & 7 hit me
> the
> wrong way, but RYMG responded in the reverse. To return to what RMYG wrote
> on
> #1:
> > Don't we believe that a person can master his actions? And, if it's past
> > our nekudas habechirah, then aren't we not responsible?
> 
> The first question is simply another version what I asked on no.s 6 and 7.
> Li
> nireh it is one thing to say we lost control over something, and saying
> that
> we have no control over anything. After all, being addicted should
> definitionally mean that the person's nequdas habechirah is nowhere near
> the
> issue. That's why to me #1 is less problematic.

I had understood that step as saying we have no control. It sits much better
with me now that you explain it as saying we lost control.

> And why is someone not responsible for something past one's nequdas
> habechirah? Isn't he responsible for where the nequdah is? Does a ganef
> not
> have to stop his geneivah, even if it's a kind of theft that he was raised
> thinking "doen't really count" and "everyone does it"?

The backstory to this qhestion was from a JO from some years ago which had
an article (IIRC from R' Breuer) which I understood as saying that one is
not responsible for actions which are past one's Nekudas Habechirah. If my
memory is correct (always a debatable proposition!) then you are disagreeing
with him. Does anyone else remember this article? 

> (Although really lehefech: Isn't the point of shemiras hamitzvos to move
> the
> nequdah which in and of itself is the cause of sechar?)

This reminds me of a Kash'ye on the Mishna of Mitzvah Goreres Mitzvah. If
so, then one who does one mitzvah shouldn't get s'cher for the second, and
the reverse by Aveiros. Also, why doesn't this Mishna take away from our
Bechirah? The answer I remember getting is that someone said that Ein Hachi
Nami, everything goes back to the firast mitzvah and Aveirah that one does.
I remember being a bit dissatisfied, but it was said (IIRC) in the name of a
Rishon. Any thoughts?

KT and GM,
MYG