[Avodah] Mi Sheberach for a Non-Jew

[Meir Shinnar]

 Meir Shinnar wrote:
> : We are entitled to ask hashem.  We don't have the right to expect
> : that our requests be granted...
> : Your pshat is that the act of tefilla is a mitzva just like tzedaka -
> : and therefore the two texts - both ba'avur she'anu mitpallelim and
> : ba'avur she'eten tzedak - are congruent - but most understand ba'avur
> : she'anu mitpallelim as reflecting the power of prayer - rather than
> : just as a mitzva - and is therefore iyun tefilla.
>
>
> I take it RMS's "most" are those who "asser". I fail to see, though,
> why they interpret the phrase as they do. If "ba'avur she... notenim
> tzedaqah" and "ba'avur she... mispallelim ba'adam" are used in the
> same role, why would you think that they have a different dynamic?
>
> I took it for granted that the "mispallelim ba'adam" was simply a
> means of trying to get /some/ zekhus backing the tefillah even without
> committing to spending money which may not be available.
There is a different dynamic.

The tefilla is not there just as a zchut - eg, for a zchut, one could
say hu yevarech et hachole x ba'avur that I was mitpallely for chole y
- since tefilla is used only as a zchut.  The language hu yevarech
ba'avur she.. implies a direct casual nexus between the ba'avur she -
causing the hu yevarech - and ba'avur she'anu mitpallelim ba'avuram
implies (although one could parse the words differently, most people
do understand a casual nexus between praying for the individual and
the response - rather than a generic zchut issue - and this is the
issue of iyun tefilla.

Now, one can find midrashic sources that suggest that one (and
especially a kahal) can, under some circumstances expect to be
answered - but those who view iyun tefilla as problematic would
suggest that even if one believes that, it is not proper to insist,
especially in a public forum, on it.
Meir Shinnar