נִבְלֵי דְמָעוֹת מֵעֲרֹף יִתְאַפְּקוּ /כִּי גַחֲלֵי - אֵשׁ בַּקְּרָבִים נִשָּׂקוּ
מַה תִּשְׁאֲלוּ לָכֶם רְבִיבִים מִמְּקוֹר/ לִבִּי וּמוֹרָשָׁיו כְּתֹפֶת דָּלָקוּ
דַּי לַלְּבָבוֹת דַּי לְכַבּוֹת מוֹקְדֵי /לִבָּם וְאֵיךְ מַיִם עֲלֵיהֶם יִצָּקוּ
מַה - לַּלְּבָבוֹת נוֹאֲשׁוּ עוֹד מִמְּצוֹא/ מַרְפֵּא וְרוּחוֹתָם בְּקִרְבָּם נָבָקוּ
נָא שַׁאֲלוּ אִם תּוֹלְדוֹת יוֹם פָּגְעוּ /בָהֶם וּמִשּׁוֹד הַזְּמָן יֵאָנָקוּ
אוֹ בָעֲרָה בָּם אֵשׁ כְּתַבְעֵרָה אֲהָהּ/ כִּי - נֶאֱסַף מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל - מִי יִצְעָקוּ
מִי זֶה יְכַבֶּה מוֹקְדֵי תוּגוֹת וּמִי /יוֹצִיא אֲסִירִים מוֹסְרֵהֶם חָזָקוּ
מִי יַעֲבִירֵנוּ בְיַבָּשָׁה בְּתוֹךְ/ יַמֵּי מְלִיצוֹת מִתְּהוֹמוֹת עָמָקוּ
מִי זֶה אֲשֶׁר יִבְקַע בְּצֻרִים נַחֲלֵי /חָכְמוֹת וּמֵי מָרָה בְּיַד - מִי יִמְתָּקוּ
חִדְלוּ רְעֵבֵי הַתְּעוּדָה כִּי בְנֵי/ יָמִים גְּפָנֶיהָ כְּהַיּוֹם בָּקָקוּ
וּבְכוּ לְשַׂר מוּסָר אֲשֶׁר הוּסַר הֲכִי /אַחְרָיו כְּהַיּוֹם רֹאשׁ - פְּתָנִים תִּינָקוּ
הָיָה כְּגִבּוֹר בַּקְרָב יָשִׂישׂ לְיוֹם/ רִכְבֵי תְעוּדוּת בָּרְחוֹב יִשְׁתַּקְשָׁקוּ
הָיָה פְּרִי חַיִּים בְּחֶבְרָתוֹ כְּמוֹ /חַרְבוֹת נְדוּדָיו הַלְּבָבוֹת בִּתָּקוּ
הָיָה כְנֶפֶשׁ וַאֲנַחְנוּ גוּף רְאוּ/ מִי יִחְיֶה מֵהֶם בְּיוֹם יֵחָלָקוּ
כִּתְבוּ בְּקִירוֹת הַלְּבָבוֹת זֹאת וְסוֹד /פֶּלִאי בְּמִצְחוֹת הַזְּמַנִּים חוֹקָקוּ
אֵיכָה מְאוֹרִים יִשְׁכְּנוּ קֶבֶר וְאֵיךְ/ צוּרֵי מְלִיצוֹת מִמְּקוֹמָם יֶעְתָּקוּ
הֵילֵל אֲשֶׁר נִקְבַּר וְכִמְעַט חָמְדוּ /אוֹרִים שְׁכָן קֶבֶר וְצֻרִים חִבָּקוּ
עוּרָה גְּבִיר בָּחַל בְּצוּף תֵּבֵל וְהֵן/ הַיּוֹם רְגָבֶיהָ לְחִכּוֹ מָתָקוּ
עוּרָה רְאֵה עַמִּים סְבִיבוֹת קִבְרְךָ /יִרְצוּ אֲבָנָיו וַעֲפָרָיו יִשָּׁקוּ
עוּרָה רְאֵה חַכְמֵי זְמָן יַחַד עֲלֵי/ דַּלְתֵי תְבוּנָתָךְ כְּדַלִּים דָּפָקוּ
יֶהְגּוּ בְּתוֹרָתָךְ וְיוֹם יוֹם יִלְקְטוּ /מִשְׁנֵה תְעוּדוֹת שָׁם כְּזָהָב זֻקָּקוּ
יִרְאוּ בְמוֹרֶה הַנְּבוּכִים חַרְבוּת/ שֵׂכֶל בְּמַחְשַׁכִּים בְּרָקִים בָּרָקוּ
שָׁם יֶחֱזוּ חַרְבוֹת מְבוּכָה לֻטְּשׁוּ /זַכִּים בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמְּזִמָּה חֻלָּקוּ
מִלִּים כְּתַפּוּחִים יְצוּקִים מִזְּהַב/ חָכְמָה בְּמַשְׂכִּיוֹת תְּבוּנָה חֻשָּׁקוּ
בָּם יָדְעוּ תוֹעֵי - זְמָן בִּינָה וּבָם /נִרְפִּים בְּיִרְאַת יוֹצְרָם הִתְחַזָּקוּ
עוּרָה רְאֵה צֹאן אוֹבְדוֹת מִמִּשְׁכְּנוֹת/ בִּטְחָה כְּהַיוֹם אַחֲרֶיךָ נִתָּקוּ
בָּנוּ בְךָ מִקְדַּשׁ תְּעוּדוֹת כַּאֲשֶׁר /עָפָר עֲלֵי רֹאשָׁם כְּהַיּוֹם זָרָקוּ
אֶל - מִי יְנוּסוּן עוֹד לְעֶזְרָה וַעֲלֵי/ מִי אַחֲרֶיךָ בַּזְּמָן יִתְרַפָּקוּ
לֹא - יִפְרְקוּ עוֹל אֶבְלְךָ לָעַד עֲדֵי /יָמִים אֲרוּרִים עוֹל נְדוּדָךְ יִפְרָקוּ
הָהּ בִּשְּׂרוּ שָׂרִים לְחַכְמֵי יוֹעַצֵי/ פַרְעֹה וְחַרְטֻמֵּי זְמָן שֵׁן חָרָקוּ
אַל - יִשְׁמְעוּ כָזֹאת בְּעִיר סִיחוֹן וְאַל - /נָא זַעֲקַת - שֶׁבֶר בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹן תִּזְעָקוּ
לֹא יוֹם - בְּשֹׂרָה הוּא שְׁעוּ פֶּן - יִשְׁמְעוּ/ זָרִים וְכַפַּיִם עֲלֵיכֶם יִסְפָּקוּ
מִי - יִתְּנֵנִי כַדְּרוֹר אָעוּף אֱלֵי /קִבְרוֹ וְעֵינַי לַדְּמָעוֹת יִשְׁרָקוּ
אַשְׁקֶה בְדִמְעוֹתַי עֲפָרוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר/ פַּלְגֵי תְעוּדוֹתָיו לְבָבִי שׁוֹקָקוּ
אוֹ אֶשְׁחֲקָה אַבְנֵי זְמָן בָּם כַּאֲשֶׁר /מֵימֵי תְלָאוֹתָיו אֲבָנִים שָׁחָקוּ
מַה - יַּעֲנוּ יָמִים אֲרוּרִים עוֹד וּמַה -/ יִתְאוֹנֲנוּ עַל - זֹאת וּמַה - יִצְטַדָּקוּ
הַעוֹד בְּפִיהֶם לַתְּנוּאוֹת מַעֲנֶה /אוֹ יַחֲטִיאוּנוּ לְמַעַן יִצְדָּקוּ
הַאִם עֲוֹנוֹת מֵי מְרִיבָה נִפְקְדוּ/ הַיּוֹם וְעוֹדָם אַחֲרֵינוּ יִדְלָקוּ
אוֹ יַד זְמָן רָע חָזְקָה יוֹם תּוֹלְדוֹת /יָמִים חֲבָלִים בַּחֲרוֹנָם חִלָּקוּ
טָרֹף בְּדֵי חוֹרָיו עֲדֵי כִי - נִמְלְאוּ/ טֶרֶף וְאִישׁ אָחִיו בְּחוֹרָיו יִדְחָקוּ
וּקְבוֹר יְלָדִים בַּעֲפַר אָבוֹת וְאִם /לֹא אֵיךְ שְׁעָלָיו לַחֲלָלָיו יִשְׂפָּקוּ
זֶה חֹק יְמֵי - קֶדֶם וְאֵלֶּה לָמְדוּ/ מֵהֶם וּמַיִם עַל - יְדֵיהֶם יָצָקוּ
אַיֵה מְתֵי - קֶדֶם הֲלֹא הָעֵת מְעַט /קָט עָבְרוּ מִזֶּה וְאֵיפֹה חָמָקוּ
הַאִם צְבָא לַיִל גְּנָבָם וַהֲלֹא/ מֵעִיר מְתִים גָּלוּ וְאֵיךְ לֹא נִזְעָקוּ
אוֹ בָחֲלוּ בָנוּ וְעַל - כֵּן עָזְבוּ /לָנוּ נְאוֹת חֶמְדָּה וְצִיָּה עָרָקוּ
אִם יוֹם בְּנֵיהֶם יִגְבְּרוּ לֹא יִצְעֲרוּ/ אוֹ דָלֲלוּ לָמוֹ כְּאִלּוּ עָתָקוּ
אִם יִקְרְאוּ לָהֶם וְאֵין עוֹנֶה וּבֵין /שִׂיחִים בְּמַר שִׁיחָם כְּפֶרֶא יִנְהָקוּ
מַה - תִּקְרְאוּ אַחַי בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם וְאֵין/ מַקְשִׁיב לְקוֹלְכֶם תִּנְאֲקוּ אוֹ תִשְׁתָּקוּ
הַיּוֹם לְנוּדָם תֶּהֱמוּ וַהְלֹא מְעַט /מִזְעָר וְכָעֵת אַחֲרֵיהֶם תִּדְלָקוּ
אַתֶּם כְּמוֹהֶם מִלְּבַד כִּי מִהֲרוּ/ הֵמָּה וְאַתֶּם לַעֲבוֹר תִּתְאַפָקוּ
דוֹרֵשׁ בְּעַד תֵּבֵל שְׁאַל - נָא פִי שְׁאוֹל /כִּי שָׁם גְּדוֹלֶיה בְּזִקִּים רֻתָּקוּ
.. רו רְאוּ חֶלְקַת מְחוֹקֵק כִּי לְאוֹת/ עַל - כָּל יְצוּרִים כִּי לְשַׁחַת נִתָּקוּ
פָּנָה וְלֹא פָנוּ פְּנֵי גָדְלוֹ וְאִם /רָחַק נְגִידֵי מַעֲשָׂיו לֹא רָחָקוּ
שָׁלוֹם כְּנַחַל צִדְקְךָ אוֹ כַחֲמַס/ יָמִים בְּנוּדְךָ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת עָשָׁקוּ
שָׁלוֹם כְּחִשְׁקִי אוֹ כְחֵשֶׁק מַלְאֲכֵי /צֶדֶק בְּךָ הַיּוֹם לְאַהְבָה דָבָקוּ
אִם - חָשְׁקָה נַפְשָׁךְ בְּצֶדֶק וַהֲלֹא/ כֵן מַלְאֲכֵי צֶדֶק בְּנַפְשָׁךְ חָשָׁקוּ
שָׁלוֹם יְחוֹפֵף עַל בְּשָׁרָךְ כַּאֲשֶׁר /תָּמִיד בְּךָ צֶדֶק וְשָׁלוֹם נָשָׁקוּ
Nice Blog :)
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteHow do you understand the Bais Yosef writing a whole sefer on his conversations with a Maggid (not to mention all the seforim that came out of sefas that dealt with gilgul not just in concept but entire seforim that dealt with great figures in tanach and after and who they were in a previous gilgul)? According to the Rambam would this be possible? Extending this question, how can one believe hold like the Rambam without thinking that the Mekubalim were c"v delusional (which would be nearly impossible to believe considering the greatness of many mekubalim). On the other hand, if one agrees to the ideas of the mekubalim, it would seem that the Rambam, as great as he was, was lacking knowledge in a very important area of Jewish belief.
I know that you have touched on this previously, but I would like to hear a more comprehensive viewpoint that covers all of the above.
I do not think that it is feasible to say that you hold like one but understand the other shitah as you would in a question of sevarah or halacah. These are fundamentals as to how G-D runs the world.
I have heard you comment concerning those that you disagree with on these issues that "they were great men." How do great men live a whole life believing in something that is totally false (according to what you have said)?
>According to the Rambam would this be possible?
ReplyDeleteGilgulim are nonsense according to R. Sa'adyah Gaon and of course to Rambam. He would surely consider them delusional or at least misguided. Re Beit Yosef, do you really believe it was a magid from the outside or his conscience? Did you read the Magid Mesharim? It is a great psychological anlysis of a great man, aware of how influential he is a yerei shamayim, filled with fear and guilt that he may make a mistake that others will follow. He was a great man and tzaddik and it is interestinmg to see where such a person lets his conscience take him compared to plain people. He was worried about misreading or interperting Rambam or any other Rishon wrong, insulting him, or even the resposibility of a novel psak got him into a whole dialogue with the "magid". His dreams were pure like all Tzaddikim.
There are different people who dealt with Kabbalah. The Rishonim like Ramban were very different than the Arizal. The arizal was different than his talmidim. They already fought with each other on the interpretations. And you are right what one believed another considered heresy. The best approach to this paradox I found is Prof Leibovitz's who argued that Judaism is not a religion of dogmas but of action. As long as the halacha is followed one can almost believe and say anything. Once you breach the smallest halacha , especially if it is because of a personal theology, one leaves klal yisrael. Of course you have to define halacha vs individual minhagim and local psakim. I would say dina degemara is the parameter, using Rambam, Ra'avad and ramban as guidelines.
All the above is my personal opinion. Among my friend and people who think along the same llines you would get some more sanguine than I am others more mainstream. There is much to debate and talk about.
Important is no machloket and respect - Divrei Chachamim Benachat Nishma'im.
Any comments on those (bloggers, historians, some MO Jews) who dispute the historicity of the Chanukkah oil miracle? From what I've read it sounds like very few serious people believe it really happened the way the Rabbis say.
ReplyDelete>who dispute the historicity of the Chanukkah oil miracle
ReplyDeleteI really have no opinion about this as I am not a Historian. I beleive that historicity of events is irrelevant to the religous life. It is what we "accept" that counts. There is a big difference between reality, which religion has to deal with and history which is only academic.
It doesn't make a difference if a story is factually emes or sheker? If it is a bubba meisa or a real occurrence?
ReplyDeleteWho said sheker? Do you have proof that it did not happen? Can you ever find proof that it did not happen? Of course not! But what you are saying is that unless I can prove that it happened,it must be sheker. Why? Because you have not experienced it? Because you are incredulous? Is that reason enough to call it sheker?
ReplyDeleteSo trying to find proofs that it did happen, using all the argument (eg the Kuzari for Sinai) is irrelevant and unnecessary from a practical point. We do not celebrate Hannukah necessarily because of the historical occurrence but rather the interpretation we give to the occurrence and more important what the story stands for - that we believe in the impossible becoming possible if it is God's Ratzon.
I think that the same applies with all the angsting I see on many sites about the mabul, sinai , exodus etc....
We accept the Torah because it is Divine by definition. Only those that were at Sinai know what happened there but it was enough for us to accept that Moshe received the Torah from God - whatever one understands what that means exactly.
The whole Torah and the Jewish religion is called "chukei Chaim", laws of how to live and how one should look at life and existence. It teaches us how to understand our reality in the proper context of a world created and directed by Ratzon hashem - never mind how far up the hierarchy He is and how difficult He is to find and know.
but it was enough for us to accept that Moshe received the Torah from God - whatever one understands what that means exactly.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you have insulated yourself from criticism by adopting definitions that are so broad, vague and tautological that they can't be disproven. But this is tantamount to admitting that none of these events really happened in the sense we normally mean that something happened, our mesorah is wrong on critical points, the Torah is a composite work, Exodus never happened, James Kugel here we come.
"Anonymous" (GH -Am I correct?)
ReplyDeleteIt is a very interesting phenomenum that people create a red herring and then go off swinging against it - a typical Don Quixote move -
If you define Mesora as a transmission of historical facts with every detail literal and then you come back swinging - It cannot be proven - It is illogical that happened that way- 600,000! 2,000,000! all the animals! the whole world! and so it goes forever.
(I have not read Kugel- only reviews and comments but I suspect he thinks very much the same way.)
Mesora is what has been transmitted as the corpus of *thought* that is the basis for our Mitzvot and beliefs. It is not a transmission of historical facts but rather an ontological/theological interpretation of events. There is a very interesting discussion on exactly this in R. Gedalia AH sefer that I have been thinking about posting. I am struggling with the fact that he was against going too public with his ideas. My impression is though that those who care need to hear it and the others will not care or understand anyway. So maybe soon!
No, I'm not GH, but I might be "GH inspired"!
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is we have a group of texts and assertions that are considered divine and infallible (not all of the gemara, but at least the Tanach) and now we find ourselves back against the wall unable to justify them literally.
Well Gh Inspired Anonymous, I will put the following question;
ReplyDeletewhat wall and what back? Do you think that Avraham's life story of 176 years is tellable in a few chapters? Of course not and the selection is to teach something as is every other historical event.
I find it frustrating that you find the historical issue so important. Are you telling me that the main reason for keeping the Torah is its historicity? If that is the case then you have no understanding of what it is all about.
Not that that is the main reason for keeping it, but that it is a reasonable assumption that a divine book which interprets history should at least be historically accurate!
ReplyDelete