Now, I know the tefilla is an ancient one. It is mentioned, though with a different nusach, in the Talmud Yerushalmi. I also know that we generally do not change nusach hatefilla today. I also know there are movements to change the nusach, and I think some people do use a revised nusach. I also know that some people explain the current nusach to be talking in a more spiritual sense, lacking the beis hamikdash even with the city teeming with Jews....
I know all that, and I admit I had a problem with the tefilla yesterday.
It is nothing new, but in the past it has not bothered me. I don't know if it is because of the recent war I felt it almost inappropriate, and even ungrateful, to talk about Yerushalayim like that, or if it was for other, unknown, reasons.
The current Ashkenazi nusach (there are other nusachs as well) reads:
נחם ה' אלהינו את אבלי ציון ואת אבלי ירושלים, ואת העיר האבלה והחֳרבה והבזויה והשוממה. האבלה מבלי בניה, והחריבה ממעונותיה, והבזויה מכבודה, והשוממה מאין יושב. והיא יושבת וראשה חפוי כאישה עקרה שלא ילדה. ויבלעוה ליגיונות, ויירשוה עובדי זרים (נוסח אחר: עובדי פסילים), ויטילו את עמך ישראל לחרב, ויהרגו בזדון חסידי עליון. על כן ציון בְּמַר תבכה וירושלים תתן קולה. לבי לבי על חלליהם, מעי מעי על חלליהם, כי אתה ה' באש הצתה ובאש אתה עתיד לבנותה. כאמור: ואני אהיה לה נאם ה' חומת אש סביב ולכבוד אהיה בתוכה. ברוך אתה ה', מנחם ציון ובונה ירושלים
saying things like the city is... desolate... a city mourning with none of its children, destroyed of its homes... desolate with nobody living in it.... bothered me.
Again, I know it is an ancient tefilla, and I know despite Yerushalayim being a bustling city with a tremendous amount of Torah learning and religious life, it still isn't what the ideal might be - it has public chillul shabbos and religious fights and whatever else goes on there...
But still.. it bothered me to talk about Yerushalayim like that, as if it is still 1900 years ago (when the tefilla was more or less probably written) and the city had been destroyed, the nation conquered and exiled, the city actually desolate for a long time and to not recognize that we have come back, Jerusalem is flourishing both in physical and religious perspectives, even though it might not yet be perfect.
Do I have a resolution? No, I don't. Just airing my thoughts. I am not going to say a revised nusach. I don't think so. I am mostly a traditionalist. I would sooner drop something completely than alter it. Despite my problems with it, I will stick with the nusach I am used to saying. I don't have a solution. Do you?
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I know he's not necessarily your cup of tea, but Rav Bar-Hayim provides some insight, and sources for study. You may find some ideas here, or lead you to new ideas of your own:
ReplyDeleteRachem for the 9th of Av in Hebrew *Nusach (pdf)
Tisha B'Av: the Talmud Yerushalmi, the Rif and "Rahem" *Even if you do not want to listen to this audio shiur, I suggest that you look at the source sheet (doc), for some answers to your questions.
It's an old argument discussed in Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteThis year I heard an answer that at least partially answers this question in a talk given by Prof. Henry Guggenheimer (author of The Scholar's Haggadah). In a nutshell, he explained that 60 years after the churban, Emperor Hadrian renamed Jerusalem as the Roman city Aeilia Capitolina and moved its boundaries to a location that roughly matches the walls of today's Old City. The former city of Yerushalayim prior to the churban was located to the south of the Har Habayit, down the slope into the Gihon Valley and the Shiloah and Ir David. If you go to that location today, you will find a massive archaeological site consisting of ancient ruins, as well as a run-down Arab neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteSo, in reference to the location of the ancient, pre-churban city of Yerushalayim, it's not so far fetched today to describe it as "chareva" and "bezuyah".
and, according to him, the mikdash was where we know it to be today or it was also further south in the relocated Jerusalem?
DeleteThe mikdash was where we know it to be today. Just that the bulk of the inhabited city was to the south, extending from the har habayit south into the valley.
DeleteJJ Schachter has a good overview of the discussion to change the nusach. http://download.yutorah.org/2014/1053/Tisha_Bav_To-Go_-_5774_Rabbi_Schacter.pdf
ReplyDeleteThe question is how you define "city". Obviously "West" Jerusalem is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteBut the most critical thing is that as some have argued (I think Rav Soloveitchik held this way) that the focus of J-lem is the mikdash. As long as there is no mikdash, everything is considered "destroyed". There are many proofs to this - I just came across one in Taanit towards end, where they talk about 5 things that happened on Tisha B'av. One of the things was "the city was plowed over". Acc. to the Tur, the proper text following that is "i.e. that Turnusrufus plowed the heichal".
BTW, that reminds me of a TV program where the guests were Naomi Shemer, Amos Oz, and Amos Keinan. Amos Oz asked Shemer, "Why do you write (in J-lem shel Zahav) "How the cisterns have dried, the market-place is empty"? It's full of Arabs! Joy and happiness! (In Hebrew, sasson v'simcha, meaning it's a happening place.) And why do you write "And no one descends to the Dead Sea by way of Jericho"? With my own eyes I've seen many Arabs descending, all the time!"
Shemer answered, "This argument gets me really angry.It's like a man who's pining for his love, and he comes to his psychiatrist, Amos Oz, and the psychiatrist tells him, "Don't worry, she's not alone in bed." This is supposed to make me happy? When Eretz Yisrael is empty of Jews, it's totally barren and desolate for me."
that's nice.. but today it is full of Jews as well. even religious Jews.
DeleteThe story was not connected to the claim that city=mikdash.
DeleteI was just reminded of it by the discussion.
The subject of changing the text of Nachem is an interesting one. You could ask: is there a precedence for this?
ReplyDeleteWell my answer is: sure. You mention the earliest source for the Tefilloh on Tisha B’Av is the Yerushalmi. Well, if you look it up (Brachos 4:3), you will be surprised at a large number of variation there to our current version. But, what I wanted to dwell on is the first word, in fact on the first letter. In the Yerushalmi, the first word is Rachem (have mercy).
On a tangent, the Rosh, quoted by his son the Tur, asks “My whole life, I have never understood why we don’t say Nachem at Maariv and Shacharis as well”. The Tur then brings a Minhag to say the Tefilloh 3 times on Tisha B’Av - at Maariv and Shacharis you say Rachem and at Mincha you say Nachem. The Beis Yosef, explains the reason being that before midday it is like before the burial and after midday it is after the burial and only then is it a time for comforting and so we use the Loshon of Nachem.
Isn't one of the questions here whether we can still view as dead and desolate? Sure, it may not be complete spiritually, but physically? It seems that we are moving in the right direction,...at least partly so. By see Jerusalem as completely dead and desolate, are we not scoffing at HaShem's deeds which, in one was or another, allowed more Jews to live within Eretz Yisrael, and Jerusalem now, than in many, many, many years?
ReplyDelete(I purposely do not mention the establishment of the modern state here. Regarding it as a good, bad, or neutral thing, does not change the above.)
Likewise, another example, how can we continue request that HaShem bring us back to our land in Tefillath Musaf Shabbath, when he already has?
Ever since I served in the IDF, I have been using the version of Nachem in the Siddur Tzahal (based upon the Yerushalmi), and it has felt "right" to me.
ReplyDeleteThat is a personal response, but it is the only one I have!
Bivrachah,
Catriel Lev (hoping not to need any version of Nachem next year)