[Avodah] 1. Singular and Plural; 2. Torath Xayyim; 3. Eikha Rabba

[Jay F. Shachter]

> 
> Then I noticed She'asah li kol tzorkhi (Who does for me everything I
> need)... And then I noticed that as a whole Birkhos haShachar flips
> back and forth. The shelo asani-s are in singular, but then "ozeir
> Yisrael", "oteir Yisrael" "hameikhin / asheir heikhin mitz'adei
> gever" are all about the Jewish people or all of humanity in
> general.
> 
> I don't have a general answer, but the train of thought led to a
> kavvanah....
> 
> One can say about She'asah liv kol tzorkhi, the berakhah I
> originally noticed being in the singular, that part of the point is
> to realize that each of us [has] different needs.  Hashem gives me
> exactly what I need.  Even if that's not the level of parnasah my
> neighbor has, what I have is custom-set to exactly what I need.
> 

I don't know why I'm even responding to someone who says "Bartenura",
but I am.

Another kavvanah one can have from the odd (more precisely, it would
strike us as odd, if we weren't accustomed to it) appearance of
singular language in a benediction within a section where singular
language is otherwise not used, is: I must not believe that my
neighbor's (or my wife's, or my husband's, et cetera) needs have been
met.  If I believe that, then I will not help him or her.  In
contrast, I must believe, and be grateful, that my own needs have been
fully met.  `Aseh shabbathkha xol, v'al titztarekh libriyyoth, is the
halakha.  It is not a fashionable sentiment among today's yeshiva
communities, who believe that being a shnorrer is a respectable
occupation, but it is nonetheless the halakha.  Also, grateful people,
c¦teris paribus, are happier than ungrateful people.

Except for the embellishments in the last three sentences of the
previous paragraph, I did not originate this kavvanah; I overheard it
from my esteemed neighbor, Aryeh Merzel (who does not read this
mailing list, but I think his brother does, or maybe I am thinking of
the mail.jewish mailing list).

But the kavvanah of the original poster is certainly a worthy and true
one, and there is no reason not to derive two different kavvanoth from
the same passage in the prayer book.

You can also derive it from other sources.  Ibn Ezra derived it from
v'ahavta lre`akha kamokha, which would also sound weird, if we weren't
so accustomed to hearing it -- the lamed is wrong, it ought to be the
word 'eth.  That lamed is the source of ibn Ezra's pshat.



> 
> Are we saying that Hashem gave us (1) Toras Chayim, (2) veAhavas
> Chessed, (3) uTzedaqah, (4) uVerakhah, (5) veRachamim, (6) veChayim,
> (7) veShalom
> 
> or that Hashem gave us a Torah of (1) Chayim, (2) veAhavas Chessed,
> (3) uTzedaqah...
> 

Your question assumes that "Torath Xayyim", with "Torath" in the
smikhuth form, is correct.  Sfaradim and members of `Edoth Hammizrax
disagree with you about that.



> 
> (I think historians agree that Eikhah Rabba 4 is about the same age
> as Talmud Bavli.
>

I always thought it was about a century older.  But even if it is no
closer in time than the Bavli to the events that it describes, it is
certainly closer to them in space, as it was composed in Eretz Yisrael.
For that reason alone, it should be considered more authoritative.


               Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
               6424 North Whipple Street
               Chicago IL  60645-4111
                       +1 773 7613784   landline
                       +1 410 9964737   GoogleVoice
                       jay at m5.chicago.il.us
                       http://m5.chicago.il.us

               When Martin Buber was a schoolboy, it must have been
               no fun at all playing tag with him during recess.