brayta in Rosh HaShana 18b cites Rabbi Akiva that this refers to the 9th of Tammuz (the 4th month starting with Nissan) when the walls were breached, as it states in the very last perek of sefer Yirmiyahu, Yirmiyahu 52:6-7:
brayta and the pasuk) is problematic since we have a different tradition that the city was breached on the 17th of Tammuz (when we have the fast day - and further, Rabbi Akiva seems to be saying the fast itself, of the fourth month, is on the 9th)! Tosafot asks this question and cites a Yerushalmi to give an answer. To quote Rabbi Goldwicht:
The gemara in Rosh HaShana (18b) says in the name of R’ Akiva that the “tzom harevi’i, the fast of the fourth month” (Zechariah 8:19) refers to the 9th of Tamuz, when the walls of Yerushalayim were breached, as the passuk in Yirmiyah says, “Bachodesh harevi’i b’tisha lachodesh…vatibaka ha’ir, On the ninth day of the fourth month [Tamuz], the city was breached” (52:6-7). How can the passuk say that the city was breached on the 9th of Tamuz, when we know that the city was breached only on the 17th of Tamuz?! Tosfot points out that in the Yerushalmi’s version of this beraita, R’ Akiva says the tzom harevi’i in fact refers to the 17th of Tamuz, even though the passuk says the walls were breached on the 9th of Tamuz, explaining that the passuk recorded an incorrect date because of the tremendous panic and confusion. Can we really say that the information provided by a passuk, transmitted through nevuah, is incorrect?!Just a minor clarification here, before proceeding. Tosafot actually is making two statements. The first is that the brayta in the Yerushalmi has Rabbi Akiva saying the 17th of Tammuz instead of the 9th. For this brayta, see the very bottom of Yerushlami Taanit 23a to the very top of 23b. The second is an explanation of the confusion, which is found earlier on in the Yerushalmi, Taanit 23a, and not in a brayta, but attributed to Rabbi Tanchum bar Chanilai. The Tosafot on Rosh HaShana 18b can be read in this way - check it out - it is the second Tosafot on the page.
Later, Rabbi Goldwicht writes in answer to this question:
The moment the city walls were breached, nevuah stopped. Any nevi’im who continued to prophesize were only able to do so because they had before the walls were breached as well. No new nevi’im arose because the moment the city walls were breached, there arose confusion between proper dibbur and all other forms of dibbur. HaKadosh Baruch Hu chose to express this tremendous confusion of dibbur for all generations by deliberately writing a passuk stating incorrectly that Yerushalayim was breached on the 9th of Tamuz, when really it was breached on the 17th of Tamuz. This is the reason we mourn the breach of Yerushalayim’s walls – because there was no longer any distinction between the commoner’s dibbur and that of the nevi’im, and this bilbul marked the beginning of the churban.
I think Tosafot's answer can be cast somewhat differently. Tosafot wrote:
ורוצה לומר שמתוך טרדותם טעו בחשבונם ולא רצה הפסוק לשנות מכמו שהיו סבורים{See what Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish have to say in the gemara about the kilkul of the cheshbonot.}
And it means to say that because of their preoccupation they erred in their calculations and the pasuk did not wish to change from what they thought.
I might read Tosafot's explanation as dibra Torah kilshon benei adam - the Torah speaks in the language of man. The meaning had to be immediately clear to the people of the current generation, and had the pasuk stated the 17th of Tammuz, people would have thought it was in error. Thus, it recorded according to the calendar as it was known at the time. (And, based on the calendar at the time, it was correct.) This is generally true - that while the Torah is intended for all time, it is also directed towards the people at the time. Thus, for example, Tanach will speak of the sun stopping in the sky, or use 3 as an estimate of pi, or perhaps even treat a rabbit as a ruminant, where there will be no difference in actual law (since it does not have split feet anyway), and where the specific technical knowledge is not really pertinent or the point of the prophetic message.
Another possibility is that since they thought it was a different date, and presumably recorded official items using that date, it was that date. The date, after all, is a convention agreed upon by those using it to keep track of time. Thus, in a sense, it actually was the 9th of Tammuz.
Meanwhile, Rabbi Goldwicht's question:
Can we really say that the information provided by a passuk, transmitted through nevuah, is incorrect?!tempts me to note that this pasuk which he gave as the source of the date of the 9th of Tammuz occurs in the very last perek of sefer Yirmiyahu, perek 52. Now, examine the very last pasuk of the previous perek, Yirmiyahu 51:64:
Yirmiyahu 51:61.
However, it still is a pasuk in Tanach, and presumably written with some Divine inspiration. Furthermore, this is not the only place the 9th of Tammuz is mentioned as the date of the breaching of the city. It is also mentioned earlier in sefer Yirmiyahu, in Yirmiyahu 39:2:
food on the 9th of Tammuz, with the breach of the city, mentioned in the next pasuk, happening shortly thereafter, but perhaps 8 days later. This pasuk in Yirmiyahu 39, which is cited by the Yerushalmi, shows that the city was breached on the 9th of Tammuz.
On the other hand, we know that in general Yirmiyahu dictated his prophecies, and they were written down by his scribe Baruch ben Neriah. This verse (2) is part of the narrative of what happens to Yirmiyahu until the end, after recording (in the previous perek his secret conversation with King Tzidkiyahu and how Yirmiyahu stayed in the court of the guard until the end. Perhaps this wrap-up, and the timing of the breach, was also by his scribe.
Of course, Bava Batra 15a states: ירמיה כתב ספרו וספר מלכים וקינות
Update: And, of course, Radak has a very sensible explanation of עַד-הֵנָּה, דִּבְרֵי יִרְמְיָהוּ which fits in context - that the preceding was the final (public) prophecy of Yirmiyahu which he made sure to deliver.
No comments:
Post a Comment