נשלח: דינסטאג יוני 06, 2023 1:06 pm
דר. מאריא פּאנטאפּידאן שרייבט אז לפי תנ״ך איז ״עטיקס״ און ״גוטס״ די אקטן וואס א מענטש טוהט ביחס צו אנדערע; צו ג-ט אדער מענטשן. אין אנדערע ווערטער, עס איז אלס דא די געדאנק פון הבדלה.?משא״כ לויט פּלאטינוס איז ״עטיקס״ און ״גוטס״ ממש דאס אינטעלעקטן בשכל אזוי ווי ג-ט וואו ס׳איז נישטא און שייך קיין אקט; אקטן באדייט א חסרון בשלימות פון אחדות. די געדאנק פון וואס איז ״עטיקס״ איז ליחד דעם אינטעלעקט לגמרי מיט׳ן ״איינס״. עס איז פארקערט גאר: מ׳דארף זיך זעהן מתבודד צו זיין ווי מער פון האבן יחס צו אנדערע להתדמות לקונו.
ועיין בכוזרי ריש מאמר א.
זי שרייבט אז ספר איוב איז היפך דעת זה. ווי זי איז מסביר:
לגבי תפילה במשנתו של פּלאטינוס שרייבט זי:
דר. סוּסען נידיטש לערענט אין רות (א יג; א כ):
***
במשנתה של מערי מידזשלי.
ועיין בכוזרי ריש מאמר א.
זי שרייבט אז ספר איוב איז היפך דעת זה. ווי זי איז מסביר:
ולפי״ז האט טאקע דער רמב״ם געשלעפט דעם ספר איוב בפירושו מער צו פּלאטינוס׳ צד. ועיין בסוף מו״נ לגבי היחס בין מדות לחכמה שהיא לו לבדו ע״ש.To Plotinus, the real challenge of ethics is to learn how to detach oneself totally from personal cares and afflictions, whether they be bodily or emotional — there is very much of the Stoic in him, his main disagreement with Stoic philosophy is, of course, that it is materialist, while he as a Platonist holds that ultimate reality is incorporeal. But when it comes to apatheia, the ability to be perfectly detached from bodily, mental and emotional disturbances, as an ideal, Plotinus and the Stoics are of one mind
Job, however, does not stay upon this path. To Job and other Biblical figures, the main challenge of ethics is to come to terms with the human condition of having to relate to others, not least to God. And to learn how relations are properly carried out. It brings a fruitful reading of the book of Job, in my opinion, to see it as an ongoing exploration of this perspective. The whole debate between Job and his friends, and also God’s spoken judgment at the end, hang upon this question: How should we relate properly to one another? Job insists on the importance of his personal sufferings, and demands an answer from God concerning them. In other words: He takes his sufferings deeply personally — something Plotinus explicitly warns against as an attitude that would bind a person stronger to a life of illusion.
But the Biblical God points to “his servant Job” as the one who spoke truly of him all along ( Job 42:7–8). The Biblical God approves of people who want to relate personally to him, and who care about their bodily existence. To Plotinus, such a conception of divinity is blasphemous. This is because it upsets the neat Platonical hierarchy completely. It does not, for one, put rationality above passion. Nor does it put mind or soul above body, nor does it show the person a road away from his irksome individuality. In Plotinus’ view, this would not guard us properly from suffering and thus not deserve the name of salvation or liberation of the soul. As long as there is a relation, there is some sort of interest, desire and passion
לגבי תפילה במשנתו של פּלאטינוס שרייבט זי:
***though he acknowledges that one may pray to these beings and receive some benefit from it physically or mentally, this does not mean that they themselves relate to the devoted human being. The reaction merely happens through the underlying unity of everything. The fundamental lesson to learn concerning God or gods is thus, in Plotinus’ view, that ultimately, we are all left to ourselves, and the salvation of a given individual rests only on his own efforts and determined training in philosophy
דר. סוּסען נידיטש לערענט אין רות (א יג; א כ):
דר. יונתן מגונת לערענט אפ רות א כ-כא:Naomi does not suggest she is a sinner so that she deserves what has befallen her or that the deity is somehow unfair. Rather, G-d is the source of what philosopher Thomas Nagel calls “moral luck.” Matters beyond one’s control may affect moral agency and how much we can be viewed as morally responsible for what we do. Qohelet [Ecclesiastes], for example, grapples with the consequences of moral luck when he describes the way bad things happen to good people and nevertheless expresses belief in God’s power. Indeed on some level Job’s story is about moral luck. It is unfortunate for him that God was bored one day or that the accuser or adversary, a gadfly member of the divine council, makes trouble for him
Naomi explains that she left Bethlehem full and returns emptied out, emotionally and materially, and all on account of G-d/Shaddai. Is there some implicit recrimination against God here? Perhaps, but there is also acknowledgment that bad things happen and if the deity is the source of all things, then he must somehow be responsible for Naomi’s personal troubles, but for reasons we may not be able to fathom
Do things work out well because ultimately G-d simply has compassion? Does the deity appreciate and reward the moral backbone of Ruth and Naomi? More likely, it is once again a matter of moral luck pointing to a world in which the deity lets the good happen, just as he allows the bad
A trenchant theme in the Bible, and perhaps in all religious traditions, addresses the ways in which bad things happen to good people, offering possible explanations, questions of fairness, and deep matters of worldview. A strong thread in the Bible blames hardship on sins, variously defined
Most striking in Ruth is that Naomi does regard God as the source of her troubles—indeed the deity controls all that happens—but she does not blame herself or Ruth. And just as the inscrutable God causes or allows her to suffer, the same deity reverses her fortunes for the good. In this sense, it takes its place among late biblical works such as Esther, Jonah, Job, and Qohelet that explore some of the same themes as they relate to Jewish identity and situations beyond our control
ער זאגט אז נעמי גייט בעצם דורך די קוּבּלער-ראָס מאדעל פון גריִף. ער ברענגט אויך צו אז ס׳איז מעגליך אז די מחבר פון מגילת רות איז געווען א פרוי. ועיין כאן, ועיין בב״ב יד:For Naomi as a religiously committed woman, all that happens, however tragic and painful, must ultimately be attributed to the actions of God. Yet how can she express her anger without risking offence to God?
Her solution is to attribute the active embitterment and the wronging to Shaddai, a name used for Israel’s God, but not YHWH—the special name reserved for Israel’s God in their full covenantal relationship. She can use the tetragramaton later in terms of YHWH ‘witnessing’ against her. Presumably, this implies her ultimate acceptance that whatever has happened to her, it is in some way a divine judgment—but not an accusation. Effectively Naomi has composed a personal theodicy
The factor that Naomi’s poem accentuates is her religious conviction. For in the midst of her bitterness and anger, she still feels that she lives within the framework of God’s providence, whatever form it may take. Moreover, she manages to create in her brief but subtly constructed poem in 1:20-21 a profound statement of both her anger at her bitter experience and her acceptance that ultimately everything must lie in the hands of God
In this I am reminded of the words of an elderly Orthodox rabbi who was my teacher many years ago. Himself a refugee, he could have been echoing Naomi’s words when he said that a religious person may not say that what happens in one’s life is bad, presumably because that would amount to an accusation against God. But, he added, one may say that it is bitter
***
במשנתה של מערי מידזשלי.
