We don't know where Moshe Rabenu's Kever is

amother

Saddlebrown

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 9:10 am

Kivrei Tzadikim, Kever Rochel,Meoras Hamachpala Kivrei Horim U'Morim we go there to Daven, we feel that our tefilos will be answered better if we daven there.

At the same time we learned we don't know where Moshe Rabenu's Kever is because we will turn it into an Avodah Zorah.

How do we balance the conflict, how do we not forget that it is Hashem we daven to, not a Kever?

I ask this because I hear so many people say go to Kever X and your tefillos will be answered. I had yeshuos when I went to Kever X. The hatzlacha I had because I davened by Kever X. It just seems off. However I can't dismiss that there are many places in Tanach that there is davening at Kevorim so there is an inyun and Mesorah of doing this all the way back in time.

What is the fine line?

leah233

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 9:39 am

I do not believe that davening at any kever guarantees a yeshoua. However there are certain Kevorim that are known as a place where Tefila is accepted easier.

Why does one Tzadik have that said about his kever and not another? I'm clueless too.

One very important point to remember at all Kevorim is that you aren't davening in any way to the person buried there. You are davening to Hashem alone.

Iymnok

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 10:37 am

In the zechus of the tzaddik who's buried in this place that I made the effort to get to, please Hashem, answer my prayers!
This can also be said of a significant location.
It is said that a Neshama has a connection to its kever. The tzaddik can "plead your case" as you Daven to Hashem.

amother

Cerulean

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 10:47 am

Historically, there's very little evidence that davening at graves (other than mearat hamachpela and Kever Rachel) was widely practiced before the middle ages. As travel grew easier, visiting graves of nonrelatives became more popular. There's a lot of folk custom surrounding the practice, but certainly before the rise of chassidut (meaning, the last 300 years) the standard was to dismiss this. The Ari's visit or visits to Meron gained notice precisely because his behavior was so unusual.

What's happened is that the folkways have filtered up into the religious mainstream. This is a fairly common development in religious life.

imasoftov

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 12:35 pm

amother wrote:

there are many places in Tanach that there is davening at Kevorim so there is an inyun and Mesorah of doing this all the way back in time.

Where in Tanach is there davening at graves?

leah233

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 1:48 pm

tichellady wrote:

I think this whole practice of davening at graves is avodah Zarah. I don't think there's a fine line here.

Based on what?

When Yaakov Avinu buried Rochel right out of Yeruslayim so her Kever would be davened at by the time of the Churban was he trying to perpetuate Avodah Zora?

When Kolev when to daven at the Meoras Hamchpala not to be included in the meraglim was that Avodah Zora?

Etc?

PinkFridge

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 2:39 pm

leah233 wrote:

I wouldn't go so far as to call it avodah zara, but it seems to me that there is a difference between going to kivrei Avos, and someone whom the traveler may have no shaichus to whatsoever besides desperation.

amother

Cerulean

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 3:06 pm

amother wrote:

Most probably Medrashim

Yosef at Rochel's Kever when he was going to Mitzrayim
Calev at Meoras HaMachpelah

Worth remembering that both of these are medrashim. Also, Rachel was actually Yosef's mother, not a remote ancestor.

tichellady

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 3:12 pm

leah233 wrote:

You are making this assertion based on the way you are reading the Midrash. A. Midrash is not Pshat nor is poskening halakha. The Avot did many things we don't do today b. Midrash is not a fact, it has a lesson but it's not historical and often times the lesson is somewhat subversive and people who read it literally actually get the opposite message c. I think individuals can do it right but once it becomes an institutionalized thing where people promise a Yehoshua for davening at this place etc ( which is what I see and hear all the time) it's now avodah Zara.

leah233

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 4:05 pm

tichellady wrote:

Had I known that is your attitude towards Chazel I would not have responded to your post.

I will not discuss this you further other them to protest the idea that some one can so flippantly disregard any medrash as "not being historical and often times the lesson is somewhat subversive and people who read it literally actually get the opposite message".

Yes I know that according to the blog world party line the end of the last paragraph is required thinking to be considered "rational"

tichellady

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 4:31 pm

leah233 wrote:

I think what I said about davening at kevers is controversial but what I am saying about Midrash is really not controversial at all. How is it disrespectful to chazal to try to understand the lesson they are imparting? have you ever learned the rambam? since when does everything have to be understood literally to have value and impart a lesson? Jews are not fundamentalist Christians!

etky

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 4:37 pm

leah233 wrote:

It is disrespectful to dismiss a midrash as nonsense.
It is not disrespectful to ponder the meaning behind the story of the midrash or to consider it a mere device used by chazal to convey a didactic message.

tichellady

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 4:51 pm

GetReal wrote:

Actually I think that's kitzur shulchan aruch. Also mentioned in mishna berura.

And kalev davening at mearas hamachpeilia is in the Gemara.

First of all I'm not saying that what Kalev did was wrong. I'm saying I think the way most people daven at graves today is avodah Zara. It's become a whole instutionalized thing that seems very wrong to me. Feel free to disagree with me. I don't think it's black and white even though it seems very wrong to me.

Second of all when people use the term Midrash they are referring to aggadah much of which is found in the Gemara. Sometimes a midrashic story will appear in the Gemara and then will appear in a midrashic collection but with a few differences. So saying that is mentioned in the Gemara does not mean it's not a Midrash.

tichellady

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 5:01 pm

leah233 wrote:

Even if I wanted to read every Midrash as literal and true I wouldn't be able to. There are midrashim with conflicting views. There are debates about details like age and location, about authors of books, etc. They can't all be true if they are saying different things. Rivka couldn't have been both 3 and 14 when she married yitzchak. If you say, " well she was 3 but she was as mature as a 14 year old" or " she was 3 when they were married but only understood what marriage was at 14" in an effort to blend two different opinions espoused by chazal then recognize that you don't read Midrash literally! Someone cannot literally be both 3 and 14 at the same time!

leah233

Wed, Jun 22 2016, 5:01 pm

tichellady wrote:

How is it disrespectful to chazal to try to understand the lesson they are imparting?

Had you made an effort to do so and came to the conclusion that the Medrash can not be understood on a superficial level because of ... and therefore it must mean ...and the proof is... etc. that would be a legitimate way of approaching a Medrash (though not necessarily correct).

Flippantly disregarding a Medrash without any proof or deeper explanation is unacceptable. Rav Saadya Goan who is the earliest source about not understanding all midrashim superficially gives rules about when and it may be suggested it isn't superficially understood