Our right in the country

Experience

It is true that without God there is no morality. But this is where people get confused. It is still understandable.
But I meant to be surprised at those people who do not live according to the Bible and suddenly use the Bible as proof of ownership, and they forget that according to their way of life the Bible says that their ancestors were murderers and robbers. The point is: there are a lot of such people in the country, and this is already crazy superficiality.
And what is there really to discuss with the Canaanites when they come? I mean according to those who do live according to the Bible.

In the month of April

If the Canaanites come to demand their ‘historical right’ – we can direct them to South Tel Aviv, which is heavily controlled by the Sudanese and Eritreans. It is fitting that the descendants of Cush, the eldest son of Ham, should behave with a ‘good eye’ towards their brothers, the descendants of Canaan, the younger brother of Cush.

With greetings, Haredbbbrrr Gafni,
The Sudanese representative in the World Bible Quiz

I think the questioner is trying to outline a more specific course of action than that implied by Miki's answer. He probably means to say that the right of the Jews to their own state is not like the right of other peoples to their territory. In doing so, he is trying to undermine the "secular" argument for an independent state in Israel by way of a dilemma: either you believe in the divine promise and then there is justification for a claim to land, or you don't (then there is no such justification). According to the questioner's method, as I understand it, there is no way out of this dilemma.

I think this is a mistake. The supposed secularist behind the question is not claiming an absolute right (by divine power) to the land but only a relative right. In this respect, he is exactly like any Japanese, English or American patriot. Therefore, he does not really have a problem with justification.

One could perhaps argue against this that such a secular position distorts original Judaism in which the right to the land is an organic component (say). But this is not a real problem for a secularist, at least not for a sober secularist. If he does not claim full authenticity in terms of his Jewish identity, his attitude towards Jews, distorted or not, is not based on a claim to an “absolute” right. Obviously, a “secular” Japanese person may also “distort” his culture (even in the context of his claim to territory).

And yet, even if the Knights of Justice decide that we have no historical right to the Land of Israel, which we conquered from the Canaanites - Jews lived throughout Europe long before the Middle Ages, when the Franks, Goths, Huns, Teutons, and Normans arrived there from Central Asia during the Migration Period that destroyed the Roman Empire and in the waves that followed. In contrast to these savage peoples who invaded Europe - Jews lived there hundreds of years before that.

Even in the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, Jews lived for many centuries before the conquerors who came from the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century. In North Africa, there was even a Jewish kingdom headed by the Jewish queen Dahiya al-Kahinah, a kingdom that was destroyed by the Arab conquerors. Even in Yemen, there was a Jewish kingdom of the Hamiyya, which was destroyed even before the Muslim conquest by the king of Ethiopia.

Therefore, it can be proposed to those interested in returning Palestine to the descendants of the Canaanites and Philistines – that they be consistent, and according to the same justice, they will return to us Germany and France, Britain and Scandinavia, Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco. The invaders of Europe will return to their countries of origin in the steppes of Central Asia, and the invaders of the Mediterranean countries will return to the deserts of Arabia. And a savior will come to humanity 🙂

With greetings, Attila the Harp

Dear Doron! You defined my question exactly and better than me. Thank you.
But regarding your explanation about the average secular person, I disagree with you.
After all, all the ceremonies, and the Prime Minister, and the politicians, and all the patriotic spirit of the IDF, such as the swearing-in ceremony, they never stop saying: We are with the Bible, we have returned home.
The national anthem is Hatikva, where everyone sings: Hatikva is two thousand years old! In other words, we are not conquering, we are taking what is ours by right. We have returned home.
If the average secular person thinks as you suggested, there is no room for all the excitement, because after all, we are just people from 73 years ago who settled in land, part of which is inhabited, and claimed ownership of the entire area.
Clearly, there is an embarrassing contradiction here. And what does Rabbi Michael think?

What a contradiction?!?
The Bible really existed thousands of years ago, even though the mythological figures (Abraham, Jacob, Moses) are an invention and the entire set of commandments is a regional human development. Our ancestors once sat here under the vine and fig tree, fought with the Ammonites and Edomites, established kingdoms and built temples. The fact that they indulged in a multitude of religious fantasies is no more important than the fact that they did not even know how to use a telephone. The claim is from the land of our ancestors, not from the land of our God. The Palestinians also come to us today precisely because of the same consideration that they claim is the land of their ancestors, meaning that the core of the argument is agreed upon by many from all over the world.

The concept of right is a psychological illusion. There is no such thing in reality.
In reality, all Dalits are men. With right or without right, social nonsense doesn't interest reality.
You survived in the field despite the attacks on you, your field.

You will soon believe that you breathe because you have the right to breathe. You are welcome to stop breathing for a few hours while you figure out whether you have the right to breathe and burn oxygen. And on what basis.

Elhanan,
I answered your question, but in your repeated response, you didn't really address the answer.
I agree with you that most secularists hold a confused position on this issue, but as I argued, this is a position that needs to be corrected.
Explain to me what is problematic about the position of a "sober" secularist like me (for the sake of the discussion, I choose to flatter myself and differentiate myself from my secular friends) regarding our right to the land? I choose with a clear mind to "distort" my Judaism and take from it the issue of our right to the land. However, unlike the Orthodox position as it is usually presented (and some even dispute this within the religion), I do not pretend to claim absolute validity for this right. I choose to follow, albeit to a limited and qualified extent, after my ancestors. In this regard, my situation is more or less like that of the “sober”Japanese patriot.
What's the problem with that?

Posk,
This psychologism that you try to apply to almost everything does not work and can never work. I think you yourself do not really believe in it (although you may be trying to convince yourself).
Psychology is an important thing but it is only one component within a broader reality. You choose (from psychological motives?) to see in the part the whole.

In the 4th of Iyar, 1551, the Posk correctly ruled that for the people of Israel, the land is not a “right” but an “obligation.” As explained in the Song of Songs, the Land of Israel is “the mountain of your inheritance, the sanctuary of the Lord, which your hands have prepared.” The people of Israel are brought to the land to fulfill their mission to be a kingdom of priests that will guide humanity to the ways of the Lord, and therefore our entry into the land is not a “granted right” but a deposit entrusted to us so that we can fulfill our mission, just as a soldier “seals” the valuable equipment that the army entrusts to him.

The Land of Israel is a ‘conditional land’ entrusted to us for the fulfillment of our divine destiny. Indeed, in this generation, God is dealing with us with a degree of ‘longsuffering’ following the great suffering we endured during the two thousand years of exile, culminating in the terrible Holocaust, and has granted us the right to walk in the Land of the Living so that here we may be healed in the air of the land that awaits us from all the spiritual defects and corruptions that have clung to the torments of the terrible exile. The land embraces us like a loving mother so that we may be comforted: ‘As a man whose mother comforts us, so will I comfort you, and you will be comforted in Jerusalem’

With blessings, Amioz Yaron Schnitzelࢭr

The posk did not “order” anywhere in his response that it was a duty, but rather said that everything was possible (everything was possible). And even if he had done so, according to his own system, there is still no weight at all for moral considerations of duty or right. In any case, no one really buys this psychologism (although there are those who tell themselves and us that they do).

Regarding the emphasis on duty based on right. It is true that the Torah speaks more broadly about duties than rights (this is true for all cultures in the ancient world - and Levo Strauss elaborated on this at length), but the attempt to completely trivialize the concept of right is also excessive. The people of Israel have historical rights over the land and the debate about them between the “religious” and the ”secular” is only about the extent of their validity - absolute or not. Of course, even within each camp, one can argue about this.

To Doron, Shalom Rav

Since all of human history is full of conquests and expulsions – if the ‘Pandora's box’ of ‘historical rights’ were opened, the Gauls would demand that the Frankish invaders be returned to their homeland in the steppes of Kazakhstan, and the Germans would demand that the Russians return to them Königsberg, Kant's city.

What is now accepted is that an ethnic group that sees itself as a people and lives in a territory – has the ‘right to self-determination’ in the area it has settled, without examining the ways in which their ancestors got there. In accordance with this concept, the United Nations decided in 1947 to establish ‘two states for two peoples’ here. Today they would also add a Sudanese state in southern Tel Aviv 🙂

The biblical view is different. The chosen people and the chosen land are the property of the Creator of the world. Just as the White House is the office apartment of the US President as long as he fulfills his duty, so Israel is the office apartment of the chosen people.

Best regards, Yafa'r

The discourse of ’historical rights’ was common in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, and led to many wars over territories. Germany and France fought over Alsace-Lorraine; Poland and Germany fought over Danzig and East Prussia; Hungary fought with Romania over Transylvania. Lithuania and Poland fought over Vilnius; Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Ukraine fought over Karpaty, etc.’ etc.’

The trauma of the two world wars that resulted in tens of millions of casualties and the development of nuclear weapons that created a ‘balance of terror’ between the blocs – It led to the decision to freeze the situation that emerged after World War II, and to remove the "discourse of historical rights from the lexicon", and "the land will be quiet for about eighty years" 🙂

With regards, Yaron Fishel Ordner

Doron
You turned the triviality of my words into the main point.
The main point is that in reality there is no such thing as a “right”.
The triviality comes to explain the origin of the “right”.

And if in reality there is no such thing as a right, then why are we here? Because we won the wars.
If we had lost, we wouldn’t be here. Simple and easy.

Here”a – Good morning,

When a person goes into battle out of a feeling that he is fighting for a cause that seems just to him – he develops mental strength that allows him to hold his ground and charge bravely.

This is how the chief explains the justice in the ruling ‘everyone is stronger’ when the court has no evidence – there is an indication that the true owner will fight with more dedication for his just right.

There is also a hint of this in the punctuation of the reasons in the verse: On that day the ’ will be a breath of justice (atn'tahta) for the one who sits on the judgment, (a great uprightness) and for the brave (a great uprightness) than the returners of warࢩ. From this punctuation it seems that ’the breath of justice’ The entire remainder of the verse is interpreted as follows: that the spirit of justice is necessary not only for the one who sits in judgment, but also for the bravery of those who fight a war.

With the blessing of Shabbat Tava, Ben-Zion Yochanan Halevi Radetzky

“When the Court Has No Evidence”
What is the Court? It is a fictitious governmental creature based on power that is not fictitious (the government has power).

And when the Court does not have the reasons according to its arbitrary rules (the law is determined by humans) to exercise its power, there is nothing left but to allow the junior subjects to play by the rules of nature, and then every god is greater.

And it is worth mentioning what everyone forgets, the real god in the first place is the Court, only in this case where there is no evidence, it waives the exercise of power.

Therefore, every god is always right. Both when there is evidence and when there is no evidence.

Ben-Zion Yochanan Halevi Radetzky, you have included a nice idea in the verse ‘And to the spirit of justice – to him who sits on the judgment, and to the spirit of valor to those who answer war a hair's breadth). But as for the intention of the reasons, it seems different to me. The punctuation is indeed difficult, but what did the reasons find that is so pressing in the required punctuation (and to the spirit of justice to him who sits on the judgment, and to the spirit of valor to those who answer war a hair's breadth) that they sought new interpretations for themselves? In other words, it is not enough that the new interpretation contain an idea, but there must be a reason why not to be content with what is already present in the verse without effort until they bother to overload it with interpretations.
Therefore, it seems to me that their intention is that the word ‘spirit’ attracts itself and others with it: And to the spirit of justice to him who sits on the judgment, and to the spirit of valor to those who answer war a hair's breadth. As it is written, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and valor.
Therefore, if they choose the required pause (and the spirit of judgment to the one who sits on the judgment, and the heroism of those who return war a hair's breadth) then the idea that the spirit also extends to the heroism will be lost. If they choose the pause after the spirit (and the spirit – judgment to the one who sits on the judgment, and the heroism of those who return war a hair's breadth) it is perhaps more successful, but through the reasons to wait with the pause until there is a link that carries meaning, such as "Save me, please, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau," and not "Save me, please, – from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau." Or "And they were for signs and for times, and for days and years." And not "And they were – for signs and for times, and for days and years. Because they are waiting for the completion of a component of meaning (and there are many more examples of this). And the chooser will choose.

Ruling

The strange claim that there is no such thing as a “right” is equivalent to similar claims that hold that there is no such thing as a “obligation”, “childhood”, “love”, or even a “bank”. All are abstract entities that cannot be seen with the senses or imagined, and yet they are all present and greatly influence the lives of all of us.

As before, I suggest you perform a thought experiment regarding your own life: in any case in which you think you deserve something (a surplus at the store, fair treatment at the cash register, or “right of way” on the road), tell yourself that in fact there is no such thing as a “right” and perhaps there is no point in claiming it.
Then come back to us to report how it went.

Doron,
Even in the large particle accelerator they searched and searched and did not find a particle of “right” or “obligation”. In other words, it is a human fiction. All these abstract entities are human inventions.

Is it strange to you to discover that reality does not change according to the whims of humans? Isn't this what you would expect from reality after you were freed from the shackles of childhood imagination?

Don't you distinguish between a game and reality? According to the rules of the game, I can sue provided that the other person agrees to the rules of the game. For example, if you tell the head of a cartel that you will sue him and take a bullet in the head, it will no longer sound strange to you that there is no such thing as a right.

Posek,
Your claim is not only not connected to reality but it is not even connected to your own life.
I suggested that you perform a small experiment at home that would demonstrate this to you.
What you claimed above regarding “rights” is not only mistaken (as an idea) but on a practical behavioral level you are not at all loyal to it.
Of course, in the meantime we have moved away from the original question (the perception of the right to Israel from the perspective of a “secular” Jew)

Assuming that we ignore for the sake of discussion the fact that the owner of the universe gave Israel his private property, the fact that we conquered Canaan by force has become meaningless over time. Once there are no legal heirs (and the original Canaanite peoples disappeared long before the Roman conquest), the land behaves like no man's land and the current homesteader buys it.

On the other hand, during the time of the Roman conqueror, the land was taken from us, but throughout the whole process we were its legal heirs and ownership never expired.

Doron, I didn't understand your question.
Language is a human invention, and here you and I use it.

In the name of the Lord, the Lord of the Worlds

Lt.G. – Hello,

It is indeed possible to say, as you suggest, that ’spirit’ is applied to both justice and heroism. And yet, even according to this, heroism depends ‘not on valor or strength’ but on the spirit.

With greetings, in the

[I didn't know whether to say, and maybe I was just in a hurry, and the commentators didn't address it (they didn't know the details of the rules for stopping then as they do today, but I'll stand up and rest, I'm sure they would), but if I were printing large readings today, I would correct the biblical reasons in this verse and add an asterisk with the existing version and the hypothesis that the copying must have gone wrong in ancient times. It seems too strange and it is beyond the power of the commentators to justify such creaky punctuation.]

In the context of the verse in Isaiah 28:6, I had the opportunity to talk about this verse yesterday with someone who deals with the Bible and he referred me to the words of Shadel who firmly claims that the punctuation of the reasons in this verse is an error. “The rest that is under ‘mishpat’ and the zekf on ‘hamishpat’ are undoubtedly nothing more than a scribal error, and should come in one place, and even though I did not find it in any book, I did not want to cause such a major disruption’. The image I received is attached to the link here https://ibb.co/mvncXpp

[But it must be said that this cannot be just a simple copying error of alternating rest-zekf as it sounds from Shadel's words, but other reasons also need to be interchanged. Currently the reasons are: and for the spirit (tefachah) mishpat (rest) for the yoshab (pashta) on the-hamishpat (zekf). If the itnach and zekf are replaced, then the tefacha and the pashta must also be replaced, because tefacha does not come before zekf and pashta does not come before itnach. It follows that if they are corrected, then there must be a sentence (zeqf) for the soul (tefcha) to the one who sits (tefacha) on the sentence (itnach). Therefore, it is unlikely that this is simply a mistake by the scribe copying in ancient times, unless it is an interpretive error/oddity of the scholars.]

On the 31st of Omer, 5621

Lt.G. – Greetings,

My lips of those who have taste, it is clear from these that the spirit of justice requires not only a ‘sit on the court’, but also a ‘hero who returns from war’, and as the Austrian general Wenzel Johann Josef Radetzky, a contemporary of Shadel, who led the Austrian army to victory in Italy even at the age of 82, taught us, to teach you how much the sense of justice strengthens the man of war.

Moreover, ‘returning the war hair’, is interpreted by some commentators, in the sense /to bring the men of war home in peace’. This is how Yonatan translated ‘and let us return the battle to the house of the dead’, The commander needs not only bravery and military talent, but a strong sense of commitment and loyalty to his fellow fighters to ensure that not even one remains ‘abandoned and without strength’. In order to return everyone in peace and take care of the process of their rehabilitation that will continue afterwards – the commander needs a lot of ‘spirit of justice’, to do justice to all who go out to battle.

The victories in this difficult battle will not be learned at ’West Point’ and the other military academies, but this is the uniqueness and true test of a commander who is guided by the prophet's vision, and he holds the quality of his promising nature: ‘And you will be gathered one by one, the children of Israel’.

In our chapter, ’justice’ Also the unique individual treatment that the farmer gives to each of the species that he raises, and this is what the prophet calls: ‘And they shall be taught by the law of God”. The wisdom that God instructs the farmer teaches him to give unique treatment to each species ‘For a hoe will not be cut in the furrow, nor a cart in the way of a cart be washed, but a hoe will be beaten with a staff, and a hoe in the bush, and bread will be pressed…’

And just as a farmer has a unique law for each species – so a soldier has a ‘spirit of justice’ that instructs him to give each soldier the personal treatment and attention that he deserves.

With regards, Amioz Yaron Schnitzel”R

It is worth noting that the sages demanded the ‘and bravery of the hair’ about the war of the instinct and the ‘war of Torah’, and in these we certainly certainly the &#8217spirit of justice’ is most needed

Paragraph 3, line 5
… for the lengthy rehabilitation process afterwards…

In the last paragraph, Sh’ 1
… war refugees’ …

Even the lips of the interpreters can be disputed, and all the commentators have done so more than once, starting with the Aramaic translations, continuing with the first interpreters, and ending with the Malbi. Even the punctuationists sometimes apparently disagree with the interpreters. Shadel claims that this is a scribal error and not the original punctuation of the interpreters. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter, even if the original interpreters phrased it this way, then there is no interpretation for their words and it is a mistake. The writer of the verse constructed two parallel sides (for the spirit of justice - for the one who sits on the judgment. for the bravery - for those who fight back a hair's breadth of battle) and if he wanted to wrap himself in the mantle of a preacher and say that the spirit of justice and the sense of justice help the bravery of the warriors, then he would have found ways to style the verse differently. He didn't shy away from writing and there is no reason for him to phrase it in a creaky way. It's a matter of feeling.

And in any case, your words about the matter of those who fight back a hair's breadth of battle don't seem right to me. For all commentators, the interpretation is valor for the warriors who will win. The intention of Rabbi Moshe Hacohen, who was quoted in Rabbah, is that those who were weak in the past and fled and returned to the gate of their city with shame of face (as it is written, “The crown of pride will be trampled underfoot,” etc.), now on that day the Holy One will strengthen them and give them valor. Not that the Holy One will strengthen those who are currently fleeing, because if there is flight here, there is no valor here. And the translation says that if they prevail, they will return to their gates in peace. And Radek interpreted that they return the war to the gates of the enemy. It is all the same thing in different guises, and it is the simple interpretation.
In general, wherever I find the words of a sage, I make my ears like an eardrum. Because in my eyes, his mind is pure and upright, like good oil flowing down on an old man. By the way, he has another pamphlet in which he proves with complete and convincing evidence that the punctuation and the entire elaborate system of flavors are later, perhaps from the time of the Saburites.

In short:

The 'spirit of justice', the aspiration and commitment to justice, is needed both for 'returning the war to the enemy's gate' as many commentators interpret, because the sense of justice strengthens the warrior's hands.

All the more so is the commitment to justice needed for 'returning the men of war to their homes in peace' as Jonathan translates (and perhaps also Rabbi Moshe HaCohen, but as you said, it can be understood from his words that he strengthens the fugitives to return to the battlefield). However, according to Jonathan's translation, it is certainly about returning the warriors 'safely to their homes', and this requires a great commitment to justice on the part of the commander.

In the following chapter, which speaks of the farmer who knows how to distinguish and give individual treatment to each species as it deserves: “They have been brought to justice, and they have been given justice.” An additional meaning for “justice” arises: the ability of a man of action to “speak his words wisely,” to conduct his actions wisely. “Justice” in the sense of wisdom and discernment is also one of the qualities required of a commander.

In any case, the words of the wise are correct, that “the spirit of justice” is necessary not only for “the one who sits on the court,” but also for the brave men who return from war.

With best wishes, Shchel

The commitment to justice is not needed at all. All the heroes of history are despicable murderers and robbers who ruled with a stick. Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Hannibal, and Napoleon are all scum who succeeded greatly when the central sense of justice that inspired them and their armies was the desire for glory and the desire for power. The return of the men of war in peace is a typical sign of victory in war, like Gad, a troop, will be led and he will be led to return. And even if the idea itself has a place, in the verse it simply does not fit. If there was a core of faith here, then it would be understandable why those with taste pushed themselves (this is something that is found several times) but just inventing it to introduce their own ideas, I see no point in it. In any case, the voter will choose.

And regarding the attempt to later pronounce the meanings –

The earliest Amoraim – Rav and Rabbi Yochanan (Nedrim 37) – recognize the punctuation of the meanings as an existing fact. According to Rabbi Yochanan, the one who teaches infants is given the ‘reward for pronouncing meanings’, and according to Rav, he is not given the ‘reward for pronouncing meanings’ but the &#8216reward for preserving’, since ‘the punctuation of meanings is from the Torah’, as written in Nehemiah ‘and we understood it in the Bible’and Rav interprets: ‘These are meanings’.

Something that the earliest Amoraim disagree about whether it is from the Torah or their rabbis is certainly an ancient tradition that is much older than their time.

Best regards, Shchel

They have always known that it is necessary to learn where the main points of the pauses are in the verses and in particular where the end of a verse is. But there was no detail about each and every word and what meaning it has. There is also no point in conveying the biblical meanings in the tradition of Moses our Lord, since the vast majority are according to established rules that anyone who has learned a little can reproduce the punctuation in almost all verses. The Sages do not mention the name of any meaning or punctuation. Nor is there any law or legend that concerns them. Nor were the meanings used to interpret any verse, such as five verses that do not have a decisive factor. If the meanings are ancient, according to the Sages, the meanings are decisive for all of them. In this way, you have no better evidence than we have seen, and the order of conspiracies has been eliminated. And in general, in my opinion, the exemplary systematicity that exists in the entire system of meanings is such that it cannot be a remnant of the ancient world but rather the fruit of the new and more learned world. I don't have Shadel's book at the moment and I couldn't find it in Hibrobox, so I wrote a little from memory, but I would be very surprised to see if you can find a reasonable contemporary scholar who thinks that the flavors (and punctuation) are from the time of Ezra the scribe or before. Rather, your army is great and your departure is great.

Even from the words of Rabbi Akiva in the blessings that one should not lick the right hand in the house of the chair, ‘because it shows the flavors of Torah’, it emerges that there was a tradition of punctuation of flavors that was handed down in signs by hand, and was not written down (as with all the Torah, which was not allowed to be written down until a later period because it was ‘time to do it’).

In the blessing, Sh”l

Regarding the rules.- Conceptualization often follows tradition. Conceptualization does not exempt from the obligation of transmission, because there are many exceptions. The tradition of reading and punctuation was passed down by rote from father to son and taught to his students, without most of them knowing the definitions and rules.

For example, a child learns a language by hearing, without him, and often his parents, knowing the rules of grammar. There are many languages in which there are ‘Relativism’ differs for each word according to its syntactic function. The speaker of the language intuitively uses the rules that distinguish between ‘Gentivos’, ‘Dativos’ and ’Acoustivos’ without ever having heard these distinctions.

When I read the Torah at my Bar Mitzvah, I did not know the rules for punctuation, I only memorized and memorized them over and over. It was only in my late twenties, when we lived in Nokdim (years before Lieberman arrived 🙂 and I wanted to help with the Torah reading every Shabbat – that I learned the rules from R”M. Breuer's book, and it helped me prepare for the reading.

As for the matter of showing Torah tastes in his hand, it is not reasonable to interpret (Karshi) that there was a rabbi and a tabir and all. It is enough that he saw central stopping places. And it is not certain that this is the interpretation in the Gemara. If Chazal mentioned the Merkava incident, it does not mean that they knew Zeir Anpin and Nachash Kedmaa.
The rules of grammar are the result of natural upheavals and therefore are full of exceptions, and in them the conceptualization is indeed only an approximation. But the rules of tastes are much more systematic and with much fewer exceptions, and (I) have no doubt that in the world a nitpicker sat with the rules in his hand and saw what suited him. For a good few years, I went with most of the rules of tastes in my head and checked almost instinctively every verse I came across that everything was in order. If I were to risk off-the-cuff estimates, then 95% of the verses are completely smooth. There are phenomena of musical constraints and all sorts of tiny rules, and those who devoted their lives to such trifles dealt with them. Breuer's book is extremely heavy and cumbersome. It is possible to summarize all the important rules in a concentrated and concise manner in two or three pages, and I even managed to do that. By the way, it is strange that I once thought that it was possible to find all kinds of proofs for the ancient pronunciation form from the flavors, and I have several examples that I am surprised that I have not seen anyone who has preceded and dealt with this type of proof (for example, the word שְתים read שכן in the wrong way and not according to other methods. Two wrong ways at the end of a word are both wrong and not according to the dialing theory, where the second moves to the beginning of the second word. Wrong after a long, unstressed vowel, various commentators disagreed on this. All of the above and more can be learned from the rules of the flavors).