Shabbat 30
גְּמָ׳ מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא חַיָּיב — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. רֵישָׁא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִי בְּחוֹלֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנָה — ״מוּתָּר״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ. וְאִי בְּחוֹלֶה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סַכָּנָה ״חַיָּיב חַטָּאת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!
GEMARA: From the fact that it was taught in the latter clause of the mishna that one who extinguishes a flame on Shabbat is liable, conclude from it that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one who performs a prohibited labor on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering even if it is a labor that is not necessary for its own sake [melakha she’eina tzerikha legufa]. In the mishna, one does not extinguish the flame to achieve the product produced by extinguishing it. He does so to prevent the light from shining. If so, with what is the first clause of the mishna dealing? If it is referring to one who extinguished the flame due to a critically ill person, the term exempt is imprecise. It should have said permitted, as it is permitted even ab initio to perform a prohibited labor on Shabbat in a case of danger. And if it is speaking about a non-critically ill person, why is one who extinguished the flame exempt? It should have said that one is liable to bring a sin-offering.
לְעוֹלָם בְּחוֹלֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סַכָּנָה, וּבְדִין הוּא דְּלִיתְנֵי ״מוּתָּר״, וְאַיְּידֵי דְּבָעֵי לְמִתְנֵי סֵיפָא ״חַיָּיב״, תְּנָא נָמֵי רֵישָׁא ״פָּטוּר״. וְהָדְתָנֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אִם בִּשְׁבִיל הַחוֹלֶה שֶׁיִּישַׁן לֹא יְכַבֶּה, וְאִם כִּבָּה, פָּטוּר אֲבָל אָסוּר! — הַהִיא בְּחוֹלֶה שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ סַכָּנָה, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא.
The Gemara replies: Actually, the first clause was referring to a critically ill person, and it should have taught that it is permitted. And since the latter clause of the mishna had to teach that one is liable, in the first clause too, it taught employing the opposite term, exempt, so that the mishna would maintain stylistic uniformity. The halakha is, indeed, that not only is one exempt if he extinguished a light for a critically ill person, it is even permitted to do so ab initio. The Gemara asks: What of that which Rabbi Oshaya taught: If one wants to extinguish a flame on Shabbat for a sick person so he can sleep, he may not extinguish it, and if he extinguished it, he is not liable after the fact, but ab initio he is prohibited to do so? The Gemara answers: This is not similar, as that baraita is referring to a non-critically ill person and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that one who performs a prohibited labor not necessary for its own sake is exempt. Our mishna is referring to a critically ill person.
שְׁאוּל שְׁאֵילָה זוֹ לְעֵילָּא מֵרַבִּי תַּנְחוּם דְּמִן נוֹי: מַהוּ לְכַבּוֹת בּוּצִינָא דְנוּרָא מִקַּמֵּי בְּאִישָׁא בְּשַׁבְּתָא? פְּתַח וַאֲמַר: אַנְתְּ שְׁלֹמֹה אָן חׇכְמְתָךְ, אָן סוּכְלְתָנוּתָךְ? לֹא דַּיֶּיךָּ שֶׁדְּבָרֶיךָ סוֹתְרִין דִּבְרֵי דָּוִד אָבִיךָ, אֶלָּא שֶׁדְּבָרֶיךָ סוֹתְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. דָּוִד אָבִיךָ אָמַר: ״לֹא הַמֵּתִים יְהַלְלוּ יָהּ״, וְאַתְּ אָמַרְתָּ: ״וְשַׁבֵּחַ אֲנִי אֶת הַמֵּתִים שֶׁכְּבָר מֵתוּ״, וְחָזַרְתָּ וְאָמַרְתָּ: ״כִּי לְכֶלֶב חַי הוּא טוֹב מִן הָאַרְיֵה הַמֵּת״!
The Gemara relates: This question was asked before Rabbi Tanḥum from the village of Nevi: What is the ruling with regard to extinguishing a burning lamp before a sick person on Shabbat? The Gemara relates that Rabbi Tanḥum delivered an entire homily touching upon both aggadic and halakhic materials surrounding this question. He began and said: You, King Solomon, where is your wisdom, where is your understanding? Not only do your statements contradict the statements of your father David, but your statements even contradict each other. Your father David said: “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence” (Psalms 115:17); and you said: “And I praised the dead that are already dead more than the living that are yet alive” (Ecclesiastes 4:2). And then again you said: “For a living dog is better than a dead lion” (Ecclesiastes 9:4). These are different assessments of life and death.
לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּקָאָמַר דָּוִד ״לֹא הַמֵּתִים יְהַלְלוּ יָהּ״ — הָכִי קָאָמַר: לְעוֹלָם יַעֲסוֹק אָדָם בְּתוֹרָה וּבְמִצְוֹת קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּמוּת, שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּת, בָּטֵל מִן הַתּוֹרָה וּמִן הַמִּצְוֹת וְאֵין לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁבַח בּוֹ. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי דִכְתִיב: ״בַּמֵּתִים חׇפְשִׁי״ — כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּת אָדָם נַעֲשֶׂה חׇפְשִׁי מִן הַתּוֹרָה וּמִן הַמִּצְוֹת.
He resolved the contradictions in the following manner: This is not difficult. That which David said: “The dead praise not the Lord,” this is what he is saying: A person should always engage in Torah and mitzvot before he dies, as once he is dead he is idle from Torah and mitzvot and there is no praise for the Holy One, Blessed be He, from him. And that is what Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Set free among the dead, like the slain that lie in the grave, whom You remember no more” (Psalms 88:6)? When a person dies he then becomes free of Torah and mitzvot.
וּדְקָאָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה ״וְשַׁבֵּחַ אֲנִי אֶת הַמֵּתִים שֶׁכְּבָר מֵתוּ״, שֶׁכְּשֶׁחָטְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, עָמַד מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְאָמַר כַּמָּה תְּפִלּוֹת וְתַחֲנוּנִים לְפָנָיו וְלֹא נַעֲנָה, וּכְשֶׁאָמַר ״זְכוֹר לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדֶיךָ״ — מִיָּד נַעֲנָה. וְלֹא יָפֶה אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה ״וְשַׁבֵּחַ אֲנִי אֶת הַמֵּתִים שֶׁכְּבָר מֵתוּ״? דָּבָר אַחֵר: מִנְהָגוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם גּוֹזֵר גְּזֵרָה — סָפֵק מְקַיְּימִין אוֹתָהּ סָפֵק אֵין מְקַיְּימִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר מְקַיְּימִין אוֹתָהּ — בְּחַיָּיו מְקַיְּימִין אוֹתָהּ בְּמוֹתוֹ אֵין מְקַיְּימִין אוֹתָהּ. וְאִילּוּ מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ גָּזַר כַּמָּה גְּזֵירוֹת וְתִיקֵּן כַּמָּה תַּקָּנוֹת וְקַיָּימוֹת הֵן לְעוֹלָם וּלְעוֹלְמֵי עוֹלָמִים. וְלֹא יָפֶה אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה ״וְשַׁבֵּחַ אֲנִי אֶת הַמֵּתִים וְגוֹ׳״?!
And that which Solomon said: “And I praised the dead that are already dead”; he was not speaking of all dead people, but rather in praise of certain dead people. As when Israel sinned in the desert, Moses stood before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and he said several prayers and supplications before Him, and his prayers were not answered. And when he said: “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants” (Exodus 32:13), his prayers were answered immediately. Consequently, did Solomon not speak appropriately when he said: “Wherefore I praised the dead that are already dead”? Certainly the merit of the deceased forefathers is greater than that of the righteous people who are alive. Alternatively, the way of the world is such that when a flesh-and-blood prince issues a decree on the public it is uncertain whether they fulfill it and uncertain whether they do not fulfill it. And even if you want to say that they fulfill it, it is only during his lifetime that they fulfill it; after he dies they do not fulfill it. But Moses our teacher issued several decrees and instituted several ordinances, and they are in effect forever and ever. And, if so, is it not appropriate that which Solomon said: “Wherefore I praised the dead that are already dead”?
דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״וְשַׁבֵּחַ אֲנִי וְגוֹ׳״, כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַאי דִכְתִיב ״עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי אוֹת לְטוֹבָה וְיִרְאוּ שׂוֹנְאַי וְיֵבוֹשׁוּ״ — אָמַר דָּוִד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מְחוֹל לִי עַל אוֹתוֹ עָוֹן. אָמַר לוֹ: מָחוּל לָךְ. אָמַר לוֹ: עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי אוֹת בְּחַיַּי. אָמַר לוֹ: בְּחַיֶּיךָ אֵינִי מוֹדִיעַ, בְּחַיַּי שְׁלֹמֹה בִּנְךָ אֲנִי מוֹדִיעַ.
Alternatively, another explanation is given for the verse: “And I praised the dead that are already dead,” is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the meaning of the verse that was written: “Work on my behalf a sign for good; that they that hate me may see it, and be put to shame” (Psalms 86:17)? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, forgive me for that sin in the matter of Bathsheba. He said to him: It is forgiven you. David said to Him: Show me a sign in my lifetime so that all will know that You have forgiven me. God said to him: In your lifetime I will not make it known that you were forgiven; however, in the lifetime of your son Solomon I will make it known.
כְּשֶׁבָּנָה שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, בִּיקֵּשׁ לְהַכְנִיס אָרוֹן לְבֵית קׇדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים. דָּבְקוּ שְׁעָרִים זֶה בָּזֶה. אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה רְנָנוֹת, וְלֹא נַעֲנָה. פָּתַח וְאָמַר: ״שְׂאוּ שְׁעָרִים רָאשֵׁיכֶם וְהִנָּשְׂאוּ פִּתְחֵי עוֹלָם וְיָבֹא מֶלֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד״. רְהַטוּ בָּתְרֵיהּ לְמִיבְלְעֵיהּ, אֲמַרוּ: ״מִי הוּא זֶה מֶלֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד״. אֲמַר לְהוּ: ״ה׳ עִזּוּז וְגִבּוֹר״. חָזַר וְאָמַר: ״שְׂאוּ שְׁעָרִים רָאשֵׁיכֶם וּשְׂאוּ פִּתְחֵי עוֹלָם וְיָבֹא מֶלֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד מִי הוּא זֶה מֶלֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד ה׳ צְבָאוֹת הוּא מֶלֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד סֶלָה״, וְלֹא נַעֲנָה. כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר: ״ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אַל תָּשֵׁב פְּנֵי מְשִׁיחֶךָ זָכְרָה לְחַסְדֵי דָּוִד עַבְדֶּךָ״, מִיָּד נַעֲנָה. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה נֶהְפְּכוּ פְּנֵי כׇּל שׂוֹנְאֵי דָוִד כְּשׁוּלֵי קְדֵירָה, וַיֵּדְעוּ כׇל הָעָם וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמָּחַל לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל אוֹתוֹ עָוֹן. וְלֹא יָפֶה אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: ״וְשַׁבֵּחַ אֲנִי אֶת הַמֵּתִים שֶׁכְּבָר מֵתוּ״?!
When Solomon built the Temple and sought to bring the Ark into the Holy of Holies, the gates clung together and could not be opened. Solomon uttered twenty-four songs of praise, as in his prayer there are twenty-four expressions of prayer, song, etc. (I Kings 8), and his prayer was not answered. He began and said: “Lift up your heads, O you gates, and be you lifted up, you everlasting doors; that the King of glory may come in” (Psalms 24:7). Immediately, the gates ran after him to swallow him, as they thought that in the words: “King of glory” he was referring to himself, and they said to him: “Who is the King of glory?” (Psalms 24:8). He said to them: “The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle” (Psalms 24:8). And he said again: “Lift up your heads, O you gates, yea, lift them up, you everlasting doors; that the King of glory may come in. Who then is the King of glory? The Lord of hosts; He is the King of glory. Selah” (Psalms 24:9–10), and he was not answered. When he said: “O Lord God, turn not away the face of Your anointed; remember the good deeds of David Your servant” (II Chronicles 6:42), he was immediately answered, and a fire descended from Heaven (II Chronicles 7:1). At that moment, the faces of all of David’s enemies turned dark like the charred bottom of a pot. And all of Israel knew that the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgave him for that sin. And if so, is it not appropriate what Solomon said: “And I praised the dead that are already dead,” David, more than the living, Solomon, to whose request to open the gates of the Temple God did not respond?
וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי שִׁלַּח אֶת הָעָם וַיְבָרֲכוּ אֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֵּלְכוּ לְאׇהֳלֵיהֶם שְׂמֵחִים וְטוֹבֵי לֵב עַל כׇּל הַטּוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה׳ לְדָוִד עַבְדּוֹ וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ״. ״וַיֵּלְכוּ לְאׇהֳלֵיהֶם״ — שֶׁמָּצְאוּ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן בְּטָהֳרָה. ״שְׂמֵחִים״ — שֶׁנֶּהֱנוּ מִזִּיו הַשְּׁכִינָה. ״וְטוֹבֵי לֵב״ — שֶׁנִּתְעַבְּרוּ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד וְיָלְדָה זָכָר. ״עַל כׇּל הַטּוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה׳ לְדָוִד עַבְדּוֹ (וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ״. ״לְדָוִד עַבְדּוֹ)״ — שֶׁמָּחַל לוֹ עַל אוֹתוֹ עָוֹן. ״וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַמּוֹ״ — דְּאַחֵיל לְהוּ עָוֹן דְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.
And that is what is written: “On the eighth day he sent the people away, and they blessed the king, and went unto their tents joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that the Lord had shown unto David His servant and to Israel His people” (I Kings 8:66). The Gemara explains: And went unto their tents, in accordance with the common expression: One’s house is his wife. It is explained that when they returned home they found their wives ritually pure from the ritual impurity of menstruation. Joyful means that they enjoyed the aura of the Divine Presence at the dedication of the Temple. And glad of heart means that the wife of each and every one of them was impregnated and gave birth to a male. The verse continues: For all the goodness that the Lord had shown unto David His servant and to Israel His people. Unto David His servant means that at that opportunity they all saw that God forgave him for that sin. And to Israel His people means that He forgave them for the sin of Yom Kippur, as they did not fast that year (see I Kings 8:65).
וּדְקָאָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: ״כִּי לְכֶלֶב חַי הוּא טוֹב מִן הָאַרְיֵה הַמֵּת״, כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, מַאי דִכְתִיב: ״הוֹדִיעֵנִי ה׳ קִצִּי וּמִדַּת יָמַי מַה הִיא אֵדְעָה מֶה חָדֵל אָנִי״ — אָמַר דָּוִד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, הוֹדִיעֵנִי ה׳ קִצִּי. אָמַר לוֹ: גְּזֵרָה הִיא מִלְּפָנַי שֶׁאֵין מוֹדִיעִין קִצּוֹ שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם. ״וּמִדַּת יָמַי מַה הִיא״ — גְּזֵרָה הִיא מִלְּפָנַי שֶׁאֵין מוֹדִיעִין מִדַּת יָמָיו שֶׁל אָדָם. ״וְאֵדְעָה מֶה חָדֵל אָנִי״ — אָמַר לוֹ: בְּשַׁבָּת תָּמוּת. אָמוּת בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת? אָמַר לוֹ: כְּבָר הִגִּיעָה מַלְכוּת שְׁלֹמֹה בִּנְךָ, וְאֵין מַלְכוּת נוֹגַעַת בַּחֲבֶרְתָּהּ אֲפִילּוּ כִּמְלֹא נִימָא. אָמוּת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת? אָמַר לוֹ: ״כִּי טוֹב יוֹם בַּחֲצֵרֶיךָ מֵאָלֶף״ — טוֹב לִי יוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁאַתָּה יוֹשֵׁב וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה מֵאֶלֶף עוֹלוֹת שֶׁעָתִיד שְׁלֹמֹה בִּנְךָ לְהַקְרִיב לְפָנַי עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
The Gemara continues: And that which Solomon said: “For a living dog is better than a dead lion” (Ecclesiastes 9:4), is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that verse which David said: “Lord, make me to know my end, and the measure of my days, what it is; let me know how short-lived I am” (Psalms 39:5)? It means that David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, Lord, make me to know my end; in how long will I die? God said to him: It is decreed before Me that I do not reveal the end of the life of flesh and blood. He asked further: And the measure of my days; on what day of the year will I die? He said to him: It is decreed before Me not to reveal the measure of a person’s days. Again he requested: Let me know how short-lived I am; on what day of the week will I die? He said to him: You will die on Shabbat. David requested of God: Let me die on the first day of the week so that the honor of Shabbat will not be tarnished by the pain of death. He said to him: On that day the time of the kingdom of your son Solomon has already arrived, and one kingdom does not overlap with another and subtract from the time allotted to another even a hairbreadth. He said to him: I will cede a day of my life and die on Shabbat eve. God said to him: “For a day in your courts is better than a thousand” (Psalms 84:11); a single day in which you sit and engage in Torah is preferable to Me than the thousand burnt-offerings that your son Solomon will offer before Me on the altar (see I Kings 3:4).
כׇּל יוֹמָא דְשַׁבְּתָא הֲוָה יָתֵיב וְגָרֵיס כּוּלֵּי יוֹמָא. הַהוּא יוֹמָא דְּבָעֵי לְמֵינַח נַפְשֵׁיהּ, קָם מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת קַמֵּיהּ וְלָא יְכִיל לֵיהּ, דְּלָא הֲוָה פָּסֵק פּוּמֵּיהּ מִגִּירְסָא. אֲמַר: מַאי אַעֲבֵיד לֵיהּ? הֲוָה לֵיהּ בּוּסְתָּנָא אֲחוֹרֵי בֵּיתֵיהּ, אֲתָא מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת סָלֵיק וּבָחֵישׁ בְּאִילָנֵי. נְפַק לְמִיחְזֵי. הֲוָה סָלֵיק בְּדַרְגָּא, אִיפְּחִית דַּרְגָּא מִתּוּתֵיהּ, אִישְׁתִּיק וְנָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ.
What did David do? Every Shabbat he would sit and learn all day long to protect himself from the Angel of Death. On that day on which the Angel of Death was supposed to put his soul to rest, the day on which David was supposed to die, the Angel of Death stood before him and was unable to overcome him because his mouth did not pause from study. The Angel of Death said: What shall I do to him? David had a garden [bustana] behind his house; the Angel of Death came, climbed, and shook the trees. David went out to see. As he climbed the stair, the stair broke beneath him. He was startled and was silent, interrupted his studies for a moment, and died.
שְׁלַח שְׁלֹמֹה לְבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא: אַבָּא מֵת וּמוּטָל בַּחַמָּה, וּכְלָבִים שֶׁל בֵּית אַבָּא רְעֵבִים — מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה? שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ: חֲתוֹךְ נְבֵלָה וְהַנַּח לִפְנֵי הַכְּלָבִים. וְאָבִיךְ, הַנַּח עָלָיו כִּכָּר אוֹ תִּינוֹק וְטַלְטְלוֹ. וְלֹא יָפֶה אָמַר שְׁלֹמֹה: ״כִּי לְכֶלֶב חַי הוּא טוֹב מִן הָאַרְיֵה הַמֵּת״. וּלְעִנְיַן שְׁאֵילָה דְּשָׁאֵילְנָא קֳדָמֵיכוֹן: נֵר קְרוּיָה ״נֵר״, וְנִשְׁמָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קְרוּיָה ״נֵר״. מוּטָב תִּכְבֶּה נֵר שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם מִפְּנֵי נֵרוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא.
Since David died in the garden, Solomon sent the following question to the study hall: Father died and is lying in the sun, and the dogs of father’s house are hungry. There is room for concern lest the dogs come and harm his body. What shall I do? They sent an answer to him: Cut up an animal carcass and place it before the dogs. Since the dogs are hungry, handling the animal carcass to feed them is permitted. And with regard to your father, it is prohibited to move his body directly. Place a loaf of bread or an infant on top of him, and you can move him into the shade due to the bread or the infant. And is it not appropriate what Solomon said: “For a living dog is better than a dead lion.” The ultimate conclusion of this discussion is that life is preferable to death. And now, with regard to the question that I asked before you; Rav Tanḥum spoke modestly, as, actually, they had asked him the question. A lamp is called ner and a person’s soul is also called ner, as it is written: “The spirit of man is the lamp [ner] of the Lord” (Proverbs 20:27). It is preferable that the lamp of a being of flesh and blood, an actual lamp, will be extinguished in favor of the lamp of the Holy One, Blessed be He, a person’s soul. Therefore, one is permitted to extinguish a flame for the sake of a sick person.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁילַת מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: בִּקְּשׁוּ חֲכָמִים לִגְנוֹז סֵפֶר קֹהֶלֶת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁדְּבָרָיו סוֹתְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא גְּנָזוּהוּ? — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁתְּחִילָּתוֹ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וְסוֹפוֹ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. תְּחִילָּתוֹ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״מַה יִּתְרוֹן לָאָדָם בְּכׇל עֲמָלוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲמוֹל תַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״ — וְאָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי תַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ הוּא דְּאֵין לוֹ. קוֹדֶם שֶׁמֶשׁ — יֵשׁ לוֹ. סוֹפוֹ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״סוֹף דָּבָר הַכֹּל נִשְׁמָע אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים יְרָא וְאֶת מִצְוֹתָיו שְׁמוֹר כִּי זֶה כׇּל הָאָדָם״. מַאי ״כִּי זֶה כׇּל הָאָדָם״? — אָמַר רַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר) [אֶלְעָזָר]: כׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ לֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל זֶה. רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: שָׁקוּל זֶה כְּנֶגֶד כׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ. שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן זוֹמָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא נִבְרָא כׇּל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ אֶלָּא לִצְווֹת לָזֶה.
Since contradictions in Ecclesiastes were mentioned, the Gemara cites additional relevant sources. Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: The Sages sought to suppress the book of Ecclesiastes and declare it apocryphal because its statements contradict each other and it is liable to confuse its readers. And why did they not suppress it? Because its beginning consists of matters of Torah and its end consists of matters of Torah. The ostensibly contradictory details are secondary to the essence of the book, which is Torah. The Gemara elaborates: Its beginning consists of matters of Torah, as it is written: “What profit has man of all his labor which he labors under the sun?” (Ecclesiastes 1:3), and the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: By inference: Under the sun is where man has no profit from his labor; however, before the sun, i.e., when engaged in the study of Torah, which preceded the sun, he does have profit. Its ending consists of matters of Torah, as it is written: “The end of the matter, all having been heard: Fear God, and keep His mitzvot; for this is the whole man” (Ecclesiastes 12:13). With regard to this verse, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: For this is the whole man? Rabbi Eliezer said: The entire world was only created for this person. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: This person is equivalent to the entire world. Shimon ben Azzai says and some say that Shimon ben Zoma says: The entire world was only created as companion to this man, so that he will not be alone.
וּמַאי ״דְּבָרָיו סוֹתְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה״? כְּתִיב: ״טוֹב כַּעַס מִשְּׂחוֹק״, וּכְתִיב ״לִשְׂחוֹק אָמַרְתִּי מְהוֹלָל״! כְּתִיב ״וְשִׁבַּחְתִּי אֲנִי אֶת הַשִּׂמְחָה״, וּכְתִיב ״וּלְשִׂמְחָה מַה זֹּה עוֹשָׂה! לָא קַשְׁיָא ״טוֹב כַּעַס מִשְּׂחוֹק״: טוֹב כַּעַס שֶׁכּוֹעֵס הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל הַצַּדִּיקִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, מִשְּׂחוֹק שֶׁמְּשַׂחֵק הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל הָרְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. וְ״לִשְׁחוֹק אָמַרְתִּי מְהוֹלָל״ — זֶה שְׂחוֹק שֶׁמְּשַׂחֵק הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עִם הַצַּדִּיקִים בָּעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
And to the essence of the matter, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Its statements that contradict each other? It is written: “Vexation is better than laughter” (Ecclesiastes 7:3), and it is written: “I said of laughter: It is praiseworthy” (Ecclesiastes 2:2), which is understood to mean that laughter is commendable. Likewise in one verse it is written: “So I commended mirth” (Ecclesiastes 8:15), and in another verse it is written: “And of mirth: What does it accomplish?” (Ecclesiastes 2:2). The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as the contradiction can be resolved. Vexation is better than laughter means: The vexation of the Holy One, Blessed be He, toward the righteous in this world is preferable to the laughter which the Holy One, Blessed be He, laughs with the wicked in this world by showering them with goodness. I said of laughter: It is praiseworthy, that is the laughter which the Holy One, Blessed be He, laughs with the righteous in the World-to-Come.
״וְשִׁבַּחְתִּי אֲנִי אֶת הַשִּׂמְחָה״ — שִׂמְחָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה. ״וּלְשִׂמְחָה מַה זֹּה עוֹשָׂה״ — זוֹ שִׂמְחָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁל מִצְוָה. לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁאֵין שְׁכִינָה שׁוֹרָה לֹא מִתּוֹךְ עַצְבוּת וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ עַצְלוּת וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שְׂחוֹק וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שִׂיחָה וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ דְּבָרִים בְּטֵלִים, אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ דְּבַר שִׂמְחָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַתָּה קְחוּ לִי מְנַגֵּן וְהָיָה כְּנַגֵּן הַמְנַגֵּן וַתְּהִי עָלָיו יַד ה׳״. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: וְכֵן לִדְבַר הֲלָכָה. אָמַר רָבָא: וְכֵן לַחֲלוֹם טוֹב.
Similarly, “So I commended mirth,” that is the joy of a mitzva. “And of mirth: What does it accomplish?” that is joy that is not the joy of a mitzva. The praise of joy mentioned here is to teach you that the Divine Presence rests upon an individual neither from an atmosphere of sadness, nor from an atmosphere of laziness, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of idle conversation, nor from an atmosphere of idle chatter, but rather from an atmosphere imbued with the joy of a mitzva. As it was stated with regard to Elisha that after he became angry at the king of Israel, his prophetic spirit left him until he requested: “But now bring me a minstrel; and it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him” (II Kings 3:15). Rav Yehuda said: And, so too, one should be joyful before stating a matter of halakha. Rava said: And, so too, one should be joyful before going to sleep in order to have a good dream.
אִינִי, וְהָאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ וְאֵין שִׂפְתוֹתָיו נוֹטְפוֹת מָר, תִּכָּוֶינָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שִׂפְתוֹתָיו שׁוֹשַׁנִּים נוֹטְפוֹת מוֹר עוֹבֵר״: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״מוֹר עוֹבֵר״, אֶלָּא ״מָר עוֹבֵר״. אַל תִּקְרֵי ״שׁוֹשַׁנִּים״, אֶלָּא ״שֶׁשּׁוֹנִים״. לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּרַבָּה וְהָא בְּתַלְמִידָא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא הָא וְהָא בְּרַבָּה, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא מִקַּמֵּי דְּלִפְתַּח, הָא לְבָתַר דִּפְתַח. כִּי הָא דְּרַבָּה מִקַּמֵּי דְּפָתַח לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן אָמַר מִילְּתָא דִּבְדִיחוּתָא וּבָדְחִי רַבָּנַן, לְסוֹף יָתֵיב בְּאֵימְתָא וּפָתַח בִּשְׁמַעְתָּא.
The Gemara asks: Is that so, that one should introduce matters of halakha joyfully? Didn’t Rav Giddel say that Rav said: Any Torah scholar who sits before his teacher and his lips are not dripping with myrrh due to fear of his teacher, those lips shall be burnt, as it is stated: “His lips are as lilies, dripping with flowing myrrh [shoshanim notefot mor over]” (Song of Songs 5:13)? He interpreted homiletically: Do not read mor over, flowing myrrh; rather, read mar over, flowing bitterness. Likewise, do not read shoshanim, lilies; rather, read sheshonim, that are studying, meaning that lips that are studying Torah must be full of bitterness. The Gemara explains: This is not difficult, there is no contradiction here, as this, where it was taught that one should introduce matters of halakha joyfully, is referring to a rabbi, and that, where it was taught that one must be filled with bitterness, is referring to a student, who must listen to his teacher with trepidation. And if you wish, say instead that this and that are referring to a rabbi, and it is not difficult. This, where it was taught that he must be joyful, is before he begins teaching, whereas that, where it was taught that he must be filled with bitterness and trepidation, is after he already began teaching halakha. That explanation is like that which Rabba did. Before he began teaching halakha to the Sages, he would say something humorous and the Sages would be cheered. Ultimately, he sat in trepidation and began teaching the halakha.
וְאַף סֵפֶר מִשְׁלֵי בִּקְּשׁוּ לִגְנוֹז שֶׁהָיוּ דְּבָרָיו סוֹתְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא גְּנָזוּהוּ? אָמְרִי: סֵפֶר קֹהֶלֶת לָאו עַיְינִינַן וְאַשְׁכְּחִינַן טַעְמָא? הָכָא נָמֵי לִיעַיֵּין. וּמַאי דְּבָרָיו סוֹתְרִים זֶה אֶת זֶה? — כְּתִיב ״אַל תַּעַן כְּסִיל כְּאִוַּלְתּוֹ״, וּכְתִיב: ״עֲנֵה כְסִיל כְּאִוַּלְתּוֹ״. לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, הָא בְּמִילֵּי דְעָלְמָא.
And, the Gemara continues, the Sages sought to suppress the book of Proverbs as well because its statements contradict each other. And why did they not suppress it? They said: In the case of the book of Ecclesiastes, didn’t we analyze it and find an explanation that its statements were not contradictory? Here too, let us analyze it. And what is the meaning of: Its statements contradict each other? On the one hand, it is written: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him” (Proverbs 26:4), and on the other hand, it is written: “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26:5). The Gemara resolves this apparent contradiction: This is not difficult, as this, where one should answer a fool, is referring to a case where the fool is making claims about Torah matters; whereas that, where one should not answer him, is referring to a case where the fool is making claims about mundane matters.
כִּי הָא דְּהָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִשְׁתְּךָ אִשְׁתִּי, וּבָנֶיךָ בָּנַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רְצוֹנֶךָ שֶׁתִּשְׁתֶּה כּוֹס שֶׁל יַיִן? שָׁתָה וּפָקַע. הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִמְּךָ אִשְׁתִּי, וְאַתָּה בְּנִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רְצוֹנֶךָ שֶׁתִּשְׁתֶּה כּוֹס שֶׁל יַיִן? שָׁתָה וּפָקַע. אֲמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אַהְנְיָא לֵיהּ צְלוֹתֵיהּ לְרַבִּי דְּלָא לְשַׁוּוֹיֵיהּ בְּנֵי מַמְזֵירֵי. דְּרַבִּי כִּי הֲוָה מְצַלֵּי אֲמַר: ״יְהִי רָצוֹן מִלְּפָנֶיךָ ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ, שֶׁתַּצִּילֵנִי הַיּוֹם מֵעַזֵּי פָּנִים וּמֵעַזּוּת פָּנִים״.
The Gemara relates how Sages conducted themselves in both of those circumstances. As in the case of that man who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said to him: Your wife is my wife and your children are my children, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Would you like to drink a cup of wine? He drank and burst and died. Similarly, the Gemara relates: There was that man who came before Rabbi Ḥiyya and said to him: Your mother is my wife, and you are my son. He said to him: Would you like to drink a cup of wine? He drank and burst and died. Rabbi Ḥiyya said with regard to the incident involving Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s prayer that his children will not be rendered mamzerim, children of illicit relations, was effective for him. As when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would pray, he said after his prayer: May it be Your will, O Lord, my God, that You will deliver me today from impudent people and from insolence. Insolence, in this case, refers to mamzerut. It was due to his prayer that that man burst and was unsuccessful in disparaging Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s children.
בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה מַאי הִיא? — כִּי הָא דְּיָתֵיב רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְקָא דָרֵישׁ: עֲתִידָה אִשָּׁה שֶׁתֵּלֵד בְּכָל יוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הָרָה וְיוֹלֶדֶת יַחְדָּיו״. לִיגְלֵג עָלָיו אוֹתוֹ תַּלְמִיד, אָמַר: ״אֵין כׇּל חָדָשׁ תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֹּא וְאַרְאֶךָּ דּוּגְמָתָן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. נְפַק אַחְוִי לֵיהּ תַּרְנְגוֹלֶת.
In matters of Torah, what is the case with regard to which the verse said that one should respond to a fool’s folly? As in the case where Rabban Gamliel was sitting and he interpreted a verse homiletically: In the future, in the World-to-Come, a woman will give birth every day, as it says: “The woman with child and her that gives birth together” (Jeremiah 31:7), explaining that birth will occur on the same day as conception. A certain student scoffed at him and said: That cannot be, as it has already been stated: “There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Rabban Gamliel said to him: Come and I will show you an example of this in this world. He took him outside and showed him a chicken that lays eggs every day.
וְתוּ, יָתֵיב רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְקָא דָרֵישׁ: עֲתִידִים אִילָנוֹת שֶׁמּוֹצִיאִין פֵּירוֹת בְּכָל יוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָשָׂא עָנָף וְעָשָׂה פֶרִי״ — מֶה עָנָף בְּכָל יוֹם אַף פְּרִי בְּכָל יוֹם. לִיגְלֵג עָלָיו אוֹתוֹ תַּלְמִיד, אָמַר: וְהָכְתִיב ״אֵין כׇּל חָדָשׁ תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֹּא וְאַרְאֶךָּ דּוּגְמָתָם בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. נְפַק אַחְוִי לֵיהּ צָלָף.
And furthermore: Rabban Gamliel sat and interpreted a verse homiletically: In the future, in the World-to-Come, trees will produce fruits every day, as it is stated: “And it shall bring forth branches and bear fruit” (Ezekiel 17:23); just as a branch grows every day, so too, fruit will be produced every day. A certain student scoffed at him and said: Isn’t it written: There is nothing new under the sun? He said to him: Come and I will show you an example of this in this world. He went outside and showed him a caper bush, part of which is edible during each season of the year.
וְתוּ, יָתֵיב רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְקָא דָרֵישׁ: עֲתִידָה אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁתּוֹצִיא גְּלוּסְקָאוֹת וּכְלֵי מֵילָת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יְהִי פִסַּת בַּר בָּאָרֶץ״. לִיגְלֵג עָלָיו אוֹתוֹ תַּלְמִיד וְאָמַר: ״אֵין כׇּל חָדָשׁ תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בֹּא וְאַרְאֶךָּ דּוּגְמָתָן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. נְפַק אַחְוִי לֵיהּ כְּמֵיהִין וּפִטְרִיּוֹת. וְאַכְּלֵי מֵילָת — נְבָרָא בַּר קוֹרָא.
And furthermore: Rabban Gamliel sat and interpreted a verse homiletically: In the future, the World-to-Come, Eretz Yisrael will produce cakes and fine wool garments that will grow in the ground, as it is stated: “Let abundant grain be in the land.” A certain student scoffed at him and said: There is nothing new under the sun. He said to him: Come and I will show you an example in this world. He went outside and showed him truffles and mushrooms, which emerge from the earth over the course of a single night and are shaped like a loaf of bread. And with regard to wool garments, he showed him the covering of a heart of palm, a young palm branch, which is wrapped in a thin net-like covering.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם עַנְוְותָן כְּהִלֵּל וְאַל יְהֵא קַפְּדָן כְּשַׁמַּאי. מַעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם
Since the Gemara discussed the forbearance of Sages, who remain silent in the face of nonsensical comments, it cites additional relevant examples. The Sages taught in a baraita: A person should always be patient like Hillel and not impatient like Shammai. The Gemara related: There was an incident involving two people
