Shabbat 30b (ל:) — the Talmud in English

Every Shabbat—

on each and every Shabbat—

he would sit

David

and study all day,

so that the Angel of Death would be unable to approach him, because Torah protects and saves.

On that day on which his soul was destined to rest,

for it had been decreed that he would die on that day,

the Angel of Death arose before him,

and stood before him.

But he could not overcome him,

to kill him, because

his mouth did not cease studying,

for he did not interrupt his study.

The Angel of Death said,

the Angel of Death:

What shall I do with him?

David had

David

an orchard [

a garden of trees] m

behind his house.

The Angel of Death came, climbed up and shook the trees,

ascending and causing

the trees

to make an unusual sound.

David went out

David

to see

what the noise was.

He was descending a stair,

he went down one step,

and one step beneath him broke,

the step beneath him broke,

he fell silent

from his study,

and his soul rested

David’s.

Solomon sent word to the beit-midrash

to ask:

My father has died and is lying in the sun,

and how is it permitted to move him into the shade so that he will not decompose, since a corpse is muktzeh?

He asked further:

And my father’s dogs are hungry,

and I must feed them the flesh of an animal that died without valid slaughter, but I am concerned that it may be forbidden to move it because of muktzeh—

what shall I do?

They sent him

two answers to his two questions. Regarding the hungry dogs:

Cut

the flesh

of the animal that died without valid slaughter, and place it before the dogs,

so that they may eat. For such flesh is not muktzeh, as will be explained below, on page 156b.

b.

And your father,

who is lying in the sun—

place a loaf or a child upon him, and move him,

together with them. For, out of regard for the dead, they permitted moving muktzeh in a manner in which moving the muktzeh is not so apparent, when one moves along with it an object that is permitted to be moved [Mishna Berura, section 311, subsection 2].

And Rabbi Tanḥum concludes:

A

nd

did Solomon not state well [

Ecclesiastes 9:4]

“For a living dog—

it is better than a dead lion”!

For they did not require him to use a loaf or a child when moving the carcass for the dogs’ food, whereas they required him to use one when moving his father.

An alternative explanation: The Sages answered the question concerning the dogs’ eating before answering the question concerning the moving of the dead King David [who is called “a lion” as an expression of honor].

This concludes the aggadic statements with which Rabbi Tanḥum of Noi began.

He then continued with a halakhic matter:

And concerning the question that I asked before you,

and concerning what you asked: Is it permitted to extinguish the lamp because of an evil spirit? [He said this humbly, saying “that I asked before you,” rather than saying that they had asked him].

My answer is:

A lamp—

is called a lamp, and

also

a person’s soul—

is called a lamp.

As it is written: “For the lamp of God is the soul of man.”

It is preferable

that

the lamp of flesh and blood be extinguished for the sake of the lamp of the Holy One, blessed be He. [

Rashi adds: The law that Shabbat is overridden in the face of saving a life is derived from “and you shall live by them,” and not that you should die by them. The reason he gave them here is to acquaint them with the matter through aggadic words. It follows from his words that the question concerned saving a life. Rabbeinu Ḥananel likewise wrote this in his commentary].

Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shemuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: The Sages sought to conceal

the

Book of Ecclesiastes,

and their reason was:

because its statements contradict one another.

And why

in the end

did they not conceal it?

Because its beginning consists of words of Torah, and its end consists of words of Torah .

Its beginning consists of words of Torah, as it is written [

1:3]:

“What

profit has a person from all his toil with which he toils beneath the sun?”

And the scholars of the house of Rabbi Yannai said:

If a person toils in that which is

beneath the sun,

it is that he has no

profit from all his toil. But if he toils in Torah, which existed

before

the

sun,

then

he has

profit from his toil.

And likewise,

its end consists of words of Torah, as it is written [

12:13]:

“The end of the matter, everything having been heard: Fear God and observe His commandments, for this—

is the entirety of the human being!”

What

is the meaning of

“for this—

is the entirety of the human being”?

Rabbi Elazar said: The entire world was created only for the sake of

this

person.

Rav Abba bar Kahana said: “‘For this is the entirety of the human being’—

“

this person is equivalent

to

the entire world.”

Shimon ben Azzai says, and some say Shimon ben Zoma says:

This is the meaning of the verse:

The entire world was created only to be companionship [

to be a society]

for this person. [

See our explanation of Berakhot 6b and the notes there].

And what

is this that they said, that

his statements

of King Solomon in Ecclesiastes

contradict one another?

One verse

is written: [

7:3]

“Better is anger than laughter.”

And another verse

is

written: [

2:2]

“Of laughter I said: It is praiseworthy”—

praiseworthy.

From the first verse [from what it says, that anger is preferable], it appears that it condemns laughter, whereas the other verse indicates that it praises it.

And further contradictions are found:

It is written [

8:15]:

“And I praised joy.”

And another verse

is

written [

2:2]:

“And of joy—

what does it accomplish?”

And we explain:

It is not difficult.

This is the meaning of these verses:

To resolve the first contradiction:

“Better is anger than laughter”—

better is the anger with which the Holy One, blessed be He, is angry at the righteous in this world than

the

laughter with which the Holy One, blessed be He, laughs at the wicked in this world,

giving them reward in this world so that they will not receive it in the World to Come.

“Of laughter I said: It is praiseworthy”—

this is the laughter with which the Holy One, blessed be He, laughs with the righteous in the World to Come.

And the second contradiction may be resolved as follows:

“And I praised joy”—

this is

the joy of a mitzva,

such as bringing a bride beneath the wedding canopy.

“And of joy, what does it accomplish?”—

this is joy that is not associated with a mitzva.

This teaches you that the Divine Presence rests neither through sadness, nor through indolence, nor through laughter,

when one’s mind is not settled,

nor through frivolity—

mockery,

nor through conversation—

mundane matters,

nor through idle words.

Rather, it rests through a matter of the joy of a mitzva.

As we found with Elisha: prophecy departed from him when he became angry with Jehoshaphat, and he wished for the Divine Presence to rest upon him [and Rashi adds: and it was a mitzva]; and it returned to him through a matter of the joy of a mitzva.

As it is stated: “And now bring me a musician.

And it came to pass, when the musician played,

that the hand of the Lord came upon him.”

Rav Yehuda said: And likewise for a matter of halakha,

one should begin with a humorous remark so that there will be joy.

Rava said: And likewise for a good dream,

when one goes to sleep in a state of joy, they show him a good dream.

And we raise an objection:

Is that so? But Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: Any Torah scholar who sits before his teacher and whose lips do not drip with myrrh

—bitterness caused by awe—his lips

will be burned, as it is stated:

“His lips are lilies, dripping flowing myrrh.” Do not read mor over, “flowing myrrh,” but mar over,

“bitter

flowing.”

And likewise,

do not read shoshanim, “lilies,” but sheshonim, “those who study.”

And this is what the verse says: When his lips are studying and joyful before his teacher, this is “flowing myrrh,” for he removes bitterness and awe from himself before his teacher, and therefore his lips deserve to be burned [Maharsha].

We have learned that a student sitting before his teacher must sit with awe and fear. How, then, did you say that for a matter of halakha one should begin with a humorous remark?

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

that it is permitted to begin with a humorous remark applies

to the teacher,

for it is permitted for the teacher.

And that applies to the student,

who must sit with awe and fear.

And if you wish, say: Both

are speaking

of the teacher, and it is not difficult.

This

that it is permitted to begin with a humorous remark means

before he begins,

before he begins his words.

This

that it is forbidden applies

after he has begun,

once he has begun, when he must be in a state of awe and fear.

As in the case of Rava.

Before he began his lecture for the Sages,

his lesson, he

said

to them

a humorous remark, and the Sages laughed,

and their hearts opened as a result of the joy. But

at the end,

when he had finished the humorous remarks,

he sat in awe and began the lesson.

And the Book of Proverbs too, the Sages sought

the Sages

to conceal it,

because

its statements contradicted one another.

And why did they not conceal it?

The Sages said: Just as with

Just as with

the Book of Ecclesiastes, is it not so that

did we not

we examine it

in depth,

and find the reason

and all the contradictions are resolved?

So too

with the Book of Proverbs—

let us examine it,

for we should certainly find a reason in it to resolve its contradictions, and therefore they did not conceal it.

And what

contradictions were found in

the statements

of the Book of Proverbs,

such that they contradicted one another?

It

It is written: [

26:4]

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly.”

And it is written: [

there, verse 5]

“Answer a fool according to his folly.”

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

that is written, “Answer,” means

with words of Torah.

words of Torah.

That

which is written, “Do not answer,” means

with mundane matters .

ordinary worldly matters.

This is like the incident involving a man who came before Rabbi.

As in the case of one who came before Rabbi.

He said to him: “Your wife—

my wife; and your sons—

my sons!”

And he intended to cast aspersions upon them.

He said to him,

Rabbi said to him:

“Would you like to drink a cup of wine?”

“Drink,” and he burst,

and died.

There was one who came before Rabbi Hiyya [some versions read: Rabbi; see Maharsha].

He said to him: “Your mother—

my wife; and you—

my son!”

He said to him,

Rabbi Hiyya said to him:

“Would you like to drink a cup of wine?”

“Drink,” and he burst,

and died.

Rabbi Hiyya said: His prayer was effective for Rabbi,

his prayer

for Rabbi, so that he would not make him

so that people would not slander

his sons,

saying that they were

mamzerim.

When Rabbi would pray [

pray],

he would say: “May it be Your will, Lord our God, that You save me today from insolent people and from insolence.”

And what you said, that the verse “Answer a fool according to his folly” refers to

words of Torah—

what is an example?

As in the case when Rabban Gamliel was sitting and lecturing: “In the future, a woman

in the days of the Messiah

will give birth every day, as it is stated

in Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the future: [31:7] “And I will gather them from the farthest parts of the earth …

pregnant and giving birth together.”

This means that on the very day she becomes pregnant with one child, she has already given birth earlier that same day to another child; this is the meaning of “together.”

That student mocked him

and

said:

But it is written [Ecclesiastes 1:9]:

“There is nothing new beneath the sun”,

so how could this new phenomenon occur, that a woman would give birth every day? [

The student’s question was foolish because he asked it mockingly. See Rashi].

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel said to him:

“Come, and I will show you

an existing

example of it in this world.”

He went out and showed him a hen

that lays an egg every day.

From Rabban Gamliel’s answering him according to his folly, we learn that with regard to words of Torah it is permitted to answer a fool in order to establish the words of Torah properly.

And furthermore,

there was another incident:

Rabban Gamliel was sitting and lecturing: “In the future, trees

in the time to come

will produce fruit every day.

As it is stated

in Ezekiel’s prophecy: [17:23]

“And it shall bear a branch and produce fruit”—

“It shall bear a branch and produce fruit”—

just as a branch

grows

every day, so too fruit

will grow

every day.

That student mocked him and said: “But is it not written, ‘There is nothing new beneath the sun’?”

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel said to him:

“Come, and I will show you

existing

examples of it in this world.”

He went out and showed him

a tree called

the caper tree,

whose fruit, when it is not visible today, is fully grown after three days [Rashi, Bava Batra 28b].

And furthermore,

there was another incident:

Rabban Gamliel was sitting and lecturing: “In the future, the Land of Israel will produce wafers [

baked bread]

and garments of fine wool [

clothing made of wool].

As it is stated: [

Psalms 72:16]

“May there be a measure of grain in the land.”

The word “measure” indicates wafers that are broad like the palm of the hand.

“Grain” is also an expression for food, as in “to break bread,” and also an expression for “stripes,” as in a striped tunic. This is the meaning of garments of fine wool.

And “grain” means a clean garment, and this is the meaning of garments of fine wool.

That student mocked him and said:

Behold, it is written:

“There is nothing new beneath the sun!”

He said to him,

Rabban Gamliel said to him:

“Come, and I will show you

existing

examples of it in this world.”

He went out and showed him mushrooms and truffles,

which emerge as they are after a single night and are broad and round like wafers.

And for

[and concerning]

garments of fine wool—

he showed him

the fiber of a date-palm branch.

A fiber that is patterned and grows around the branch of a date palm [the branch before it hardens is called a “stalk”].

The Sages taught: A person should always be patient like Hillel, and not exacting like Shammai .

And we answer:

There,

with regard to a

bowl,

a small one,

similar to a lamp,

which does not contain a great deal of oil. Whereas

here—

a bowl similar to a cup,

which contains a great deal of oil.

Rabbi Zeira said: With regard to a metal candelabrum,

which does not become repulsive through lighting,

in which they lit on Shabbat: According to the one who permits—

it is prohibited.

According to the one who prohibits—

it is permitted.

And this will be explained below.

We examine this:

Does this mean that Rabbi Yehuda,

who, in the above beraita, prohibits moving an old earthenware lamp, only has

muktzeh due to repulsiveness—

he holds,

whereas

muktzeh due to the prohibition

of extinguishing the lamp—

he does not hold?

The Gemara understood that this is what we are saying:

A metal candelabrum that is not repulsive—

According to Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits moving an earthenware lamp, a metal candelabrum is permitted to move.

But according to Rabbi Meir, who permits moving an earthenware lamp on Shabbat [if it was not lit on that Shabbat], here he prohibits the metal candelabrum, because they lit in it on Shabbat.

And we raise a difficulty:

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: All metal lamps may be moved, except for a lamp in which they lit on Shabbat.

And we answer:

Rather, if it was stated,

this is what was stated:

Rabbi Zeira said: With regard to a candelabrum on which they lit on Shabbat—

everyone agrees that it is prohibited.

If they did not light on it—

everyone agrees that it is permitted.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to a bed that one designated for money,

since the money is muktzeh, as it is not fit for any use on Shabbat, the bed that they designated for placing money upon it is likewise muktzeh, even if they have not yet placed money upon it; it is muktzeh by virtue of a person’s designation, and

it is prohibited to move it.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak raised an objection:

We learned at the beginning of our Mishna:

One may move a new lamp, but not an old one.

This ruling must accord with Rabbi Yehuda, who prohibits moving an old lamp even if it was not lit on this Shabbat. And it follows that a new lamp is not prohibited to move even when it is designated for lighting, since it did not say, “but not a lamp that they designated for lighting.”