Shabbat 30b — the Talmud in English

Every Shabbat day,

every Shabbat and Shabbat,

David would sit

David

and study all day,

so that the angel of death would not be able to approach him, because Torah protects and saves.

On that day when his soul was to rest,

for it had been decreed upon him that he would die on it,

the angel of death arose before him,

he stood before him.

But he could not overcome him,

to kill him because

his mouth did not cease from study,

for he did not interrupt his learning.

The angel of death said

the angel of death:

What shall I do to him?

There was

for David

an orchard

[a garden of trees]

behind his house.

The angel of death came, climbed up and shook,

he climbed up and shook

the trees,

so that they would make a strange sound.

David went out

David

to see

what the noise was.

He was climbing on a step,

he descended one step,

he removed one step from beneath him,

the step beneath him broke,

he became silent

from his learning,

and his soul rested

of David.

Solomon sent 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, for a dead person is muktze?

And he also asked:

And my father’s dogs are hungry,

and I must feed them the meat of an animal carcass, and I fear lest it be forbidden to move it because of muktze—

what shall I do?

They sent him

two answers to his two questions: a. concerning the hungry dogs:

Cut

meat

of an animal carcass for them, and place it before the dogs,

so that they may eat. For the carcass is not muktze, as will be explained below, 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 respect for the dead, they permitted moving muktze in a manner in which the moving of the muktze is not so apparent, when he moves together with it something permitted to be moved [Mishna Berura, section 311, subsection 2].

And Rabbi Tanḥum concludes:

And

because

did Solomon not say well

[Ecclesiastes 9:4]

“For a living dog—

it is better than a dead lion”!

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

Another explanation: the Sages first answered concerning the question of the dogs’ eating, before the answer concerning moving King David’s dead body [who is called, in a language of honor, “a lion”].

Until here were the words of aggada with which Rabbi Tanḥum of Noy began.

And he continued with a matter of halakha:

And concerning the question that I asked before you,

and concerning what you asked, whether it is permitted to extinguish the lamp because of an evil spirit? [And he said this as an expression of humility: “that I asked before you,” rather than saying that you asked before me].

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 a person.”

It is preferable

that

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

[Rashi adds: The law of setting aside Shabbat for saving a life is learned from “and you shall live by them,” and not that you should die by them. And what he said to them here as the reason was in order to make them taste words of aggada. It follows from his words that the question was concerning saving a life. And so Rabbi Hananel wrote explicitly].

Rav Yehuda son of Rav Shmuel bar Shilat said in the name of Rav: The Sages sought to place in concealment

the

Book of Ecclesiastes,

and their reason was:

because its words contradict one another.

And for what reason

in the end

did they not place it in concealment?

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

[Ecclesiastes 1:3]

“What

profit has a person from all his labor with which he labors beneath the sun?”

And the school of Rabbi Yannai said:

If a person labors in what is

beneath the sun—

it is that he has no

profit from all his labor. But if he labors in Torah, which was

before

the

sun,

then

he has

profit in his labor.

And likewise

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

[Ecclesiastes 12:13]

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

is the entire person!”

What

is the meaning of

“for this—

is the entire person”?

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

this

person.

Rav Abba bar Kahana said: “For this is the entire person”—

“

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 a company

[to be a society]

for this one.

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

And what

is this that they said, that

his words

of King Solomon in Ecclesiastes

contradict one another?

One verse

is written:

[Ecclesiastes 7:3]

“Better is anger than laughter.”

And

another verse

is written:

[Ecclesiastes 2:2]

“Of laughter I said, It is praiseworthy”—

praiseworthy.

From the first verse [from what he said, that anger is preferable], it follows that he condemns laughter; whereas, from the other verse, it follows that he praises it.

And further, contradictions were found:

It is written

[Ecclesiastes 8:15]

“And I praised joy.”

And

another verse

is written

[Ecclesiastes 2:2]

“And of joy—

what does this accomplish?”

And we explain:

It is not difficult.

For 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 is He, is angry at the righteous in this world, than

that which is

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

when He gives 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 is He, laughs with the righteous in the World to Come.

And thus one should resolve the second contradiction:

“And I praised joy”—

this is

the joy of a mitzva,

such as bringing a bride [to the wedding canopy].

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

this is joy that is not joy of a mitzva.

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

for his mind is not settled,

nor through frivolity—

mockery,

nor through conversation—

mundane affairs,

nor through idle matters.

Rather, through a matter of joy of a mitzva.

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

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

And it shall be, when the musician plays—

that the hand of the Lord shall come upon him.”

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

one must begin with a matter of humor 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 on account of awe]—his lips

will be burned, as it is stated:

[Song of Songs 5:13]

“His lips are roses, dripping flowing myrrh.” Do not read “flowing myrrh,” but “bitter

flowing.”

And likewise

do not read “roses,” but “those who study.”

And this is what the verse says: When his lips study and rejoice before his teacher, this is “flowing myrrh,” for he removes the bitterness and awe from himself before his teacher, and it is fitting that his lips be burned [Maharsha].

And we have learned that a student who sits before his teacher must sit with awe and fear; how, then, did you say that for a matter of halakha one must begin with a matter of humor?

And we resolve:

It is not difficult.

This

that it is permitted to begin with humor is

for the teacher,

for a teacher it is permitted.

And this is for a 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 humor means

before he begins,

before he begins his words.

This

that it is forbidden is

after he has begun,

once he has begun, for then he must be in awe and fear.

For this is what the teacher did.

Before he began his lesson for the Sages,

his lesson,

he said

to them

a humorous matter, and the Sages laughed,

and their hearts opened because of the joy. But

in the end,

when he finished the humorous words—

he sat in awe and began the discussion.

And also the Book of Proverbs the Sages sought

the Sages

to place in concealment,

because

its words contradicted one another.

And for what reason did they not place it in concealment?

The Sages said:

Just as with

the Book of Ecclesiastes, is it not so that

did we not

examine

it

and find the reason, and all the contradictions were resolved?

Likewise

here too

in the Book of Proverbs—

let us examine it,

we must examine it, and certainly we will find in it a reason to resolve its contradictions; therefore they did not place it in concealment.

And what

contradictions were found in

its words

of the Book of Proverbs

with one another?

One verse

is written:

[Proverbs 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 resolve:

It is not difficult.

This

that is written, “Answer,” means

with words of Torah.

words of Torah.

This

that is written, “Do not answer,” means

with worldly matters .

ordinary worldly matters.

For this is like 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 disrepute upon them.

He said to him

Rabbi:

Do you wish to drink a cup of wine?

Drink, and burst,

and he 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:

Do you wish to drink a cup of wine?

Drink, and burst,

and he died.

Rabbi Hiyya said: His prayer benefited him

his prayer

Rabbi, that he should not cause him to be made

so that they would not slander

his sons,

who were

mamzerim.

When Rabbi would pray

[pray],

he would say: May it be Your will before You, Lord our God, that You save me today from brazen-faced people and from brazenness.

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

with words of Torah—

what is it?

It is like the case where Rabban Gamaliel sat and expounded: A woman in the days of the Messiah will be destined

in the days of the Messiah

to give birth every day, as it is stated

in Jeremiah’s prophecy concerning the future: [Jeremiah 31:7] “And I shall gather them from the ends of the earth ...

pregnant and giving birth together.”

Its meaning is that on the same day on which she becomes pregnant with this child, she has already given birth earlier on that day to another child, and this is “together.”

That student mocked him

and

said:

But it is written [Ecclesiastes 1:9]

“There is nothing new beneath the sun,”

and how could this matter be renewed, that a woman should give birth every day?

[The student’s question was foolish, since he asked it mockingly. See Rashi].

He said to him

Rabban Gamaliel:

Come and I will show you

that there exists

an example of it in this world.

He went out and showed him a hen,

which lays an egg every day.

From the fact that Rabban Gamaliel answered him according to his folly, we learn that with words of Torah it is permitted to answer a fool, in order to establish the words of Torah upon their foundation.

And further,

another time there was an incident:

Rabban Gamaliel sat and expounded: Trees in the future

in the future

will produce fruit every day.

As it is stated

in Ezekiel’s prophecy: [Ezekiel 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 Gamaliel:

Come and I will show you

that there exist

examples of it in this world.

He went out and showed him

a tree whose name was

the caper bush,

whose fruit that was not visible on it today is completed after three days [Rashi, Bava Batra 28b].

And further,

another time there was an incident:

Rabban Gamaliel sat and expounded: The Land of Israel is destined to 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.”

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

“Grain” is also an expression for food, as in “to break grain,” and also an expression for “stripes,” like a striped tunic. And this is garments of fine wool.

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

That student mocked him and said:

Is it not written

“There is nothing new beneath the sun!”

He said to him

Rabban Gamaliel:

Come and I will show you

that there exist

examples of it in this world.

He went out and showed him truffles and mushrooms,

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

And garments

[and concerning garments]

of fine wool—

he showed him

the covering of the palm shoot.

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

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

And we answer:

There,

with a

bowl

small,

similar to a lamp,

which does not contain much oil. But

here—

a bowl similar to a cup,

which contains much oil.

Rabbi Zeira said: A metal lampstand,

which does not become repulsive through lighting,

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

it is forbidden.

According to the one who forbids—

it is permitted.

As will be explained below.

And we consider it:

Is this to say that Rabbi Yehuda,

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

has muktze because of disgust—

he holds,

whereas

he does not hold of muktze because of a prohibition

of extinguishing the lamp

?

And the Gemara understood that this is what we say:

A metal lampstand that is not repulsive—

According to Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids moving an earthenware lamp—a metal lampstand is permitted to move.

But according to Rabbi Meir, who permits moving an earthenware lamp on Shabbat [if they did not light with it on that Shabbat], here he forbids the metal lampstand, because they lit with it on Shabbat.

And we raise an objection:

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

And we answer:

Rather, if it was stated,

this is how it was stated:

Rabbi Zeira said: A lampstand upon which they lit on Shabbat—

according to everyone it is forbidden.

If they did not light upon it—

according to everyone it is permitted.

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A bed that one designated for money,

since the money is muktze because it is not fit for any use on Shabbat, the bed that they designated to place money upon is also muktze, and even if they have not yet placed money upon it, it is muktze by virtue of the person’s setting it aside, and

it is forbidden to move it.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak raised an objection:

We learned at the beginning of our Mishna:

One moves a new lamp, but not an old one.

And this law is necessarily in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who forbids moving an old lamp even if it did not burn on this Shabbat. And it implies that a new lamp is not forbidden to move even when it is designated for lighting with it, since he did not say, “and not a lamp that they designated for lighting.”