(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Megilah 010: Does "Vayehi" connote "Tza'ar"?
David Manheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
The gemara's hava amina is that the word "vayihi" by itself is a loshon
tzar, but then rejects this because of some counter examples and says
instead that the loshon of "vayihi bimay" is instead.
However, in Ester rabbah, the hava amina is raised, the same objections are
brought up, but they are answered. Why does the gemara not like the teretz
of the medrash?
David Manheim, Har nof, Israel / Atlanta, Ga, USA
----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
The Gemara proves that Vayehi cannot always imply Tza'ar from the verses
"Vayehi Erev Vayehi Boker" that are repeated for the six days of creation.
The Midrash in Esther Raba (Pesichta #11) asks also from "Vayehi Or." It
answers these "Vayehi"s by asserting that the there was sorrow by the
creation of the heavens and earth since they would eventually cease to
exist, and by the other days since the creations of those days were not
complete; wheat requires grinding and baking etc. The creation of Light was
sorrowful since it was hidden away immediately after it was created.
As to why our Gemara did not accept these answers, I would suggest the
following:
(a) A telling reference that puts the answers of the Midrash Raba in
perspective is the Midrash Bereishis Raba 42:3, which adds one word to
these answers. It states not that these Vayehis did not represent a Simcha,
but that they did not represent a *full Simchah*. That is, there certainly
is nothing sorrowful about the creation of the world, per se. However the
joy of creation was *incomplete*, since something was still lacking in
creation (i.e. the heavens and earth would eventually expire, and the rest
or creation was not fully prepared for use).
If so, the Midrash need not disagree with the statement of our Gemara. Our
Gemara refuted the claim that "Vayehi" always represents *sorrow* since
these "Vayehi"s do not herald a cause for mourning and sorrow. The Midrash
makes another postulate, namely that Vayehi represents a joy that is
*lacking* in some respect, and it defends that postulate appropriately. Our
Gemara might agree to this statement of the Midrash.
(By the way, your statement that in the Midrash "the same objections are
brought up, but they are answered" is inaccurate. The Midrash does not
explain why "Vayehi" is appropriate in the verse discussing the building of
the First Temple and in Yakov's meeting with Rachel, which the Gemara cites
as additional proofs that Vayehi is not Tza'ar. However, the answers the
Midrash would give to these verses can be learned from Rashi Bereishis
29:11 (Yakov cried at the time he met Rachel since he saw that Rachel would
not be buried with him) and Rashi Shemos 38:21 (at the building of the
Mishkan the verse alludes to the grief we would experience due to the
destruction of the two Batei Mikdash -- the same would apply for the
building of the Mikdash).
(b) However, I believe that although what I have written above is correct
there is yet more to the picture. The Midrash itself cites a disagreement
on this matter. Although it cites Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani as postulating
that "Vayehi"s are signs of sorrow, it also cites Rav Shimon bar Aba as
saying that "Vayehi" means either unparalleled grief or *unparalleled joy*.
He apparently was of the opinion that the Vayehi's of the Creation of the
World all were Vayehi's of joy that were *not* mixed with grief at all.
(The Gemara implies as well that the Simchah of creation was *complete*
when it says that the Simchah of the completion of the Mishkan was the
epitome of joy, as exemplified by the joy of the creation of the heavens
and the earth.)
Why didn't Rav Shimon bar Aba accept the arguments of Rav Shmuel bar
Nachmani, who showed that the Simchah of creation was indeed a mixed joy?
The answer to this might lie in the argument between Rebbi Yirmiyah and
Rebbi Zeira (Berachos 30b) as to whether one may "fill his mouth with joy"
in this world (see Insights there; see also Insights to Avodah Zarah
3:2:b). It is clear from that Gemara that there is a difference of opinion
as to whether one may view the present world as "complete," since it fully
serves the purpose for which it was created, or as "incomplete," since
compared to the state of matters in the World to Come it is found lacking.
Rav Shmuel is asserting that the joy of creation is lacking (and that is
why it says "Vayehi") since this world is obviously not the final goal. It
will be replaced by a better world, in which "loaves of edible bread will
grow on trees" (Shabbos 30b), and in which the Or ha'Ganuz will shine
brightly and constantly. This is the true state that one should aspire for.
Rav Shimon, on the other hand, maintains that the shortcomings of this
world relative to Olam ha'Ba are not reasons for sorrow. This world is
exactly as is necessary for us to use it to earn Olam ha'Ba through the
service of Hashem, and as such its creation is indeed a cause celebre --
which is probably the same reason that Rebbi Yirmiyah permits one to be
filled with joy in this world.
Purim Same'ach!
Mordecai Kornfeld
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss
