Pt2 The Biblical Books Nearly Suppressed: Reconciling Contradictions in Ecclesiastes and Proverbs (Shabbat 30b)
This is the second and final part of a two-part series. Part 1 is here, the outline for the series can be found there.
Resolving Contradictory Statements in Ecclesiastes Regarding Laughter and Joy: This World vs. the World-to-Come (Ecclesiastes 7:3, 2:2, 8:15)
The Talmud addresses apparent contradictions in Ecclesiastes regarding laughter and mirth:
On one hand, it states that "vexation/sorrow (כעס) is better than laughter (שחוק)" (Ecclesiastes 7:3), suggesting laughter is undesirable, but elsewhere, laughter is praised as commendable (מהולל) (Ecclesiastes 2:2).
Similarly, joy (שמחה) is both commended (שבחתי - Ecclesiastes 8:15) and questioned for its value (מה זה עושה - literally: “what does it do?!” - Ecclesiastes 2:2).
The Talmud resolves these contradictions by interpreting them contextually:
"Vexation is better than laughter" refers to God's punishment of the righteous in “this world” (עולם הזה; as opposed to the World-to-Come), which is ultimately preferable to the (superficial) “laughter” He grants to the wicked (through worldly blessings).
"I said of laughter: It is praiseworthy" refers to the joy and laughter that God will share with the righteous in the World-to-Come.
ומאי ״דבריו סותרין זה את זה״?
כתיב: ״טוב כעס משחוק״,
וכתיב ״לשחוק אמרתי מהולל״!
כתיב ״ושבחתי אני את השמחה״,
וכתיב ״ולשמחה מה זה עושה"!
לא קשיא
״טוב כעס משחוק״:
טוב כעס שכועס הקדוש ברוך הוא על הצדיקים בעולם הזה,
משחוק שמשחק הקדוש ברוך הוא על הרשעים בעולם הזה.
ו״לשחוק אמרתי מהולל״
זה שחוק שמשחק הקדוש ברוך הוא עם הצדיקים בעולם הבא.
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.
Joy as a Prerequisite for Divine Inspiration (II Kings 3:15), Halachic Discussion, and Good Dreams
The Talmud highlights the importance of joy (שמחה), particularly the joy associated with performing mitzvot (commandments), as a necessary atmosphere for spiritual experiences and divine inspiration.
It distinguishes between the commendable "joy of a mitzva" and other forms of joy that lack spiritual purpose.
The Shekhina does not rest (שורה) on one when one is feeling sadness (עצבות), laziness (עצלות), laughter (שחוק), frivolity,1 (idle) conversation (שיחה), or idle chatter,2 but rather from joy of mitzva.3
This is exemplified by Elisha, whose prophetic spirit returned only after music lifted his mood (II Kings 3:15).4
Rav Yehuda and Rava further emphasize the value of joy: Rav Yehuda suggests cultivating joy before discussing halakha (Jewish law), and Rava recommends it before sleep to encourage positive dreams.
״ושבחתי אני את השמחה״ — שמחה של מצוה.
״ולשמחה מה זה עושה״ — זו שמחה שאינה של מצוה.
ללמדך שאין שכינה שורה
לא מתוך עצבות
ולא מתוך עצלות
ולא מתוך שחוק
ולא מתוך קלות ראש
ולא מתוך שיחה
ולא מתוך דברים בטלים,
אלא מתוך דבר שמחה של מצוה,
שנאמר:
״ועתה קחו לי מנגן
והיה כנגן המנגן,
ותהי עליו יד ה׳״.
אמר רב יהודה: וכן לדבר הלכה.
אמר רבא: וכן לחלום טוב.
[...]
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.
[...]
Contradictory Wisdom: The Consideration of Suppressing the Book of Proverbs
The Talmud discusses the Sages' consideration of suppressing the book of Proverbs (משלי) due to its seemingly contradictory statements but ultimately decided against it, as they had successfully reconciled contradictions in Ecclesiastes (as discussed in previous sections in this sugya).
ואף ספר משלי בקשו לגנוז,
שהיו דבריו סותרין זה את זה.
ומפני מה לא גנזוהו?
אמרי:
ספר קהלת, לאו עיינינן, ואשכחינן טעמא?!
הכא נמי, ליעיין.
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.
Wisdom in Context: Reconciliation of Contradictory Proverbs on Engaging with Fools (Proverbs 26:4-5)
The Talmud explains the apparent contradiction within Proverbs 26:4-5: the verse first advises not to answer a fool,5 and then immediately after advises answering a fool (to prevent him from becoming self-conceited).
The resolution is that the advice depends on the context: one should answer a fool regarding Torah matters but refrain from engaging with a fool on secular topics (מילי דעלמא).
ומאי דבריו סותרים זה את זה?
כתיב ״אל תען כסיל כאולתו״,
וכתיב: ״ענה כסיל כאולתו״.
לא קשיא:
הא בדברי תורה,
הא במילי דעלמא.
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.
קלות ראש - literally: “lightness of head”, an idiom referring to a state of lacking seriousness.
Another instance where laughter and frivolity are portrayed negatively can be found in Avot.3.13:
רבי עקיבא אומר:
שחוק וקלות ראש —
מרגילין לערוה.
R’ Akiva said:
Merriment (שחוק) and frivolity (קלות ראש) —
accustom one to sexual licentiousness (ערוה - forbidden sex)
דברים בטלים - literally: “worthless/frivolous things”. The same term is used in the poem said upon leaving the study hall, contrasting these “frivolous things” with “Torah matters”, quoted in a footnote in Part 1 of this series:
שאני משכים, והם משכימים:
אני משכים לדברי תורה,
והם משכימים לדברים בטלים.
I rise early (משכים), and they rise early:
I rise early to pursue matters of Torah,
and they rise early to pursue frivolous matters (דברים בטלים).
See also a similar contrasting later in the sugya between “secular/mundane matters” and “Torah matters”.
And the same phrase is used in my piece here, section “R’ Eliezer’s Trial Before the Romans for Heresy and Acquittal“:
אמר לו אותו הגמון:
זקן שכמותך יעסוק בדברים בטלים הללו?!
The hegemon said to him:
Why should an elder like you engage in these frivolous matters (דברים בטלים) of heresy?!
However, the word batel (בָּטַל) doesn’t always have negative connotations; it’s also the word used positively to describe a Torah scholar who doesn’t or shouldn’t work. For example Mishnah_Pesachim.4.5 (with adjustments to the translation as needed):
מקום שנהגו לעשות מלאכה בתשעה באב — עושין.
מקום שנהגו שלא לעשות מלאכה — אין עושין.
ובכל מקום תלמידי חכמים בטלים.
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: לעולם יעשה אדם עצמו תלמיד חכם.
In a place where people were accustomed to work (לעשות מלאכה - literally: “do labor”) on [the fast of] Tisha B'Av (תשעה באב), one does [work].
In a place where people were accustomed not to work (due to the mourning over the Temple’s destruction), one does not do [work].
And in all places Torah scholars (תלמידי חכמים) are idle (בטלים) and do not work on Tisha B'Av.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to Tisha B'Av, a person should always make himself [like] a Torah scholar and refrain from performing labor.
See also the terrm batlan (בַּטְלָן), “idler, slacker”, in the phrase talmudic term “ten idlers” (עשרה בטלנים), see here (my translation):
The term "Ten Idlers" […] refers to a group of ten individuals who abstain from any form of work and dedicate themselves solely to sitting in the synagogue all day or during prayer times.
This group is included in the 120 individuals required for a city to host a Sanhedrin, and without them, the city is not considered a proper city regarding the reading of the Megillah.
Almost exactly the same lists, in the same formula, appear in a baraita cited in Berakhot.31a.11-12, which discusses appropriate emotional state for prayer and for bidding farewell (יפטר) to a friend:
תנו רבנן:
אין עומדין להתפלל
לא מתוך עצבות,
ולא מתוך עצלות,
ולא מתוך שחוק,
ולא מתוך שיחה,
ולא מתוך קלות ראש,
ולא מתוך דברים בטלים,
אלא מתוך שמחה של מצוה.
וכן לא יפטר אדם מחברו
לא מתוך שיחה,
ולא מתוך שחוק,
ולא מתוך קלות ראש,
ולא מתוך דברים בטלים,
אלא מתוך דבר הלכה.
On the topic of proper preparation for prayer, the Sages taught:
One may not stand to pray
Not from an atmosphere of sorrow
nor from an atmosphere of laziness,
nor from an atmosphere of laughter,
nor from an atmosphere of conversation,
nor from an atmosphere of frivolity,
nor from an atmosphere of purposeless matters.
Rather, one should approach prayer from an atmosphere imbued with the joy of a mitzva.
Similarly, a person should not take leave of another
Not from an atmosphere of conversation,
nor from an atmosphere of laughter,
nor from an atmosphere of frivolity,
nor from an atmosphere of purposeless matters.
Rather, one should take leave of another from involvement in a matter of halakha.
The first list has the exact same six items, and concludes the same way: “Rather, one should approach prayer from an atmosphere imbued with the joy of a mitzva“ (שמחה של מצוה).
The second list has four out of the six items, and concludes differently: “Rather, one should take leave of another from involvement in a matter of halakha“ (דבר הלכה).
This tamudic passage is alluded to by Maimonides in his Mishneh Torah when he discusses prophecy, see ibid., Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, 7:4 (with adjustments to the translation, as needed):
כל הנביאים אין מתנבאין בכל עת שירצו
אלא מכונים דעתם, ויושבים שמחים וטובי לב, ומתבודדים.
שאין הנבואה שורה לא מתוך עצבות, ולא מתוך עצלות, אלא מתוך שמחה.
לפיכך בני הנביאים לפניהם נבל, ותף, וחליל, וכנור, והם מבקשים הנבואה.
All the prophets do not prophesy whenever they desire.
Instead, they must direct (מכונים) their mind (דעתם) and seclude themselves (מתבודדים), in a happy (שמחים) and joyous mood (טובי לב).
Because prophecy cannot rest [upon a person] in [a state of] sadness (עצבות) or laziness (עצלות), [but] only in [a state of] happiness (שמחה).
Therefore, the prophets' disciples (בני הנביאים) would always have a harp, drum, flute, and lyre [when] they were seeking prophecy.
Note Maimonides' substitution of "prophecy" for "Shekhina" in the statement asserting that prophecy can only rest upon a joyful individual. This is likely due to Maimonides' more naturalistic interpretation of the mechanism of prophecy. See his famous line (I elide the long passage on the qualities needed for prophecy), at the beginning of that chapter, ibid. 7:1:
אדם שהוא ממלא בכל המדות האלו
[…]
מיד רוח הקדש שורה עליו
A person who is full of all these qualities (מדות)
[…]
the divine spirit (רוח הקדש) will immediately rest upon him.
And see his passage, quoted in my piece here, section “Appendix #1 - The Angelic Hierarchy (MT, Laws of Foundations of the Torah, 2:7)“, where he explicitly states that prophetic visions are communicated to the prophet via the lowest category of angels:
ומעלה עשירית היא מעלת הצורה שנקראת אישים
והם המלאכים המדברים עם הנביאים, ונראים להם במראה הנבואה.
לפיכך נקראו "אישים", שמעלתם קרובה למעלת דעת בני אדם
The tenth [=lowest] level (מעלה) [of angels] is that of the form (צורה) called Ishim (אישים)
They are the angels who communicate with the prophets and are perceived by them in prophetic visions.
Therefore, they are called Ishim (“men”), because their level is close to the level of human knowledge.
כסיל - as the verse explains: to avoid becoming like him.