Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Chagigah, 16

1) THE PROBLEM WITH INVESTIGATING PRE-CREATION

QUESTION: The Gemara says that one may not inquire what existed before the world was created. The Gemara compares it to a king who built his palace on top of a garbage heap; the king does not want people mentioning what was there before the palace.

What disgrace is there by mentioning what existed before the world was created? There was nothing there! Why should it be disgraceful? In what way can it be compared to a king who built his palace on a garbage heap?

ANSWERS:

(a) The MAHARSHA answers that the disgrace is the very suggestion that there was something else that existed before Hashem created the world. In that respect, the analogy is not entirely accurate, because here, the disgrace is the thought that something existed before the world was created, and not that there was actually something disgraceful there.

(b) The Maharsha quotes the YEFEH MAR'EH on the Yerushalmi who explains this Gemara based on the words of the RAMBAN in the beginning of Parshas Bereishis. The Ramban says that when Hashem created the world, He first created a form of matter or energy called "Hiyuli" (from the Greek "hyle," which means "matter"). Hashem created the world only after creating this matter or energy and forming the world from it. The "Ashpah" in the analogy was this "Hiyuli," which was the unfinished, unformed matter or energy. Since it lacked form, it is a disgrace to delve into it.

(c) The YA'AVETZ says that our Gemara is alluding to the Midrash (Bereishis Rabah 3:7) that states that Hashem created a number of worlds before this one and destroyed them all until He created this world and decided to keep it. The earlier worlds that did not satisfy Him are like the "Ashpah" on which the king built his palace.

(d) RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN in DARASH MOSHE (cited by the Yosef Da'as) explains that it is a disgrace to Hashem when a person wants to go searching into the primordial and pre-creation facets of existence in order to discover evidence for the hand of Hashem in the design of the world, when that evidence is readily available in everything that exists in the natural world today. The fact Hashem created the world is evident in the infinitely brilliant design of every object that exists in the natural world today. The Gemara compares it to praising a king for what he built his palace on, when there are many greater things in the day-to-day life of the kingdom for which the king prefers to be praised.

QUESTION: The Mishnah (11b) states that "anyone who looks into four things is better off having not been created: what is above, what is below, what is before, and what is after."

RASHI there explains these four things to be spatial: "what is above" refers to what is above the heads of the heavenly beings; "what is below" refers to what is below the heavenly beings; "what is before" refers to what is to the east of the "heavenly separation" outside of the world, and "what is after" refers to what is to the west.

Why does Rashi explain all four of these things to be referring to spatial elements? The Gemara here clearly understands "what is before" and "what is after" to be referring to temporal elements -- what existed before the world was created, and what will be after the world is no longer! Why does Rashi on the Mishnah give a different explanation than the Gemara? (TOSFOS)

ANSWER: RAV YAKOV D. HOMNICK (in Marbeh Nedavah) proposes the following explanation for the words of Rashi. The Mishnah begins by listing the topics of Torah that may not be taught in certain sized groups. Arayos may not be expounded with three, Ma'aseh Bereishis with two, and Ma'aseh Merkavah with one. The second topic of the Mishnah are the four things which a person may not look into. The third topic is "one who does not have mercy on the honor of His Creator, is better off having not been created."

The Gemara (11b) originally thought that the Mishnah is describing a prohibition in the laws of *learning* Torah. Thus, it thought that when the Mishnah says that Arayos may not be expounded with three people, that it means three people learning together, with one expounding together with the other two. The Gemara concluded that the Mishnah is describing a prohibition in the laws of *teaching* Torah -- what the Rebbi may not teach and what the Talmid may not ask. Thus, the Mishnah means that one may not expound the laws of Arayos *to* three people.

Rashi on the Mishnah, therefore, explained the Mishnah according to the Gemara's original assumption, that it is discussing the laws of *learning* (and not teaching) Torah; that is, it is discussing what topics one may learn or may not learn. According to this Havah Amina, when the Mishnah teaches that one may not look into four things (what is above, what is below, etc.), it means that there are certain topics of information which one may not learn. The information about those topics exists in the world, but it is prohibited to study it. Hence, Rashi explains that information to be the things which are above or below the world, or to the east or to the west of the world.

According to the Gemara's conclusion, though, the Mishnah is discussing the laws of *teaching* and not the laws of *learning*. The Mishnah is teaching the topics which one may not even inquire about from one's teacher -- the inquiry itself is prohibited, and not just the learning. By asking for information about things outside of the realm of this world which have not been revealed to man, a person shows a lack of honor to Hashem. According to this understanding of the Mishnah, the Mishnah is saying that the information about which may not inquire *does not* exist in the world; it is not known at all, and thus it is prohibited to question about it, in contrast to the Havah Amina of the Gemara, which understood that the information does exist in the world but that it is not permitted to delve into it.

According to this understanding, we can explain why Rashi on the Mishnah (DH Arba'ah Devarim) writes, "[the four things] which are about to be explained." What is the point of Rashi telling us that the Mishnah is about to explain these four things, when all we have to do is read the next word in the Mishnah and see it for ourselves? The answer is that Rashi is alluding to the Havah Amina of the Gemara's understanding of the Mishnah. The Gemara initially thought that the Mishnah was listing the topics of information which exist in the world, but which may not be studied, and thus Rashi says that the Mishnah is going to list those topics of information. According to the Gemara's conclusion, though, the Mishnah is not listing any known topics of information, but rather it is listing questions -- one may not inquire into these four unknowns ("What is above?", "What is below?", etc.).

16b

QUESTION: Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim argue whether, generations earlier, Yehudah ben Tabai was the Nasi and Shimon ben Shetach the Av Beis Din, or vice versa. The Gemara cites a Beraisa as proof for the opinion that says th at Yehudah ben Tabai was the Nasi. A certain case came before Yehudah ben Tabai, who ruled that an "Ed Zomem" must be killed, and his ruling was indeed carried out. Shimon ben Shetach pointed out to him his tragic mistake -- that Edim Zomemim are only killed when *both* witnesses are proven to be scheming, but not when only one of them was found to be an Ed Zomem. Yehudah ben Tabai had so much remorse that he killed a single Ed Zomem that he accepted upon himself never again to rule a Halachah except in the presence of Shimon ben Shetach.

The Gemara says that from here we see that Yehudah ben Tabai must have been the Nasi, with more authority than Shimon ben Shetach, for otherwise how was he able to rule on his own, until now, without Shimon ben Shetach's consent? It must be that Yehudah ben Tabai was the Nasi and Shimon ben Shetach the Av Beis Din.

The Gemara refutes this proof and says that it is possible that Yehudah ben Tabai was only the Av Beis Din and had *less* authority that Shimon ben Shetach. As such, he never ruled in the presence of Shimon ben Shetach even before his oath. Rather, before the incident with the Ed Zomem, Yehudah ben Tabai "joined others" in ruling without Shimon ben Shetach's consent, and now he accepted upon himself never even "to join with others" to rule without Shimon ben Shetach.

(a) The Gemara's refutation of the proof is problematic. First, what difference did it make if Yehudah ben Tabai (as Av Beis Din) would join others? He still was not entitled to rule in the presence of the Nasi, Shimon ben Shetach, without permission! When the Gemara earlier said that if he had less authority he could not rule without Shimon ben Shetach, it meant that he could not even join a Beis Din to rule without Shimon ben Shetach. What, then, is Yehudah ben Tabai gaining by accepting upon himself not to join with others to rule without Shimon ben Shetach, if he could never rule against him in the first place?

(b) Second, Rashi says that according to the Gemara's refutation of the proof, when Yehudah ben Tabai killed the Ed Zomem, Shimon ben Shetach was not present (i.e. in the city), because otherwise Yehudah ben Tabai would not have been allowed to rule since he had less authority. Why, then, did the Gemara not answer simply that his oath was that he would not rule when Shimon ben Shetach was out of town, so that he would no longer commit such a tragic error in ruling? By accepting that upon himself, he would correct the mistake that he made by ruling while Shimon ben Shetach was out of town!

ANSWERS: (a) There are several ways of understanding how Yehudah ben Tabai would have judged before his Kabalah without Shimon ben Shetach and without joining others.

1. Even though Yehudah ben Tabai had less authority than Shimon ben Shetach and could not rule without Shimon ben Shetach, before his Kabalah he would have judged with *another* Nasi other than Shimon ben Shetach (in the event that Shimon ben Shetach died or a new Nasi took his place). Alternatively, he would have ruled whenever he receives Shimon ben Shetach's permission. After the incident with the Ed Zomem, he accepted upon himself not to rule without Shimon ben Shetach, meaning if there would arise a new Nasi he would not pass any rulings with that Nasi; alternatively, he would not rule even if he had permission from Shimon ben Shetach to rule without him.

2. TOSFOS explains that his Kabalah was that even when the Nasi is present, Yehudah ben Tabai would not join the majority of Rabanan if their opinion differs from that of the Nasi. Even when he judged in the presence of Shimon ben Shetach, he accepted upon himself never to join a majority against Shimon ben Shetach.

(b) There are several ways of explaining why the Gemara does not say simply that Yehudah ben Tabai accepted upon himself to judge only when Shimon ben Shetach was in town.

1. The NETZIV explains that it could not be that Yehudah ben Tabai accepted upon himself not to judge when Shimon ben Shetach was out of town, because it does not make sense that the Beis Din would be closed just because the Nasi is out of town. (This answer is difficult to understand, because it seems obvious that other arrangements would be made for the head of the Beis Din was out of town, such as deferring to another judge. After all, what did they do when Yehudah ben Tabai himself was out of town?)

2. The Gemara is saying a "Kol she'Ken:" not only did Yehudah ben Tabai accept upon himself not to judge even when Shimon ben Shetach is not present, but he *even* accepted upon himself that when Shimon ben Shetach is present, that he would not join others (such as to join a majority against Shimon ben Shetach, as in the previous answer).

This answer is difficult, because how did the Gemara know that he accepted upon himself this additional oath not to join with others, when it would have sufficed for the Gemara to say that he accepted not to rule when Shimon ben Shetach was out of town, in order to refute the proof that Yehudah ben Tabai was the Nasi?

Perhaps the Gemara understood that this was Yehudah ben Tabai's intention because he said that "I will only judge with Shimon ben Shetach." If he meant that he would not judge when Shimon ben Shetach was out of town, then he should have said, "I will *not* judge *without* Shimon ben Shetach." By saying that "I will only judge *with* Shimon ben Shetach," he implied that even when Shimon ben Shetach is in town, he will only judge in Shimon ben Shetach's presence. (M. Kornfeld)

3. The ME'IRI offers an entirely different approach to the Gemara's refutation of the proof that Yehudah ben Tabai was a Nasi, and his approach will answer both of our questions. The Gemara is not inferring from Yehudah ben Tabai's words that he *used* to judge when Shimon ben Shetach was in town. Rather, it infers from his words what he *accepted* to do; he accepted to judge only when Shimon ben Shetach is present (in town), so that if he makes a mistake Shimon ben Shetach will correct him. On that, the Gemara asks that if Shimon ben Shetach is in town, Yehudah ben Tabai may not judge at all, because it is not permitted to pass a ruling in front of one's Rebbi!

The Gemara answers that his Kabalah was that he would only judge if Shimon ben Shetach is not only in town, but is also sitting on the court (in which case it is permitted for the Talmid to pass a ruling). Apparently, the Me'iri had the Girsa of the DIKDUKEI SOFRIM who adds a few words to the Gemara, that Yehudah ben Tabai accepted upon himself that he "will not join others [to judge] *except with Shimon ben Shetach*." That is, he would only judge when joined by Shimon ben Shetach. His Kabalah was that he would not convene a court when the Nasi is out of town. (Thus, the Gemara indeed uses the answer that we suggested would be the best answer.)

(RASHI DH u'Mai Kibel clearly does not explain the Gemara this way, because he says that the proof is from what Yehudah ben Tabai *used* to do before his oath. However, the Dikdukei Sofrim points out that from the text of Rashi in the Ein Yakov it appears that these words were not written by Rashi, and thus Rashi might have indeed learned like the Me'iri.)