A Close Reading of Pirkei Avot 5:7

The text goes:

שבעה דברים בגולם ושבעה בחכם.

חכם אינו מדבר בפני מי שהוא גדול ממנו בחכמה ובמנין, ואינו נכנס לתוך דברי חברו, ואינו נבהל להשיב, שואל כענין ומשיב כהלכה, ואומר על ראשון ראשון ועל אחרון אחרון, ועל מה שלא שמע, אומר 'לא שמעתי', ומודה על האמת.

וחלופיהן בגולם.

There are seven things of a Golem, and seven of a wise man. 

A wise man does not speak before one who is greater than him in wisdom or age. He does not interrupt his fellow's words. He does not hasten to answer. His questions are on the subject and his answers to the point. He responds to first things first and to latter things later. Concerning what he did not hear, he says "I did not hear." He concedes to the truth. 

Of the Golem, the reverse of them is so.

If I were to break up the things here, I would do it as two groups of three, and the last one as a capstone to them all. I also detect a hierarchy of knowledge that becomes important.

1. A wise man does not speak before one who is greater than him in wisdom or age. 

                           2. He does not interrupt his fellow's words. 

                                                 3. He does not hasten to answer. 

                                                 

                                                 4. He asks on topic and he answers accurately.

                           5. He responds to first things first and to latter things later. 

6. Concerning what he did not hear, he says "I did not hear." 

                                                   

                                               7. He concedes to the truth. 

There is a reverse hierarchy of knowledge present here. The lesson is that one can be a wise person, whether they have specific knowledge or not, by the way they act in learning.

When a person knows little, when there are people who know more than him, he should listen and learn, and not speak. Further, even if he is among equal-level colleagues, he should not interrupt so that he can learn from friends. And lastly, even if he knows a lot, and can answer questions, he should pause and consider what he would be teaching the person who asked, and how best to answer. He might learn something through his own process, since the person's very question might sharpen his knowledge.

So: 1 is when he is lesser, he must do what he can to learn from higher ups. 2 is when he is equal, he must do what he can to learn from his fellow. And 3 is when he is the higher up, and he should do what he can to even learn from that situation where someone is subservient to him in knowledge.

All three of these are to be silent, for as Pirkei Avot repeats again and again, silence causes wisdom. One can only learn if they listen first. Even when answering a question, one should refrain from speaking before the right time.

The next three criteria start with a person being higher up, and this still requires this process of patient understanding. When he knows everything, he should ask and answer accurately. If he doesn't know everything, but wants have a wise conversation with an equal, he should put them in the appropriate order. And if he doesn't know it, he should say he doesn't know instead of trying to pretend he does.

So now we have the reverse order hierarchy. 4 is when he is high up, he must do what he can to teach others and learn things well. 5 is when he is equal level, he must speak in the right order to understand the discussion at hand. 6 is when he is lesser, and doesn't know, he should say he hasn't heard, and make himself open to hearing.

Again, all three of these are not of silence, but of what to say. How to speak so as to result in wisdom. The listening, and the speaking, mirror each other.

All of this is in the service of admitting the truth when others say it. Whether they are higher up, equal level, or lesser level to you, admit the truth, no matter the source. Artscroll's siddur commentary says that this is when one makes an error, he should admit his mistake. But I see it as the truth coming from others.

Indeed, this is the extended version of Avot 4:1's "בן זומא אומר:איזהו חכם? הלומד מכל אדם".

On The Akeda

Rav Hutner, in Maamarei Sukkot, wonders why the description of what Avraham did at the akedah is in the form of a "shev v'al taaseh" - "lo chaschta bincha," you did not hold back your son from me.

This sounds like he allowed someone else to take his son, but not that he did it himself. Why not place it in Avraham's active involvement? He goes on to build a maamar out of this. I can take it in a different direction.

The ultimate description, indeed the divine description, is not on Avraham actually taking his son to be sacrificed. The description of lo chasachta actually tells us that Avraham knew that he would not have to sacrifice Yitzchak. Everything in his being told him so, not only morally (as he was someone with great moral character, helping strangers be at home in his house), or from the perspective of justice (hashofet kol haaretz lo yaaseh mishpat), but indeed he knew God, had a relationship with Him, and was aware it would be impossible to ask this of him. Rather, he took his son on a seemingly pointless hike, because he knew something would be the point of this. This is why he is so able to go with the flow when he sees the ram. How did he know this was meant to be the replacement? Indeed, why did he listen when the angel of God told him to stop? It was because he was prepared all along for this eventuality. And thats why God describes it as, you did not withhold your son from me. Not that you were actively willing to sacrifice your son, but that you came here anyway despite the knowledge that there would be no human sacrifice today on this mountain. You didn't hold back from doing so.

Shadal on Ibn Ezra and "The Canaanites Were Then In The Land"

The verse in Genesis 12:6 states that "The Canaanites were then in the land."

It would seem that there are two possible reasons for this declaration of when the Canaanites were in the land then.

1. Then, as opposed to now, when this text is being presented (which could only be after the Jewish people conquered the land from the Canaanites). This sounds problematic, as will be discussed.

2. The Canaanites had taken over the land from someone else just now, and that had only just occurred when Abraham was passing through the land. (Rashi says this)

In fact, Ibn Ezra submits both these two possibilities:

והכנעני אז בארץ” – יתכן שארץ כנען תפשה כנען מיד אחר. ואם איננו כן יש לו סוד. והמשכיל ידום:

“The Canaanites were then in the land” – possibly that the Land of Canaan had been seized by Canaan from the hands of another.  But if this is not so, it has a secret, and the enlightened will be silent.

The problem with the "secret" is that it really sounds like Ibn Ezra agrees certain verses are post-Mosaic. He references this later, in Deuteronomy 1:2 among other verses:

ואם תבין סוד (השרים) [צ"ל: השנים] עשר, גם ויכתוב משה (דברים לא, כב), והכנעני אז בארץ (ברא’ יב, ו), בהר ד’ יראה (שם כב, יד), והנה ערשו ערש ברזל, (דברים ג, יא) תכיר האמת.

If you understand the secret of the twelve—as well as “and Moses wrote” (Deut. 31:9), “and the Canaanites were then in the land” (Gen. 12:6), “on the mountain God will appear”  (Gen. 22:14), “here is his iron bed” (Deut. 3:11) –  you will recognize the truth.

Much has been spoken about the secret of the twelve. Spinoza popularized the notion that Ibn Ezra believed the latter, and that this was so about the whole of the Torah.

We can understand why the Ibn Ezra would have wanted to keep this consideration - that there could be post-Mosaic verses - a secret.

Shadal has unending admiration for Rashi, and endless criticism for Ibn Ezra (although he does cite him when he agrees with him).

We know that Shadal was very aware of Spinoza's interpretation of Ibn Ezra's "secrets", as he writes in his commentary to Deuteronomy 1:1:

Now that Spinoza's books have already been disseminated in the world… I am forced to state that Spinoza wrote a complete lie… when he said that Ibn Ezra had hintingly written that it was not Moses who wrote the Book of the Torah. It is true that Ibn Ezra alluded, via the hidden wisdom, that there exist in the Torah a few additional verses from after Moses's time, but nowhere in all his words and all his allusions is there any room to regard him as not believing that Moses wrote his book… Spinoza, aside from having made some errors in his studies, also unquestionably spoke duplicitously, and in several places misled his readers, with cunning and guile.

He explains there that Ibn Ezra simply allowed for the possibility, but always gave alternatives because he didn't really accept it fully.

So it is natural that when Shadal is looking at a verse, he will avoid the interpretation that points toward post-Mosaic authorship. How does he interpret our verse under discussion? He writes on Genesis 12:6 (translation Dan Klein):

Because God was about to say, "To your descendants will I give this land," He first let Israel know that even in Abraham's time, that land was in the hands of Canaan, so that they should not think that perhaps in those days it was possessed by some other evil and sinful people, and that God dispossessed that people and gave its land to the Canaanites. If the Israelites believed this, they would have been reluctant to take the land from them, thinking that God had given it to Canaan as an inheritance. Therefore He let them know early on that when He promised the inheritance of the land to Abraham, it was already in the hands of the Canaanites.

In this way, Shadal solves not only the implication of the verse (that instead of them taking it over, or being taken over later, it means they had always been there), but also its purpose here, which seems to me to be the bigger problem. Meaning, Ibn Ezra suggests it means they had taken over the land, but then what is its purpose here in this context? Thus, we have a third option:

3. Not that they weren't in the land before, but that they were always in the land and that God hadn't granted it to them.

Obviously, Scripture does want to inform the Israelites of proper beliefs before entering the land. But that they would be afraid to take over Israel because God may have given it to the Canaanites? This is indeed a strange belief to hold.

I saw an interesting approach in R. Meyuchas ben Eliyahu, 12th century, who says it simply means that the Canaanites were very strong then in the land, implying that by the time Moses was writing the Torah, either they were no longer very strong, or they were just as strong then, but not whether they were there or not. This would be approach number 4:

4. Not that there is any statement about their placement, but how mighty of an army they represented. They used to be mighty, now (at the time of the Torah being presented to the Israelites) not so much.

5. Only the Canaanites were in the land, not all the other nations that would later come.

In 2015, a 5-volume set of Shadal was published by Yonatan Bassi that incorporates manuscripts from students, and early copies before the first publication of Shadal's work. From it, we can see different strata of the development of Shadal's commentary, how his students added and took away for the final copy, and what Shadal perhaps was willing to teach students but not what he was willing to include for a wider audience.

There are a great many difference noted there, for many verses of the Torah. Indeed here, there is a completely different (and much longer commentary) to this verse. The following is a loose translation:

This is one of the verses which the Ibn Ezra thought was not written by Moses, and was instead inserted into the Torah generations later. This is because "az", then, could mean "then and not now", which would indicate the time it is written was when Canaanites were no longer in the land, and thus that would have to be after Moses' death. And if "az" means "then and not before," then you would have to say that the Canaanites took it from another peoples, and this is Rashi's explanation.

(The bolded part was added by one of his students) One can quibble: Even though the Israelites knew that the Canaanites were in the land of Israel, they had to know that even 500 years prior, they were there. But why would Moshe need to tell them this? I say it's because the intent is to tell you that only the Canaanites were in the land at that point, and it wasn't too constricted for Abraham and Lot and their cattle. After some time, the Prizzites also came there and made it more constricted.

Therefore, this verse is only setting up an introduction for what it would write later, (Genesis 13:7) "And the Canaanites and Prizzites were then in the land. 

6. They were there then, but they are there now too

I think this is what Neofiti had in mind. The Targum writes:

 וכנעניא עד כען הוון שריין בארעא 

And the Canaanites til now were living in the land. 

On the other hand, it could be translated:

And the Canaanites until that time were living in the land

Which is to say, they were not anymore once Abraham came in. That can only mean that when Abraham came, he was considered the real owner, and they were not "living in the land" anymore. That would be an interesting take, but I'm not certain it can be backed up.

Kohelet - Universalism and Particularism, Joy and Sadness on Sukkot

Jolly or Melancholy?

Kohelet’s Role in Sukkot’s Time of Gladness

By: Aryeh Sklar

1. Genesis Rabbah 8:8

R. Shmuel b. Nahman said in R. Yehonatan’s name: When Moshe was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, “And God said: Let Us make man,” etc., he said: ‘Sovereign of the Universe! Why do You furnish an excuse to heretics’ (For maintaining a plurality of gods)? ‘Write,’ replied He; ‘And whoever wishes to err may err.’

רבי שמואל בר נחמן בשם רבי יונתן אמר בשעה שהיה משה כותב את התורה היה כותב מעשה כל יום ויום, כיון שהגיע לפסוק הזה שנאמר ויאמר אלקים נעשה אדם בצלמנו כדמותנו כדמותנו אמר לפניו רבון העולם מה אתה נותן פתחון פה למינים, אתמהא, אמר לו כתוב והרוצה לטעות יטעה!

2. Kohelet 1:3

What profit has man in all his toil that he toils under the sun?

(ג) מַה יִּתְרוֹן לָאָדָם בְּכָל עֲמָלוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲמֹל תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ:

3. Kohelet 12:13

The end of the matter, everything having been heard, fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the entire man.

(יג) סוֹף דָּבָר הַכֹּל נִשְׁמָע אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים יְרָא וְאֶת מִצְוֹתָיו שְׁמוֹר כִּי זֶה כָּל הָאָדָם:

4. Talmud Shabbat 30b

אמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב: בקשו חכמים לגנוז ספר קהלת מפני שדבריו סותרין זה את זה, ומפני מה לא גנזוהו - מפני שתחילתו דברי תורה וסופו דברי תורה. תחילתו דברי תורה - דכתיב (קהלת א) מה יתרון לאדם בכל עמלו שיעמול תחת השמש ואמרי דבי רבי ינאי: תחת השמש הוא דאין לו, קודם שמש - יש לו. סופו דברי תורה - דכתיב (קהלת יב) סוף דבר הכל נשמע את האלהים ירא ואת מצותיו שמור כי זה כל האדם. מאי כי זה כל האדם? אמר רבי (אליעזר) (מסורת הש"ס: [אלעזר]) כל העולם כולו לא נברא אלא בשביל זה.

R. Yehudah the son of R.Shmuel bar Shilat, in Rav's name, said: The Sages sought to hide the Book of Ecclesiastes, because its words contradict each other. Yet why did they not hide it? Because its beginning is words of Torah, and its end is words of Torah. Its beginning is words of Torah, as it is written, (Kohelet 1:3) What profit does man have of all his labor, that he should labor under the sun? And the School of R`Jannai commented: “Under the sun” is when he has none, but he has it [regarding the thing that is] before the sun. The end is words of Torah, as it is written, (Kohelet 12:13) “The end of the matter, when all is heard, is fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole of man.” What is meant by, “for this is the whole of man”? Said R. Elazar, The entire world was created only for the sake of this [type of] man.

5. Kohelet 1:3

Rejoice, O youth, in your childhood, and let your heart bring you cheer in the days of your youth, and go in the ways of your heart, and in the sight of your eyes, but know that for all these God will bring you to judgment.

(ט) שְׂמַח בָּחוּר בְּיַלְדוּתֶךָ וִיטִיבְךָ לִבְּךָ בִּימֵי בְחוּרוֹתֶךָ וְהַלֵּךְ בְּדַרְכֵי לִבְּךָ וּבְמַרְאֵה (כתיב וּבְמַרְאֵי) עֵינֶיךָ וְדָע כִּי עַל כָּל אֵלֶּה יְבִיאֲךָ הָאֱלֹהִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט:

6. Leviticus Rabbah 28:1

R. Benjamin b. Levi stated: The Sages wanted to store away the Book of Kohelet, for they found in it ideas that leaned towards heresy. They argued: Was it right that Shelomo should have said the following: Rejoice, O young man, in your youth; and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth (Kohelet 11:9)? Moshe said, Go not about after your own heart and your own eyes (Num. 15:39), but Shelomo said, Walk in the ways of your heart, and in the sight of your eyes (Kohelet 11:9)! What then? Is all restraint to be removed? Is there neither justice nor judge? When, however, he said, But know thou, that for all these things God will bring you into judgment (Kohelet 11:9) they admitted that Shelomo had spoken well.

אמר ר' בנימין בן לוי בקשו לגנוז ספר קהלת שמצאו בו דברים שהם נוטין לצד מינות אמרו כך היה ראוי שלמה לומר שמח בחור בילדותך בילדותך ויטיבך לבך בימי בחורותיך בחורותיך משה אמר (במדבר טו) ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם ושלמה אמר והלך בדרכי לבך ובמראה עיניך, אלא הותרה רצועה לית דין ולית דיין כיון שאמר ודע כי על כל אלה יביאך הא-לקים במשפט אמרו יפה אמר שלמה.

7. Talmud Shabbat 30a

Rabbi Tanchum of Navay began his sermon: O, Solomon, where is your wisdom and where is your understanding? It is not enough for you that your words contradict the words of thy father David, but that they are self-contradictory! Thy father David said, “The dead praise not the Lord,” and you said, “But I praised the dead which are already dead.” But then you said, “For a living dog is better than a dead lion.” There is no difficulty. As to what David said: “The dead praise not the Lord”, he meant: Let a man always engage in Torah and good deeds before he dies, for as soon as he dies he is restrained from [the practice of] Torah and good deeds, and the Holy One, blessed be He, has nothing with which to praise him. … And as to what Solomon said, “But I praised the dead that are already dead,” for when Israel sinned in the Midbar, Moses stood before the Holy One, blessed be He, and uttered many prayers and supplications before Him, but he was not answered, but when he exclaimed, “Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, Your servants!” he was immediately answered. Did not then Solomon well say, “But I praised the dead that are already dead”?

רבי תנחום דמן נוי פתח ואמר: אנת שלמה, אן חכמתך אן סוכלתנותך לא דייך שדבריך סותרין דברי דוד אביך, אלא שדבריך סותרין זה את זה דוד אביך אמר (תהלים קטו) לא המתים יהללו יה ואת אמרת (קהלת ד) ושבח אני את המתים שכבר מתו, וחזרת ואמרת (קהלת ט) כי לכלב חי הוא טוב מן האריה המת! לא קשיא, הא דקאמר דוד לא המתים יהללו יה הכי קאמר: לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות קודם שימות, שכיון שמת - בטל מן התורה ומן המצות, ואין להקדוש ברוך הוא שבח בו … ודקאמר שלמה ושבח אני את המתים שכבר מתו - שכשחטאו ישראל במדבר עמד משה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא, ואמר כמה תפלות ותחנונים לפניו ולא נענה, וכשאמר (שמות לב) זכור לאברהם ליצחק ולישראל עבדיך - מיד נענה, ולא יפה אמר שלמה ושבח אני את המתים שכבר מתו?

How Should We Resolve Contradictions?

8. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, Introduction

The third cause. Not all the statements in question are to be taken in their external sense; some are to be taken in their external sense, while some others are parables and hence have an inner content. Alternatively, two apparently contradictory propositions may both be parables and when taken in their external sense may contradict, or be contrary to, one another. The fourth cause. There is a proviso that, because of a certain necessity, has not been explicitly stated in its proper place; or the two subjects may differ, but one of them has not been explained in its proper place, so that a contradiction appears to have been said, whereas there is no contradiction. ... That some passages in every prophetic book, when taken in their external sense, appear to contradict or to be contrary to one another is due to the third cause and to the fourth. And it was with this in view that this entire introduction was written. You already know how often [the Sages], may their memory be blessed, say: One verse says this and another verse says that. They straightway establish that there is an apparent contradiction. Thereupon they explain that a proviso is lacking in the statement of the subject or that the two texts have different subjects. Thus they say: Solomon, is it not enough for you that your words contradict those of your father? They also contradict themselves, and so on.

הסיבה השלישית מפני שאין כל אותם הדברים כפשטן, אלא מקצתן כפשטן ומקצתן משל, ויש לו תוך. או שהיו שני הדברים אשר פשטיהן נגדיים משלים, וכאשר מבינים אותם כפשטן יהיו סותרים או נגדיים. והסיבה הרביעית שיש בהם תנאי מסוים שלא נתבאר בהם במקומם מחמת צורך כל שהוא, או שהיו שני הנושאים שונים, והאחד מהן לא נתבאר במקומו, ואז תיראה בהם סתירה ואין שם סתירה. … אבל הסתירות או הניגודים הנראים בפשטי הדברים במקצת מקומות בכל ספרי הנבואה, הרי הם לפי הסיבה השלישית והרביעית. ואל [יד] העניין הזה הייתה מטרת כל הקדמה זו.וכבר ידעת כמה רב אמרם ז"ל: כתוב אחד אומר כך וכתוב אחד אומר כך, ומעמידים נקודת הסתירה, ואחר כך מבארים שהדבר חסר תנאי, או שהנושא שונה. כגון אמרם: שלמה, לא דייך שדבריך סותרין דברי אביך, אלא שהן סותרין זה את זה וכו

9. Kohelet 9:7-9

Go, eat your bread joyfully and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already accepted your deeds. At all times, let your garments be white, and let oil not be wanting on your head. Enjoy life with the wife whom you love all the days of the life of your vanity, whom He has given you under the sun, all the days of your vanity, for that is your portion in life and in your toil that you toil under the sun.

לֵךְ אֱכֹל בְּשִׂמְחָה לַחְמֶךָ וּשְׁתֵה בְלֶב טוֹב יֵינֶךָ כִּי כְבָר רָצָה הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת מַעֲשֶׂיךָ: בְּכָל עֵת יִהְיוּ בְגָדֶיךָ לְבָנִים וְשֶׁמֶן עַל רֹאשְׁךָ אַל יֶחְסָר: רְאֵה חַיִּים עִם אִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר אָהַבְתָּ כָּל יְמֵי חַיֵּי הֶבְלֶךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְךָ תַּחַת הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כֹּל יְמֵי הֶבְלֶךָ כִּי הוּא חֶלְקְךָ בַּחַיִּים וּבַעֲמָלְךָ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה עָמֵל תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ:

10. Ibn Ezra, Kohelet 9:7

לך אכול: זה דבור לב בני האדם והוא הוללות

This is the folly that people say in their hearts…

What is another way to resolve contradictions?

Kohelet’s Universality in Light of Sukkot

11. Avudraham (14th century), Tefillot HaPesach

There is another reason and that is that Shlomo said these words on Sukkot as it states (Devarim 31:10) on the holiday [at the conclusion] of the shemitah year, on Sukkot, when the Jewish people come to be seen, gather the nation, the men, women and children, etc. and it states (Melachim I 8:2) they all gathered to King Shlomo during the month of Etanim, on Sukkot, etc. and it was then that he recited [Kohelet] during hakhel in order to rebuke the Jewish people. For this reason, it is logical to recite it on Sukkot. This is from the writings of Ibn HaYarchi.

ועוד טעם אחר כי שלמה בחג אמרו בהקהל כמו שכתוב (דב' לא, י) במועד שנת השמיטה בחג הסוכות בבא כל ישראל לראות וגו' הקהל את העם האנשים והנשים והטף וגו' וכתיב ויקהלו אל המלך שלמה בירח האתנים בחג וגו ' ואז אמרו בהקהל להוכיח את ישראל על כן יתכן לאומרו בחג כל זה כתב אבן הירחי

12. Netziv (19th century), Harchev Davar Bamidbar 29:12

כתב בספר זכריה י"ד דלעתיד יהיו גם אומות העולם באים בחול המועד סוכות לעמוד על קרבנם, היינו בשביל שיכירו גם המה את מלך ה ' צבאות ... וכך היה המנהג בימי שלמה, ומשום הכי היה שלמה מגיד קהלת בחול המועד סוכות לפני חכמי אומות העולם ...ומזה אנו נוהגין מדור דור לקרוא קהלת בחול המועד סוכות.

In the fourteenth chapter of Zechariah it states that in the future, the nations of the world will come on Chol HaMoed of Succot to stand next to their offering because they will also recognize the sovereignty of God, the King … This was also the tradition during the days of Shlomo and for this reason, Shlomo would recite Kohelet on Chol HaMoed Succot to the nations of the world … For this reason, we have been reciting Kohelet throughout the generations on Chol HaMoed Sukkot.

13. Talmud Sukkah 55b

א"ר (אליעזר) הני שבעים פרים כנגד מי כנגד שבעים אומות פר יחידי למה כנגד אומה יחידה

To what do the seventy bulls that were offered during the seven days [of Sukkot] correspond? To the seventy [gentile] nations. To what does the single bullock [of Shemini Atzeret] correspond? To the unique nation [of the Jewish people].

A World Unfinished - It Is Up To You and Me

14. Magen Avraham, Shulchan Aruch 490:8

On Sukkot [we read] Kohelet because they are days of joy and it states in Kohelet (2:2) "what does joy accomplish?"

ובסכות קהלת מפני שהם ימי שמחה וכתוב בקהלת ולשמחה מה זו עושה.

15. Talmud Bava Batra 60b

The Sages therefore have ordained thus. A man may plaster his house, but he should leave a little bare. A man can prepare all necessities of a meal, but he should leave out something... A woman can put on all her ornaments, but leave off one or two. What should this be? Rav said: [Not to remove] the hair on the temple. For so it says, If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I remember thee not, if I prefer not Jerusalem above my head joy. What is meant by 'my head joy'? R. Yitzchak said: This is symbolised by the burnt ashes which we place on the head of a bridegroom... Whoever mourns for Zion will be privileged to behold her joy, as it says, Rejoice ye with Jerusalem etc.

כך אמרו חכמים: סד אדם את ביתו בסיד, ומשייר בו דבר מועט... עושה אדם כל צרכי סעודה, ומשייר דבר מועט... עושה אשה כל תכשיטיה, ומשיירת דבר מועט. מאי היא? אמר רב: בת צדעא, שנאמר: (תהלים קלז) אם אשכחך ירושלים תשכח ימיני תדבק לשוני לחכי וגו'. מאי על ראש שמחתי? אמר רב יצחק: זה אפר מקלה שבראש חתנים... וכל המתאבל על ירושלים - זוכה ורואה בשמחתה, שנאמר: (ישעיהו סו) שמחו את ירושלים וגו'.

16. Talmud Berachot 31a

R. Yochanan said in the name of R. Shimon bar Yochai: It is forbidden to a man to fill his mouth with laughter in this world, because it says, Then will our mouth be filled with laughter and our tongue with singing. When will that be? At the time when 'they shall say among the nations, The Lord hath done great things with these'.

אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי: אסור לאדם שימלא שחוק פיו בעולם הזה, שנאמר: (תהלים קכ"ו) אז ימלא שחוק פינו ולשוננו רנה, אימתי - בזמן שיאמרו בגוים הגדיל ה' לעשות עם אלה.

17. Rav AY Kook (20th century), Ein Ayah Berachot 31a

Laughter indicates, when it is in its fullness, that the entire mission has been completed. And a man should properly understand that his perfection isn’t finished until all humanity is perfected through Israel at its greatest, when ‘the land will be filled with knowledge of God.’ And this great goal needs to be rooted deeply, deeply in the heart of each and every Jew, until he feels that so long as humanity as a whole is not perfected, his own happiness cannot be complete…

שחוק מורה, כשהוא במילואו, שכבר הושגה התכלית כולה. והאדם ראוי שישכיל כי אין שלימותו נגמרת כ"א כאשר תשתלם האנושיות כולה ע"י ישראל בגדולתן, כשתמלא הארץ דעת את ד' . וצריך שתהי' המטרה הגדולה הזאת מושרשת עמוק עמוק בלב כ"א מישראל עד שירגיש שכ"ז שלא השתלמה האנושית כולה אין שמחתו שלימה.