אמר (רבא) אף על פי שהניחו לו אבותיו לאדם ספר תורה מצוה לכתוב משלו שנאמר (דברים לא, יט)
Rava says: With regard to the mitzva for every Jew to write himself a Torah scroll, even if a person’s ancestors left him a Torah scroll, it is a mitzva to write a scroll of one’s own, as it is stated: “Now, therefore, write for yourselves this song and teach it to the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 31:19).
[Shlomo] wrote three books: Mishlei, Kohelet and Shir Ha-Shirim.
Which of them did he write first?
This is a matter of dispute between Rabbi Chiya the Great and Rabbi Yonatan.
Rabbi Chiya the Great says that he wrote Mishlei first, then Shir Ha-Shirim, then Kohelet. And he offers a proof from the following verse (I Melakhim 5:12): “The parable (mashal) he spoke was three thousand” — mashal refers to the Book of Mishlei. “And his song (shiro) was one thousand and five” — this is Shir Ha-Shirim. Then he wrote Kohelet at the end [of his life].
The baraita of Rabbi Chiya the Great disputes this teaching: the baraita says that he wrote all three at the same time, and our teaching says that he [wrote] each one on its own.
Rabbi Chiya the Great taught: Only toward the end of his life did the divine spirit rest upon Shlomo, and he composed three books: Mishlei, Kohelet and Shir Ha-Shirim.
Rabbi Yonatan says: He wrote Shir Ha-Shirim first, then Mishlei, then Kohelet. And he brings a source from the way of the world: [it is] just as a youth recites words of song, when he matures, [he recites] parables, and when he grows old, [he recites] words of vanity.
Rabbi Yannai the brother-in-law of Rabbi Ami says, “All agree that he composed Kohelet last.”
... כל כתבי הקדש מטמאין את הידים.
- שיר השירים וקהלת.
(a) מטמאין את הידים.
(b) ר' יהודה אומר שיר השירים מטמא את הידים. וקהלת מחלוקת.
(c) ר' יוסי אומר קהלת אינו מטמא את הידים. ושיר השירים מחלוקת.
(d) ר' שמעון אומר קהלת מקולי בית שמאי. ומחומרי בית הלל.
(e) אמר ר' שמעון בן עזאי. מקובל אני מפי שבעים שנים זקן ביום שהושיבו את ר' אלעזר בן עזריה בישיבה. ששיר השירים וקהלת מטמאים את הידים.
(f) אמר ר' עקיבא חס ושלום. לא נחלק אדם מישראל על שיר השירים. שלא תטמא את הידים. שאין כל העולם כלו כדאי כיום שניתן בו שיר השירים לישראל. שכל כתובים קדש. ושיר השירים קודש קדשים. ואם נחלקו. לא נחלקו אלא על קהלת.
(g) אמר ר' יוחנן בן יהושע בן חמיו של ר' עקיבא כדברי בן עזאי כך נחלקו וכן גמרו:
...All sacred scriptures [i.e., the twenty-four books of TaNach] render Yadayim Tamei [via touch].
The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes
(a) Are M’tamei Yadayim.
(b) Rabbi Yehudah says: Shir Hashirim is Matamei Yadayim; however, Koheles is a matter of dispute.
(c) Rabbi Yose says: Koheles is certainly not M’tamei Yadayim, however, Shir HaShirim is the subject of dispute.
(d) Rabbi Shimon says: Koheles is among the few [relative] leniencies of Beit Shammai [i.e., it is not M’Tamei Yadayim], and the [relative] stringencies of Beit Hillel [i.e., it is M’Tamei Yadayim].
(e) Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said, "I have a received tradition from the mouths of seventy-two elders, on the day they inducted Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria into his seat [as head] at the Academy, that The Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes render the hands impure."
(f) Rabbi Akiva said, Hevan forbid! The status of Shir HaShirim [that it is M’tamei Yadayim] was never in dispute, for, in fact, nothing is as worthy in this world as the day on which Shir HaShirim was given to Bnei Yisroel, for although all of TaNach is holy, Shir HaShirim is the Holy of Holies; so [if there is a tradition that the Chachomim disputed the status of one of the books of TaNach, it could only be regarding Koheles.
(g) Rabbi Yochanan ben Yehoshua, the son of Rabbi Akiva's father-in-law [i.e., R’ Akiva’s brother-in-law], said, that the status of the books are in accordance with words of Ben Azzai, thus did they dispute [the status of both books], and thus did they conclude [that both books are M’tamei Yadayim].
תנו רבנן הקורא פסוק של שיר השירים ועושה אותו כמין זמר והקורא פסוק בבית משתאות בלא זמנו מביא רעה לעולם מפני שהתורה חוגרת שק ועומדת לפני הקב"ה ואומרת לפניו רבונו של עולם עשאוני בניך ככנור שמנגנין בו לצים
The Sages taught: One who reads a verse from Song of Songs and renders it a form of secular song, and not a sacred text, and one who reads any biblical verse at a banquet house, not at its appropriate time, but merely as a song, introduces evil to the world, as the Torah girds itself with sackcloth and stands before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and says before Him: Master of the Universe, Your children have rendered me like a harp on which clowns play.
Shir Ha-shirim, the powerful love song between God and the Jewish people, represents a great spirit of optimism and hope. Some of the Sages question the continuing significance of such a work when the Temple has been destroyed and the Jews have been exiled: does optimism still have a place in such a fragmented world? When Rabbi Akiva contends that Shir Ha-shirim does generate tumat yadayim, he forcefully asserts that our aspirations and hopes have become no less relevant in our broken world.
The same spirit enables Rabbi Akiva to laugh when encountering foxes roaming the Temple mount. (Makos) He sees this as the confirmation of a biblical prophecy, and this fills him with hope that more positive prophecies of consolation will also be fulfilled. This optimistic spirit enables Rabbi Akiva to maintain that Shir Ha-shirim, the great love song between God and the Jewish people, remains the holy of holies even when we are confronted with destruction.
"Eyes of wonder" are eyes of innocence, eyes not jaded and obscured by reconceptions and notions that have nothing to do with the reality of what exists.
Most adults have forgotten the state of awareness called wonder. We have to relearn it from innocents - babies, toddlers, our children -before they have been contaminated by the anthropomorphic notions that adults feed them. When they are still innocent, children can teach us how to see Hashem. They see Hashem more than we do.
As a psychotherapist…I believe that one of the root problems for nearly all the people I ever worked with in therapy was this core restlessness, this core sense of "I don't really belong here, I'm not at home," which we translate in our conscious minds to things like "I don't fit into human society, no one really loves me, I'm not worthy," and so on.
I believe a big part of this experience derives from our not feeling at home in nature. But it's never too late to learn how to do this. It's not even learning, actually; it's to use our sense of wonder to embrace this wild world again. It's one of the most important and effective therapies, I believe.
I am sure there is something much deeper, something lasting and significant. Those who dwell…among the beauties and mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life. Whatever the vexation or concerns of their personal lives, their thoughts can find paths that lead to inner contentment and to renewed excitement in living. Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts. There is symbolic as well as actual beauty in the migration of the birds, the ebb and flow of the tides, the folded bud ready for the spring. There is something infinitely healing in the repeated refrains of nature — the assurance that dawn comes after night, and spring after the winter.
According to Rav Amiel, Judaism incorporates more of the optimism of Shir Ha-shirim than the pessimism of Kohelet. Kohelet is read once a year on Sukkot, but Shir Ha-shirim appears in the Siddur for recital each Friday night. Of course, this optimism should not be confused with the notion that religion quickly solves all human problems and that religious life consists of resting by still waters in a green pasture. (Indeed, Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik attacks this Pollyannaish view of religion in the majestic fourth footnote of Halakhic Man.) Rather, religion understands the unfortunate truth that life includes tragedies, difficulties and frustrations, and that we cannot easily deal with these things or confidently understand their place in the cosmic scheme. At the same time, our faith in the divine promise and in a life of Torah and mitzvot does enable a certain ongoing optimism even as we acknowledge the existence of suffering. Rabbi Akiva certainly mourns the loss of the Temple, even as he continues to look forward to a better future.
Rabbi Amiel suggests that all of life must jointly include elements of both the optimism of Shir Ha-shirim and the pessimism of Kohelet. In fact, it is only Kohelet's ability to balance the youthful ardor of song with an authentic understanding of the difficulties of human existence that enables the song to continue through the ripeness of advancing years. A cheaply acquired optimism is quickly shattered on the rocks of human suffering; on the other hand, an equally easy despairing cynicism also misses the mark, as it indicates blindness to the many wonderful aspects of human existence.
