§ It was taught in the mishna: One who sees the High Priest reading the Torah does not see the bull and goat that are burned, and vice versa. This is not because one is not permitted to see both but because there is a distance between them and they are performed simultaneously. The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is not due to a prohibition; what possible reason could there be to prohibit this? The Gemara answers: This was taught explicitly lest you say that it is prohibited in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said: One does not pass over the opportunity to perform mitzvot, even if it is in order to perform a different mitzva.
The Gemara clarifies why this principle might have applied here. And what mitzva is there in hearing the reading of the High Priest? It is a fulfillment of the principle expressed in the verse: “The king’s glory is in the multitude of people” (Proverbs 14:28). Having a large assembly involved in a mitzva gives honor to God. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that the problem with seeing both events was only a practical one.
The Gemara says that hearing the High Priest read was a mitzvah fulfilling the principle from Proverbs. What does this principle mean? How does this verse fulfill it?
All the people could not be part of this "multitude" hearing the High Priest reading because some were in one place seeing the bull and goat slaughtered while some others were listening to the reading. Is this textual precedent for communal fulfillment of all mitzvot even as any one individual Jew can never do all the mitzvot? What is ideal? How do we act in reality?
§ The Gemara explains another verse in Proverbs: “If there is care in a man’s heart, let him quash it [yashḥena]” (Proverbs 12:25). Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi dispute the verse’s meaning. One said: He should forcefully push it [yasḥena] out of his mind. One who worries should banish his concerns from his thoughts. And one said: It means he should tell [yesiḥena] others his concerns, which will lower his anxiety.
What are our options in dealing with our individual worries according to the sages here? (Other options we'd add to this list?)
What do these options say about our responsibility to one another? When might we use one option and when the other?
When we worry, what is the value of being a member of a community?
Where is Gd in this discussion?
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בּוֹא וּרְאֵה שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִדַּת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וָדָם. מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וָדָם: מַקְנִיט אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ — יוֹרֵד עִמּוֹ לְחַיָּיו. אֲבָל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵינוֹ כֵּן: קִלֵּל אֶת הַנָּחָשׁ, עוֹלֶה לַגָּג — מְזוֹנוֹתָיו עִמּוֹ, יוֹרֵד לְמַטָּה — מְזוֹנוֹתָיו עִמּוֹ.
...קִלֵּל אֶת כְּנַעַן, אוֹכֵל מַה שֶּׁרַבּוֹ אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה מַה שֶּׁרַבּוֹ שׁוֹתֶה. קִלֵּל אֶת הָאִשָּׁה — הַכֹּל רָצִין אַחֲרֶיהָ. קִלֵּל אֶת הָאֲדָמָה — הַכֹּל נִיזּוֹנִין הֵימֶנָּה.
It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is different than the attribute of flesh and blood. The attribute of flesh and blood is that one who seeks to provoke another harasses him in all aspects of his life, but the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not act in this way. He cursed the serpent and what happened? When the serpent goes up to the roof its food is with it, and when it comes down its food is with it. Consequently, the curse that it suffers does not ruin its life but rather benefits it.
...Similarly, He cursed Canaan that he should be the servant of servants, but he benefits somewhat from this. He eats what his master eats, and drinks what his master drinks, and does not worry like a free man does. He cursed the woman and everyone pursues her to marry her. He cursed the land after the sin of Adam and Eve, yet everyone is sustained from it. Even when God is angry, He does not punish His creations severely.
According to the sages, how do we "of flesh and blood" tend to punish those who have wronged us? Does this characterization of a "human" tendency" feel accurate to your experience in responding to someone who has wronged you?
How do the sages say Gd's response differs from the human response?
What does it mean that "the curse it suffers does not ruin its life but rather benefits it"?
Do the examples the sages give feel compelling?
Are the sages encouraging us to imitate Gd's behavior here, or merely to describe the difference? If so, how might we apply this principle in our lives, individually or communally?
It is told that Rav Yehuda [aka Rava] found quail among his barrels of wine, and Rav Ḥisda found quail among logs of wood in his storeroom. Every day Rava’s sharecropper brought him a quail that he found in his fields. One day, he did not bring him one because he failed to find any. Rava said to himself: What is this, why is today different? He went up to the roof to think about it. He heard a child say the verse: “When I heard, my innards trembled, my lips quivered at the voice, rottenness enters into my bones, and I tremble where I stand; that I should wait for the day of trouble when he comes up against the people that he invades” (Habakkuk 3:16). Rava said: Learn from this that Rav Ḥisda has died. I am therefore not worthy to receive the quail anymore, since it is on account of the teacher that the student eats. When Rav Ḥisda was alive, Rava received the quail due to Rav Ḥisda’s merit; now that he had died, Rava was not worthy to receive the quail.
What happens in this story?
What conclusion does Rava come to when he finds no quail?
What does it mean that "it is on account of the teacher that the student eats"?
In what ways do the student and teacher rely on and need one another?
שָׁאֲלוּ תַּלְמִידָיו אֶת רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא יָרַד לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מָן פַּעַם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה? אָמַר לָהֶם: אֶמְשׁוֹל לָכֶם מָשָׁל: לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְמֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵּן אֶחָד, פָּסַק לוֹ מְזוֹנוֹתָיו פַּעַם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה, וְלֹא הָיָה מַקְבִּיל פְּנֵי אָבִיו אֶלָּא פַּעַם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה. עָמַד וּפָסַק מְזוֹנוֹתָיו בְּכׇל יוֹם, וְהָיָה מַקְבִּיל פְּנֵי אָבִיו כׇּל יוֹם.
אַף יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה בָּנִים הָיָה דּוֹאֵג וְאוֹמֵר: שֶׁמָּא לֹא יֵרֵד מָן לְמָחָר, וְנִמְצְאוּ כּוּלָּן מֵתִים בָּרָעָב, נִמְצְאוּ כּוּלָּן מְכַוְּונִים אֶת לִבָּם לַאֲבִיהֶן שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם.
The students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai asked him: Why didn’t the manna fall for the Jewish people just once a year to take care of all their needs, instead of coming down every day?
He said to them: I will give you a parable: To what does this matter compare? To a king of flesh and blood who has only one son. He granted him an allowance for food once a year and the son greeted his father only once a year, when it was time for him to receive his allowance. So he arose and granted him his food every day, and his son visited him every day.
So too, in the case of the Jewish people, someone who had four or five children would be worried and say: Perhaps the manna will not fall tomorrow and we will all die of starvation. Consequently, everyone directed their hearts to their Father in heaven every day. The manna that fell each day was sufficient only for that day, so that all of the Jewish people would pray to God for food for the next day.
Why did R.Shimon ben Yochai use a parable to teach his lesson?
According to benYochai's response, what does Gd need from us?
In the parable and in the desert, what did the son and the Jewish people need from the king/Gd? How might we apply this parable to non-literal needs from God?
Can our relationship with Gd ever move into spaces for "visiting" beyond the fulfillment of our needs? If so, do you think our approaching Gd from that place would mean anything different to Gd? To us?