Commentary for Bava Kamma 33:22
Tosafot on Bava Kamma
Thirty-six thousand [men]. The honor accorded Hizkiyah was that thirty six thousand men went out with bared shoulders as a sign of honor and mourning for the departed king. Is there any indication in the verse to this amount of people? Tosafot explains:
The word לו in “and they did him honor” is numerically this value.1ל = 30, ו = 6
The word לו in “and they did him honor” is numerically this value.1ל = 30, ו = 6
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosafot on Bava Kamma
But didn't they [also] do this before Ahab? R’ Y’hudoh said that the honor accorded Hizkiyah was the massive size of his funeral – thirty six thousand people who bared their shoulders. R' Neḥemya disagrees with this interpretation of the ‘honor’, because we find that even Achov who was a wicked king had a very large funeral. The verse cannot mean that the ‘honor’ of Hizkiyah is a massive funeral, if we find that even the wicked Achov had a very large funeral. But where do we find that Achov had a very large funeral? It is certainly not mentioned in the N’vee’im. Says Tosafot:
That they made a massive eulogy for him, Achov, as the Gemara says in M’giloh (3a): The prophet Zechariah 12, 11, speaks of the eulogy of Hadrimon son of Tavrimon. On the surface the verse is extremely difficult to understand, there is no such known person in Tanach. The Targum there clarifies the matter. The verse means: like the eulogy of Achov ben Omree who was killed by Hadrimon ben Tavrimon. And that occurred during a battle when there were many people, and they all eulogized him. This is the source for the large funeral of Achov that R' Neḥemya referred to.
But the verse in M’lochim seems to contradict the Targum, which says that the people eulogized Achov and seemingly mourned his death. And even though it is written about the death of Achov (M’lochim 1, 22, 36) and the ‘joy’ went through the encampment, and the Gemara says (Sanhedrin 39b) as an explanation of the use of the word רנה, With the destruction of the wicked comes joy (Mishlay 11, 10), with the loss of Achov ben Omree there was joy. It is clear from the Gemara’s understanding of the verse in M’lochim that there was joy, not mourning, at the death of Achov.1R’ Yacov of Emden suggests that there may be no contradiction at all. The very same people, who acted as mourners from fear of reprisal by Achov’s followers, were inwardly joyous about the death of the evil king.
That was for the righteous of the generation, but his servants and those who loved him, were eulogizing him. Both are true. There was a massive eulogy for him by his servants and admirers. There was also profound joy for the righteous who saw in his death a victory over evil.
That they made a massive eulogy for him, Achov, as the Gemara says in M’giloh (3a): The prophet Zechariah 12, 11, speaks of the eulogy of Hadrimon son of Tavrimon. On the surface the verse is extremely difficult to understand, there is no such known person in Tanach. The Targum there clarifies the matter. The verse means: like the eulogy of Achov ben Omree who was killed by Hadrimon ben Tavrimon. And that occurred during a battle when there were many people, and they all eulogized him. This is the source for the large funeral of Achov that R' Neḥemya referred to.
But the verse in M’lochim seems to contradict the Targum, which says that the people eulogized Achov and seemingly mourned his death. And even though it is written about the death of Achov (M’lochim 1, 22, 36) and the ‘joy’ went through the encampment, and the Gemara says (Sanhedrin 39b) as an explanation of the use of the word רנה, With the destruction of the wicked comes joy (Mishlay 11, 10), with the loss of Achov ben Omree there was joy. It is clear from the Gemara’s understanding of the verse in M’lochim that there was joy, not mourning, at the death of Achov.1R’ Yacov of Emden suggests that there may be no contradiction at all. The very same people, who acted as mourners from fear of reprisal by Achov’s followers, were inwardly joyous about the death of the evil king.
That was for the righteous of the generation, but his servants and those who loved him, were eulogizing him. Both are true. There was a massive eulogy for him by his servants and admirers. There was also profound joy for the righteous who saw in his death a victory over evil.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosafot on Bava Kamma
Rather, that they laid a Torah scroll upon his bier. Rather, says R' Neḥemya, the ‘honor’ accorded Hizkiyah was that they placed a Torah scroll on his bier.
In Masechet Moaid Koton 25a the Gemara relates that when Rav Huno passed away, they contemplated placing a Torah scroll on his bier. Rav Chisdo objected. His argument was that Rav Huno held that it is forbidden to sit on a bed where a Torah scroll is resting. If so, why should we do for him in death that which he held was forbidden while alive?
Even though we find in the last Perek of Mo’aid Koton (25a) about Rav Huno, for whom they contemplated placing a Torah scroll on his bier, and it is to be understood from the Gemara there that it is forbidden to do so, place a Torah scroll on a bier,1See Shulchon Oruch Yoreh Dai’oh 353, 2, who rules in accordance with this opinion that it is forbidden to place a Torah scroll on a bier. See also Taz and Shach there. because it is forbidden to sit on a bed that has a Torah scroll resting on it.
There is another Gemara in M’nochos 32b where it seems that R' Neḥemya’s explanation of Hizkiyah’s ‘honor’ is relevant, but the Gemara there ignores it.
And in HaKomaitz Rabbah (M’nochos 32b) there is a dispute of amoraim, Rav Huno holds that it is forbidden to sit on a bed that has a Torah scroll resting on it2See Shulchon Oruch Yoreh Dai’oh 282, 7, who rules like this opinion. See G’ro there 17, who explains that although we generally rule in favor of R’ Yochanan when he argues with Rav Huno, this is an exception, because The Yerushalmi also rules in favor of Rav Huno. and R’ Yochanan permits it, we cannot challenge Rav Huno who holds that it is forbidden from R’ N‘chemyoh who says here that they put a Torah scroll on Hizkiyah’s bier, because Hizkiyah is different since he was extremely great in Torah and good deeds. Even though for somebody of Rav Huno’s stature it may be forbidden, for Hizkiyah who was so righteous it is permitted, because he personified the ultimate Torah leader more so than others and is entitled to have the honor of a Torah scroll placed on his bier.
In Masechet Moaid Koton 25a the Gemara relates that when Rav Huno passed away, they contemplated placing a Torah scroll on his bier. Rav Chisdo objected. His argument was that Rav Huno held that it is forbidden to sit on a bed where a Torah scroll is resting. If so, why should we do for him in death that which he held was forbidden while alive?
Even though we find in the last Perek of Mo’aid Koton (25a) about Rav Huno, for whom they contemplated placing a Torah scroll on his bier, and it is to be understood from the Gemara there that it is forbidden to do so, place a Torah scroll on a bier,1See Shulchon Oruch Yoreh Dai’oh 353, 2, who rules in accordance with this opinion that it is forbidden to place a Torah scroll on a bier. See also Taz and Shach there. because it is forbidden to sit on a bed that has a Torah scroll resting on it.
There is another Gemara in M’nochos 32b where it seems that R' Neḥemya’s explanation of Hizkiyah’s ‘honor’ is relevant, but the Gemara there ignores it.
And in HaKomaitz Rabbah (M’nochos 32b) there is a dispute of amoraim, Rav Huno holds that it is forbidden to sit on a bed that has a Torah scroll resting on it2See Shulchon Oruch Yoreh Dai’oh 282, 7, who rules like this opinion. See G’ro there 17, who explains that although we generally rule in favor of R’ Yochanan when he argues with Rav Huno, this is an exception, because The Yerushalmi also rules in favor of Rav Huno. and R’ Yochanan permits it, we cannot challenge Rav Huno who holds that it is forbidden from R’ N‘chemyoh who says here that they put a Torah scroll on Hizkiyah’s bier, because Hizkiyah is different since he was extremely great in Torah and good deeds. Even though for somebody of Rav Huno’s stature it may be forbidden, for Hizkiyah who was so righteous it is permitted, because he personified the ultimate Torah leader more so than others and is entitled to have the honor of a Torah scroll placed on his bier.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosafot on Bava Kamma
But didn't the Master say: Torah study is great because [it] leads to performance [of the mitzvoth]? R’ Yochanan ruled that we may place a Torah scroll on the bier of a righteous person and announce that he fulfilled all that is written in the Torah, but we may not say that he taught all that is written in the Torah. It seems that fulfilling all that is written in the Torah is less of an accomplishment than teaching all that is written in the Torah. We may accord a righteous person the lesser honor of saying that he fulfilled, but not the greater honor that he taught all of the Torah. That honor is reserved for the righteous of Hizkiyah’s caliber.
The Gemara challenges this by asking: But the master taught that learning Torah is great because it leads one to performing the mitzvos of the Torah? What exact point is the Gemara trying to make by citing the teaching that Torah study is great because it leads to performance of the mitzvos?
Tosafot cites Rashi’s explanation, argues with it and eventually introduces his own explanation.
Rashi explains: We see that performance of the mitzvos is greater, because we are saying that the greatness of studying the Torah is that it leads one to fulfilling the Torah, obviously fulfilling must be the greater of the two. This is a contradiction to R’ Yochanan who said that we may say about a righteous person that he fulfilled the Torah but not that he taught the Torah. R’ Yochanan is saying that announcing that one taught is the greater honor, while we have learned that fulfilling the Torah is the greater of the two.
Rabbeinu Tam finds this difficult: to the contrary, from this statement, the Gemara deduces in the end of the first Perek of Kidushin (40b) that learning Torah is greater than the performance of Mitzvos.
In regard to the elders who were reclined in the attic of the house of Nitzoh in Lod, and the this question was raised before them: Is studying Torah greater or performance of Mitzvos greater?
They were all counted and said: studying is greater because it leads one to performance. It seems that the Gemara there is clearly saying that studying Torah is greater. If so, what is the Gemara’s question here to R’ Yochanan who is also saying that announcing that one studied the entire Torah is the greater honor.
Rabbeinu Tam adopts a new approach to our Gemara. The Gemara at this point is not addressing the issue of whether studying is greater than performance, it is addressing the essence of R’ Yochanan’s statement that we may say that a righteous person fulfilled all of the Torah, but not that he studied all of the Torah.
And Rabbeinu Tam says: that this is the explanation of our Gemara: but the Master said that it is studying that leads one to fulfilling, and when we say that he fulfilled the Torah, we are in effect saying that he learned all of the Torah, for if he did not learn, how could he fulfill the Torah, for it is the learning of Torah that leads one to fulfilling the Torah? Without learning how to perform the Mitzvos one cannot fulfill them.
It did not enter upon the mind of the Gemara at this time to differentiate between studying Torah and teaching Torah.
And the Gemara answers: that this statement of R’ Yochanan is speaking about teaching others, this we can certainly not say about any deceased righteous person, because that is certainly the strongest praise that one can possibly say about a person because he leads the multitudes to fulfilling the Torah when he teaches them. This level of praise is reserved for Hizkiyah and may not be said about other righteous people. The Gemara was correct in its understanding that saying that one fulfilled all of the Torah is equivalent to saying that he learned all of the Torah, for if he did not learn how could he fulfill? R’ Yochanan did not say that we cannot announce that a person learned all of the Torah. What he said is that we may not announce that he taught others all of the Torah. This praise is reserved only for those of Hizkiyah’s caliber.
According to Rabbeinu Tam and Rashi the greatest praise that could possibly be said about a person is that he taught others all of the Torah. This is reserved for Hizkiyah and others of his caliber. We may say that a person studied and fulfilled all of the Torah. Tosafot will now present the opinion of Sh’iltos of Rav Achai who has a radically different approach to our Gemara. His approach is based on a variant text.
According to the text of our Gemara, Rabbah bar Bar Chonoh asked R’ Yochanan about the issue that was discussed in our Gemara; is it so that we may not say that a righteous person fulfilled all of the Torah? R’ Yochanan’s response was directly about this issue and he answered that we may announce that a person fulfilled all of the Torah, but we may not announce that he taught all of the Torah.
According to the text of Shiltos Rabbah bar Bar Chonoh asked nothing about this issue, nor did R’ Yochanan say anything about it. The Gemara is analyzing R’ Yochanan’s behavior when faced with this dilemma. He was asked about a passage of Gemara while he needed to put on his t’filin. How did R’ Yochanan act?
In the Sh’iltos of Rav Achai Gaon, we do not have the text that R’ Yochanan responded we may say that he performed the Mitzvos but not that he taught. This issue was not raised at all. When Rabbah bar Bar Chonoh says that he was asking R’ Yochanan about a teaching, he was not referring to this issue at all. He was speaking about learning in general. He is saying that when I asked R’ Yochanan a question about what I was studying, this is how he behaved.
Rather, the text is: and he, R’ Yochanan, put on his T’filin and then told us the answer to our question and nothing more is in the text of the Gemara. There is no reference to the issue of what may be announced at a righteous person’s funeral.
And the Gemara asks: How did he put on t’filin first before he told them the teaching that they had asked him about? But study is greater than fulfilling and he should have taught them the Gemara that they needed to know, which is Torah study, before he put on his t’filin, which is performance of mitzvos, because studying takes precedence?
And the Gemara answers: This is speaking about learning and that is speaking about teaching. For learning oneself, study is greater because it leads one to fulfilling, but teaching others is not as vital and it is for this reason that he put on t’filin first before teaching Rabbah bar Bar Chonoh what he needed to know.
There is a radical difference between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam who both hold that the greatest honor that can be accorded to a person is to announce that he taught Torah to others and Sh’iltos who holds that teaching others is not as important as learning oneself.
We will return to you Arbo’oh Ovos!
The Gemara challenges this by asking: But the master taught that learning Torah is great because it leads one to performing the mitzvos of the Torah? What exact point is the Gemara trying to make by citing the teaching that Torah study is great because it leads to performance of the mitzvos?
Tosafot cites Rashi’s explanation, argues with it and eventually introduces his own explanation.
Rashi explains: We see that performance of the mitzvos is greater, because we are saying that the greatness of studying the Torah is that it leads one to fulfilling the Torah, obviously fulfilling must be the greater of the two. This is a contradiction to R’ Yochanan who said that we may say about a righteous person that he fulfilled the Torah but not that he taught the Torah. R’ Yochanan is saying that announcing that one taught is the greater honor, while we have learned that fulfilling the Torah is the greater of the two.
Rabbeinu Tam finds this difficult: to the contrary, from this statement, the Gemara deduces in the end of the first Perek of Kidushin (40b) that learning Torah is greater than the performance of Mitzvos.
In regard to the elders who were reclined in the attic of the house of Nitzoh in Lod, and the this question was raised before them: Is studying Torah greater or performance of Mitzvos greater?
They were all counted and said: studying is greater because it leads one to performance. It seems that the Gemara there is clearly saying that studying Torah is greater. If so, what is the Gemara’s question here to R’ Yochanan who is also saying that announcing that one studied the entire Torah is the greater honor.
Rabbeinu Tam adopts a new approach to our Gemara. The Gemara at this point is not addressing the issue of whether studying is greater than performance, it is addressing the essence of R’ Yochanan’s statement that we may say that a righteous person fulfilled all of the Torah, but not that he studied all of the Torah.
And Rabbeinu Tam says: that this is the explanation of our Gemara: but the Master said that it is studying that leads one to fulfilling, and when we say that he fulfilled the Torah, we are in effect saying that he learned all of the Torah, for if he did not learn, how could he fulfill the Torah, for it is the learning of Torah that leads one to fulfilling the Torah? Without learning how to perform the Mitzvos one cannot fulfill them.
It did not enter upon the mind of the Gemara at this time to differentiate between studying Torah and teaching Torah.
And the Gemara answers: that this statement of R’ Yochanan is speaking about teaching others, this we can certainly not say about any deceased righteous person, because that is certainly the strongest praise that one can possibly say about a person because he leads the multitudes to fulfilling the Torah when he teaches them. This level of praise is reserved for Hizkiyah and may not be said about other righteous people. The Gemara was correct in its understanding that saying that one fulfilled all of the Torah is equivalent to saying that he learned all of the Torah, for if he did not learn how could he fulfill? R’ Yochanan did not say that we cannot announce that a person learned all of the Torah. What he said is that we may not announce that he taught others all of the Torah. This praise is reserved only for those of Hizkiyah’s caliber.
According to Rabbeinu Tam and Rashi the greatest praise that could possibly be said about a person is that he taught others all of the Torah. This is reserved for Hizkiyah and others of his caliber. We may say that a person studied and fulfilled all of the Torah. Tosafot will now present the opinion of Sh’iltos of Rav Achai who has a radically different approach to our Gemara. His approach is based on a variant text.
According to the text of our Gemara, Rabbah bar Bar Chonoh asked R’ Yochanan about the issue that was discussed in our Gemara; is it so that we may not say that a righteous person fulfilled all of the Torah? R’ Yochanan’s response was directly about this issue and he answered that we may announce that a person fulfilled all of the Torah, but we may not announce that he taught all of the Torah.
According to the text of Shiltos Rabbah bar Bar Chonoh asked nothing about this issue, nor did R’ Yochanan say anything about it. The Gemara is analyzing R’ Yochanan’s behavior when faced with this dilemma. He was asked about a passage of Gemara while he needed to put on his t’filin. How did R’ Yochanan act?
In the Sh’iltos of Rav Achai Gaon, we do not have the text that R’ Yochanan responded we may say that he performed the Mitzvos but not that he taught. This issue was not raised at all. When Rabbah bar Bar Chonoh says that he was asking R’ Yochanan about a teaching, he was not referring to this issue at all. He was speaking about learning in general. He is saying that when I asked R’ Yochanan a question about what I was studying, this is how he behaved.
Rather, the text is: and he, R’ Yochanan, put on his T’filin and then told us the answer to our question and nothing more is in the text of the Gemara. There is no reference to the issue of what may be announced at a righteous person’s funeral.
And the Gemara asks: How did he put on t’filin first before he told them the teaching that they had asked him about? But study is greater than fulfilling and he should have taught them the Gemara that they needed to know, which is Torah study, before he put on his t’filin, which is performance of mitzvos, because studying takes precedence?
And the Gemara answers: This is speaking about learning and that is speaking about teaching. For learning oneself, study is greater because it leads one to fulfilling, but teaching others is not as vital and it is for this reason that he put on t’filin first before teaching Rabbah bar Bar Chonoh what he needed to know.
There is a radical difference between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam who both hold that the greatest honor that can be accorded to a person is to announce that he taught Torah to others and Sh’iltos who holds that teaching others is not as important as learning oneself.
We will return to you Arbo’oh Ovos!
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy