עין יעקב (Well of Jacob — Aggadic Talmud, Vilna 1883)

The constellations [moving] from West to East. One will find that the Bear is in the North and Scorpio in the South, and they do not move from their place, and the left one will not see the right, nor the right the left, as is known to those who understand this matter and understand the subject of astronomy. There is no doubt that Rabbi's answer to them—that he thought their opinion was that the movement of the sphere is between North and South—his answer is refuted: "We never saw," etc. Rav Aha raised a doubt regarding this answer, saying: "Perhaps it is like the hub of a millstone," etc., "like the hinge of a door." That is to say, if the sphere in its entirety moves, the constellations stand in their place, and the sphere revolves inside the circle, just as the millstones move inside the loops that turn it, and the wood standing inside it is established and stands in its place. So it is with the sphere revolving and the circle of the constellations standing, preserving its place, and the left and the right, the East and the West, do not move. This is the explanation of "the hub of a millstone" and the explanation of "the hinge of a door." That is to say, just as the door revolves and moves on its place, as the hinge revolves where the door revolves on its pivot—that the main part of the door revolves and its place changes, but the hinge stands and does not move. The truth is that this is far-fetched, and more far-fetched than "fixed sphere and revolving constellations." There is no need for all of this, since it is verified that the movement of the sphere is between the Eastern and Western sides, as we have explained. He said at the end of the chapter "The Baraita": "The Sages of Israel say: By day the sun travels below the firmament, and at night above the firmament." This opinion is without a doubt attached to [the idea of] a fixed sphere and revolving constellations. The sages of the nations of the world say: "By day the sun travels above the earth, and at night below the earth." This opinion is without a doubt attached to [the idea of] a revolving sphere and fixed constellations. And when Rabbi heard these things, which are conclusions from the premises they disagreed upon at the start, he decided in favor of the opinion of the sages of the nations of the world with this proof: that he said, "Their words seem correct, for in the day the springs are cold, and at night the springs are hot." Now, even though this proof is weak and fragile as you see, now contemplate what they taught us in this Baraita, and how precious is the thing they learned: that Rabbi did not look at the opinion of these except through the way of proofs, without sparing the feelings of the Sages of Israel or the sages of the nations of the world. He decided in favor of the opinion of the sages of the nations of the world because of this proof that he thought was an acceptable proof: that in the day the springs are cold and at night the springs are hot. Contemplate the wisdom of this secret: that Rabbi did not rule according to the opinion of the sages of the nations of the world, but he decided their opinion based on a weighing of the intellect by the proof we mentioned. This is what he said, "Their words seem correct"—a word indicating a decision. If it had been verified to him by proof and evidence that the sphere revolves and the constellations are fixed, he would have ruled the law according to them, as others of the Sages—of blessed memory—did in other opinions, where they said: "The sages of the nations of the world defeated the Sages of Israel." In truth, this master is called our Holy Rabbi; for when a person throws away falsehood from his face and upholds the truth, and decides it according to its truth, and retracts his opinion when its opposite is verified to him, there is no doubt that he is holy. Thus, it is verified to us that the Sages—of blessed memory—do not examine opinions and do not look at them except from the aspect of their truth and their proofs, not because of whoever says them, whoever he may be. And after this premise, I say: And from there I ask further about the contemplation of truth, for all the homilies found in their words—of blessed memory—in the Talmud and other places are divided into five parts:

The First Part of the types of homilies are those taken according to their literal meaning; they did not intend anything else in them other than the literal and what appears to the eyes of those who study them. This part, even though it is clear and does not need an example, I will inform you of its nature for additional clarity. It is like the matter that he said in Tractate Berakhot: "Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: It is forbidden for a person to fill his mouth with laughter in this world, as it is said: 'Then our mouth will be filled with laughter,' etc." Psalm 126:2.

The Second Part are the homilies that have an external and an internal [meaning]. The intention is the internal matter, not the external, literal matter. They gave it an external matter that is the opposite of the internal matter for a great benefit. Most of them have already been explained, though not all, in The Guide for the Perplexed and in the Commentary on the Mishnah. An example of this part is what he said in the Gemara of Ta'anit: "Rabbi Elazar said: In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will make a dance for the righteous in the Garden of Eden, and He will stand among them, and each one will point with his finger, as it is said: 'And he shall say in that day, Behold, this is our God; we waited for Him,' etc." Isaiah 25:9.

The literal interpretation of this homily is far from every possessor of intellect and every possessor of faith to believe. For the true matter that Rabbi Elazar intended, which concerns the righteous mentioned for the life of the world to come, is their attainment of the Name—may He be blessed—which they could not attain in this world by any means. This is the ultimate good, above which there is nothing. He compared the joy of that attainment to the joy of a dance. Similarly, he compared the joy of each one—that which he could not attain before from Him—by saying: "And each one will point with his finger." He brought proof for the escape of the intellectual soul from anger and heat in this world by saying "and He will save us." He brought proof for the glory and the true honor that will be for the righteous then by saying "We will rejoice and be glad in His salvation." This is the ultimate of language and the perfection of the matter: to convey the meaning of noble and lofty matters in short words and few expressions. By this, you shall consider everything similar to it.

The Third Part are homilies that have no internal meaning, but the intention of their words is according to their literal meaning only. However, the knowledge of the literal meaning of these homilies and contemplating it is very difficult for most students, so that it is not understood. If it is understood, the state of its meaning will be incomplete or not as it should be. Sometimes, from the abundance of the homilies of this part, the opposite of their intention may appear due to the difficulty of the subjects and the ambiguity of the words, which are spoken with the ambiguity of both meanings. This part is difficult and hidden, and close to the part before it, but in some places it is more difficult and hidden. Therefore, one must be careful with it and not quickly decide an interpretation, lest one come to err and depart from the path. An example of this part is what he said in the Gemara of Berakhot: "A person should always incite his good inclination against his evil inclination, as it is said: 'Tremble and do not sin' Psalm 4:5. If he conquers it, good; if not, he should recite the Shema, as it is said: 'Upon your beds' Psalm 4:5. If he conquers it, good; if not, he should remember the day of death, as it is said: 'And be silent forever' Psalm 4:5." Here, it intended nothing but its literal meaning, but contemplating the literal meaning is difficult because the definition of "good inclination" and "evil inclination" are hidden, and the reasons he mentioned are difficult to understand. I will awaken you to understand it so that you may consider everything similar to it in this way. I say that the language "incite" yargiz means to give dominion and rule. The good inclination is the intellect, and the evil inclination is the desire of the body and the like. The intention of the matter is that a person must give dominion and rule to his intellect over the pleasure of his body, and raise this in his thought always. If this is sufficient for him for the subduing of the desire, good; and if not, he should add to the thought and ponder wisdom, and bring forth with his lips verses and words that will promise him and clarify the subduing of the desire, and prevent his thought from departing and pondering another thing. He should recite the Shema, and contemplate its meaning, and bring it to his heart. He should dedicate the Shema for two reasons: The first is the refinement and weakening, because the verse said "upon your beds," and in the Shema it is said "when you lie down," which is a gezerah shavah verbal analogy and words by way of logic. The second is the strengthening, because in the Shema there is the memory of the greatness of the ultimate good inclination, and the unity, and the love, and the service, and the vengeance and payment, and the subduing of the evil inclination in saying "do not stray," and the strengthening of the good inclination in saying "you shall be holy to your God." Afterwards, they said "If he conquers it, good," etc., meaning: If the evil [inclination] raises its pride and arrogance and the uncircumcised [heart] is not subdued by the articulation of lips in those verses mentioned in the Shema, then he should subdue it by remembering the day of death and the end of all men. This is sufficient for the breaking of the evil inclination and the subduing of its pride, as in the matter that Akiva ben Mahalalel said: "Look at three things and you will not come," etc.

The Fourth Part is what he says in the interpretation of verses by way of the delights of poetry. It is not that they believe the meaning of the verse is the meaning of that homily—far be it!—but it is what the Sages—of blessed memory—said: "A scriptural text is one thing, and a homily is another." An example of this part is what they said in the Gemara of Ta'anit: "Rabbi Yochanan said: What is written 'You shall surely tithe' Deuteronomy 14:22? 'Tithe, so that you may become rich'." And just as they said there in the explanation and its precision: "And I will pour out for you a blessing until there is no room" Malachi 3:10—until your lips weary of saying "enough." Similarly, everything like it. Do not let it enter your mind that every homily on one of the verses is—as one who has not reached true knowledge believes—that they say this is a tradition in the blood, as it is in the fundamentals of the Torah and the traditions. The matter is not so. Rather, know that it is an interpretation of verses (for one who has not reached) that are not dependent upon the fundamentals of the religion, nor on a law of the laws of the Torah; they are not a tradition in their hands, but there are some among them according to the weighing of the intellect, and there are among them things that are pleasant and accepted by way of the delights of poetry. He borrows words and subjects that they can bear and brings them out. How many times [is it] by way of the study of understanding in the delights of poetry? For I do not doubt the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua in the chapter "And Jethro heard": "What report did he hear and come? He heard of the war of Amalek and came." For this is by way of the weighing of the intellect that he said it, and not from a tradition. A proof for this is that they said: "For so it is written beside it." If it were a tradition in his hand, he would not need a proof for his interpretation. Another proof is that we see other Sages—besides Rabbi Yehoshua—in the chapter hold a different opinion. If the matter were a tradition, they would not disagree about it; for Rabbi Elazar said: "He heard of the giving of the Torah and came," and he also brought a proof for his interpretation. And Rabbi Eliezer says: "He heard of the report of the Red Sea and came," and he also brought a proof for his interpretation. Similarly, there is no doubt in my eyes that the words of the one who says in the interpretation of "Speak to the children of Israel and they shall travel" Exodus 14:15: "He caused them to travel from evil"—that this is by way of the study of understanding in the delights of poetry, and not according to the religion. You will find among the Sages—of blessed memory—homilies of this part without a doubt, so that it will not be an interpretation of the homilies of the verses, but homilies standing by themselves, as he said in the Gemara: "Rabbi Chana taught... [that] it is like the matter... [of] Sihon... [of] Og. Sihon—for he is like a steed siah in the desert." [It is] a matter regarding the name of his kingdom. And what is his name? Og is his name. It is close that the majority of the homilies found in their words—of blessed memory—are of this part, for it is the truth that no one disputes except a simpleton or a fool. For this part of their words is divided into many parts in the beginning of subjects.