## Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III

###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:1
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:1)

אבל לפי תכונת ספר קהלת אשר עיקרו הוא חכמתו של שלמה כדאית' בברכות דנ"ז הרואה קהלת בחלום יצפה לחכמה, ול"מ למ"ד במגילה דף ז' דקהלת אינה ברוה"ק ורק חכמת שלמה היא, אפי' למ"ד דברוה"ק נאמרה ונכתבה מ"מ הא ודאי שאינה באותה תכונה שנאמר שה"ש ומשלי שעיקרן רוה"ק משא"כ קהלת נאמרו כל החקירות שבו בקהל חכמי הטבע וחוקרי זמנו בתוך רובי חכמותיו של שלמה אלא שלא ניתן לכתוב אלא זה הספר כהוכחת הגמ' שם מדכתיב אל תוסף על דבריו, ולמדנו שהופיע רוה"ק על דברי חכמה אלו שדבר שלמה בחקירה טבעית שהרי גם חכמת הטבע בריאה ממנו ית"ש.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
**CONFLICTING SCRIPTURAL AND TALMUDIC SOURCES REGARDING THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER ONE SHOULD STRIVE TO RISE ABOVE HIS INNATE INTELLECTUAL AND SPIRITUAL ABILITIES**
HOWEVER, THE MAIN character of the Book of Koheles is the wisdom of Solomon, as it states in Tractate *Berachos* 57b, “Whoever sees the Book of Koheles [in a dream] may anticipate acquiring wisdom.” This goes without saying for the opinion in Tractate *Megillah* 7a, that Ecclesiastes was not written with the Divine Spirit – it is merely Solomon’s wisdom – this is so even according to the opinion that says Koheles was written with the Divine Spirit. For certain [Koheles] was not written with the same character of Divine Spirit as was Song of Songs and Proverbs were written; the latter originated from the Divine Spirit – not so with Koheles. Interspersed among Solomon’s vast wisdom [in Koheles] are the results of investigations by the philosophers and scholars of natural science of his time [but the Divine Spirit influenced what was to be recorded and how they were to be expressed]. Only certain portions of his knowledge were permitted to be recorded [in Koheles,] as proven [in *Megillah* 7a] from the verse, “Do not add to its words.”¹ We infer from this that these words of wisdom spoken by Solomon were imbued with a Divine imprint even though they originated from his investigation of nature, for the wisdom of nature is also His creation, may He be blessed.²

footnotes:
¹ Prov. 30:6. This means that God limited what Solomon could write.
² In certain instances a prophet would use the words of earlier writers or, as in this case, from those investigating the natural sciences and philosophy, and modify them with the Divine Spirit.


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:2
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:2)

ונ"מ במה שהופיע ע"ז רוה"ק הוא בשתים. חדא שמזה ידענו בברור שהוא אמת ואין אדם יוכל לומר דשלמ' טעה באיזה חקירה כמו שאומרים דורות מאוחרים על חקירות של ארסטו וכדומה.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
There is a two-fold significance to knowing of this Divine influence. First, we know with certainty that these concepts [contained in Ecclesiastes] are [words of] truth, and no one can say that Solomon erred in any of his analyses, contrary to what the later generations say pertaining to the philosophies of Aristotle and the like.


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:3
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:3)

[ואף שהבעל שם טוב מפרש המורה נבוכים בח"ב פ"ח הבין דעת הרמב"ם דחכם עדיף מנביא גם בזה שאפשר שתהא טעות בדברי נבואה ח"ו, ושמח על מציאה זו ואמר כי זה המאמר יקר מכל כלי חמדה, אבל הוא חמד לצון מכל קודש ומצא אילן להתלות בו. וח"ו, שהרמב"ם לא כוון לזה אלא בא"א.]

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
[Addendum to Chapter 2]³ about the eternal truth of the words of the Prophets.
[THE SHEM TOV¹ (*The Guide of the Perplexed*) against the attacks of the traditionalists. on Part 2, chapter 8 of the *Moreh Nevuchim* understands the Rambam’s opinion to be that one who is wise [even in secular matters] is superior to a prophet, for the prophet’s words may contain errors, Heaven forbid. He [the Shem Tov] rejoiced in this finding, saying, “It is more valuable than any precious vessel.”² the Rambam discusses Aristotle’s rejection of the ancient belief that the motions of the heavenly spheres – the planets, sun and stars – produced powerful sounds. The Rambam states: “This belief is also widespread in our nation… and in this astronomical question, our sages have abandoned their own theory [and agreed with the Greek scientists]….” According to the Shem Tov, when the Rambam states, “This belief is also widespread in our nation,” he is referring to the prophet Ezekiel, who stated, “When they went I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of the great waters, like the waters of the Almighty….” The Shem Tov is of the opinion that this verse in Ezekiel refers to the sound generated by the heavenly spheres. Nevertheless, I say that he [the Shem Tov] delights in scoffing rather than finding that which is holy.³means “a precious vessel,” and *hemed*is the word for “delight.” He found a peg to hang it on, [i.e., an authority upon which to base his opinion]. Heaven forbid [that this should be the proper understanding of that section in *Moreh Nevuchim*], for the Rambam did not intend to express this [idea], but was referring to something else [i.e., the sages].⁴ as addressing the words of Ezekiel, for the Rambam clearly states “sages” with no reference to prophets. The Rambam is referring to *Yoma* 20b which states: “Were it not for the sound of the hordes of Rome, we would hear the sound of the sun rotating.” The sages believed that the motion of the sun produces sound.]

footnotes:
³ In the Addendum to Chapter 2, the Netziv rejects an interpretation of Moreh Nevuchim
¹ This is Shem Tov ben Joseph Ibn Falaquera, also spelled Palquera (c. 1225–1295). A Spanish-born Jewish philosopher and translator, he initiated reconciliation between Jewish Orthodoxy and philosophy and defended Maimonides’s work Moreh Nevuchim
² In that chapter of Moreh Nevuchim,
³ This is a play on words. Keli hemdah
⁴ It is difficult to interpret the Rambam’s words in Moreh Nevuchim


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:4
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:4)

שנית דאחר שהופיע רוה"ק על כתיבת זה הספר יש בו לדרוש אפי' שלא מענין הספר כמו שביארנו בקדמת השני אות ג' סגלת רוה"ק כך הוא, ובהא דפליגי במגלת אסתר ע"ש. והכי קיי"ל דקהלת ברוה"ק נאמרה ודורשין שלא מענין כדאי' בשבת ד"י עד מתי יושבין בדין עד ז"ס אר"ט מאי קרא ושריך בעת יאכלו בגבורה ולא בשתי הגבורה ש"ת ולא בשתיה של יין.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
Second, since the Divine Spirit had shone upon the writing of [Koheles], we can derive from it matters unrelated to its context. As we explained in Part 2, chapter 3, this is one of the virtues of what is written with the Divine Spirit. We used this concept there to explain the disagreement [in *Megillah* 7a–b] as to whether the Book of Esther was written with Divine inspiration, [which in turn would determine what laws could be derived from the Book of Esther].⁴ We hold that Koheles was written with the Divine inspiration, and thus we can derive from it matters unrelated to its context. [An example may be found] in Tractate *Shabbos* 10a: Until when do [judges] sit in judgment? Rav Sheshes says: Until the time for the main meal of the day.⁵ Rav Hama says [that this may be inferred] from the verse [in Koheles], “Woe to you, O land, whose king acts like an adolescent, and whose ministers dine in the morning. Happy are you, O land, whose king is a man of dignity, and whose ministers dine at the proper time – in strength and not in drunkenness.”⁶ [We infer from the words, “in strength and not in drunkenness”], that the judges should fortify themselves with the strength of Torah rather than by drinking wine.

footnotes:
⁴ The Netziv explained one sage to be interpreting the verse in relation to the context, since he believed that the Book of Esther was not written with Divine inspiration, whereas the other interprets the verse in a manner inconsistent with the context, since he believed it was written with the Divine Spirit.
⁵ The main meal is eaten at around noon.
⁶ Eccl. 10:16.


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:5
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:5)

וע' מש"כ שאילתא נ"א אות ב' דזה הפי' הוא שלא לפי הפשט, ובאגדה רבו דרשות שלא מענין, והכל הוא משום שהוא רוה"ק.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
See what I have written in *She’ilta* 51:2, how this explanation is not in line with the simple meaning of that verse.⁷ In the Aggadah one can find many derivations [from Koheles] that do not relate to its context, and these derivations [were possible only] because it was written with Divine inspiration.

footnotes:
⁷ The Netziv explains that according to the She’iltos the words, “whose ministers dine at the proper time – in strength and not in drunkenness,” is to be interpreted as: “The ministers” – the judges involved in communal matters, “at their accustomed time for eating” – usually prior to the fifth hour – are to be immersed in the strength of Torah, and not in drink. In other words, the judges must delay their meal until after the sixth hour (noon) in order to accommodate the masses who eat at approximately the fifth hour. Most people take care of their legal affairs in the morning, since they drink during lunch.


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:6
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:6)

אבל עיקר ענין ספר קהלת הוא חקירה חכמה טבעית, ומש"ה כתיבי כל האזהרות שבו בלשון אלהים שבו כתיב כל מעשה בראשית שהוא טבע העולם, וגם אין חכמי אוה"ע יודעים משם אחר זולת אלהים, כדאי' בסנהדרין ד' ס' אי בשם המיוחד מי גמירי, והוא דבר בחכמתו לפני חכמי אוה"ע ג"כ. ומש"ה נקרא הספר קהלת בלשון נקבה כמו שיבואר להלן אות ט' דנתכנה חכמת הטבע לגבי חכמת התורה בלשון נקבה, וה"נ הקהלה לדדרושי החקירה טבעית נקראת קהלת ולא הקהל.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
However, since the main theme of Koheles is the investigation of the natural sciences, this is why all [of Koheles’s] warnings [in this Book] are associated with [the name] *Elohim,* as the creations of the universe, i.e., the nature of the world, was written with the name *Elohim*.⁸ An additional [reason for using *Elohim* in Koheles] is because the nations of the world do not know of any of [His] names other than *Elohim*. This is stated in Tractate *Sanhedrin* 60a, [where R. Hiya says that one who hears a Divine Name being blasphemed nowadays is not obligated to rend his garment. The Talmud derives that R. Hiya is speaking of hearing an idol worshiper blaspheming God’s name, *Elohim*, and not the Specific Name.⁹ (unlike the Tetragrammaton) is subordinate because it can be used to identify other things such as a court, such as in Ex. 21:6. As the Talmud notes]: “If [R. Hiya’s statement] refers [to an idol worshipper] blaspheming the Specific Name, [we must object] – are idolaters familiar with that Name?” Since [Solomon] also taught wisdom to the scholars of the nations of the world, [he needed to use the name *Elohim*]. It is because of this [theme] the book is entitled *Koheles*,¹⁰ in the feminine.¹¹, denotes a form of comparative diminishment. The word, *Koheles*, meaning “one who gathers,” possesses the *tav*, and denotes a diminishment of the power or teaching associated with the gathering of people with Solomon. Since this gathering involved transmitting knowledge to the non-Jews as well, it is not the more powerful gathering that consists of the transmission of Torah, but rather the gathering associated with Solomon transmitting worldly knowledge. As explained later in chapter 9, when comparing the sciences to the Torah, the feminine form is used.¹², “daughter,” possessing the letter *tav*, whereas a Torah Scholar is referred to as *beni*. Here too, [regarding Koheles], the gathering [of scholars] to investigate the natural sciences is called *Koheles* rather than *Hikahel*.¹³: “[Why was Solomon] called *Koheles*? Because his words were uttered *be-hikahel* [in public assembly], as it is written, ‘Solomon *yakhel*, assembled’” (I Kings 8:1). It would thus be more appropriate for Solomon to be called *hikahel*.

footnotes:
⁸ See for example Gen. 1:1.
⁹ The name Elohim
¹⁰ This means “gathering.”
¹¹ According to the Netziv, the feminine form, usually consisting of the addition of the letter tav
¹² A secular scholar is represented by bas
¹³ See Koheles Rabbah


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:7
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:7)

אחרי שכן למדנו דאזהרות ועונשים שעליהם שבספר קהלת הוא הכל בדרך שכל אנושי ושהטבע נותן כן ולא יעבור אם לא בדרך למעלה מה"ט, א"כ יש להבין פי' אזהרות אלו ועונשים שמגיע עליהם בדרך הטבע ולהשתוממות הדעת.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
[With this understanding], we learn that the warnings [and their associated] punishments that are written in Ecclesiastes [operate] in a manner [that is consistent] with human logic and where the laws of nature dictate a particular result. One should not disobey [these warnings] unless [one is able somehow to operate in a manner] that is above nature. Therefore, one should understand [that according to the simple meaning of these verses], the intent of these warnings and their associated punishments are scientifically based, and result in madness.


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:8
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:8)

אלא נראה לפרש עוד אל תצדק הרבה, היינו שלא להצטדק באזהרות התורה הן אוה"ע הן ישראל יותר ממה שחייבתם התורה היינו במקום דשכיחא הזיקא של סכ"נ, ובזה לא נאמר שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע ובזה המקום אסור לעשות מצוה זו, וכדאיתא בפסחים ד"ח חור שבין יהודי לארמאי בודק עד מקום שידו מגעת פלימו א' א"צ ומפרש בגמרא מפני הסכנה ואף ע"ג דשלוחי מצוה אינן ניזוקין מכל מקום היכא דשכיחא הזיקא שאני, ולא שפטור אלא שאסור לסכן עצמו

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
Along these lines, “do not be overly righteous” means that [one should] not be overly zealous with the warnings of the Torah, whether one is a Gentile or a Jew, and perform more than what is required by the Torah, since doing so may result in harm so great that life is endangered. The verse, “He who obeys the commandment will know no evil”¹⁴ does not apply to this situation,¹⁵ on Num. 7:89. for in circumstances [where harm may result], a person is forbidden to perform a mitzvah. As it states in Tractate *Pesahim* 8b, [regarding the search for leaven on the eve of Passover], “[R. Nahman ben Yitzhak says that] if there is a hole in the [adjoining] wall between the dwellings of a Jew and an Aramean, he searches as far as his hand can reach.” However, [we follow the opinion of] Pleimo that he does not need to search at all, and the Gemara explains that there is no need to search at all since it involves danger.¹⁶ Even though we hold “those sent to perform a mitzvah are not harmed,”¹⁷ 8a. this rule does not apply when there is a likelihood of danger. The Talmud is not saying that one is exempt from searching for leaven. It is saying that one is *not allowed*to do so when there is a likelihood of danger.

footnotes:
¹⁴ Eccl. 8:5.
¹⁵ To counter the argument that if a mitzvah is performed as directed by God it will result in harm, Koheles states: “He who obeys the commandment will know no evil” – no harm will result from performing the mitzvos as the King has directed. See Harhev Davar
¹⁶ There is concern that if the Aramean notices the Jewish neighbor inserting a candle into the hole of an adjoining wall, he will harm the Jew, suspecting him of practicing witchcraft.
¹⁷ Pesahim


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:9
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:9)

כמו שלמדו מהא דשמואל הנביא שאמר איך אלך ושמע שאול והרגני, ולא התחסד להסתכן במקום דשכיחא הזיקא. והיינו דאי' בב"ק דס"א בהא שהלכו שלשת הגבורים במסירת נפש לשאול דבר הלכה אמר דוד כך מקובלני מב"ד של שמואל שהמוסר נפשו על ד"ת אין אומרים דבר הלכה משמו. והטעם ע"ז הוא משום שעשה שלא כהוגן והוי כהא דאי' בע"ג דל"ה לא תשתעו מיני' דאיבו כו' ופי' הר"ן בשם הגאונים שאין אומרים דבר הלכה משמו בשביל שעשה שלא כהוגן, וה"נ שלא כדין עשו הגבורים שמסרו נפשם לסכנה, והיינו אזהרה דאל תצדק הרבה.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
The Talmud [must be saying that one may not search], as it derives this rule from the Prophet Samuel, who [when charged by God to go and anoint David as king] protested, “How can I go? If Saul finds out, he will kill me.”¹⁸ Samuel did not feign piety by placing himself in danger when there was a likelihood of harm.¹⁹ [This can also be inferred] from Tractate *Bava Kamma* 61a–b, regarding the three mighty men of David [who risked their lives] by breaking into the camp of the Philistines [in order] to ask the Sanhedrin a halachic question. King David refused to relate this ruling in the name of the three warriors, as he said, “So have I received a tradition from the Court of Samuel the Ramathite: ‘We do not cite any halachic statement in the name of one who surrenders himself to death on account of the words of the Torah.’” The reason [for David’s declaration] was that the three mighty men behaved improperly [by placing their lives in danger for the sake of that mitzvah]. Similarly, [Rava]²⁰ stated in Tractate *Avodah Zarah* 35b regarding Aivu, who [practiced against the rulings of the Sages] by eating the bread of an idolater: “Do not cite Aviu because he eats Aramean bread.” The Ran cites in the name of the Geonim that Rava was stating that no halachah may be cited in his name because he acted improperly.²¹ The three mighty men [of David] also did not act properly when they subjected themselves to danger [for the sake of a mitzvah]. This is the meaning of the warning, “Do not be overly righteous.”

footnotes:
¹⁸ I Sam. 16:2. Even though God commanded Samuel to anoint David, Samuel was concerned that Saul might kill him for doing so. Therefore, God told Samuel to take a calf with him so that it would appear that he was going in that direction in order to offer sacrifice.
¹⁹ The Netziv argues that Pleimo’s statement “There is no need” should be interpreted as “there is no need to search,” since it is forbidden to endanger oneself. If Pleimo was saying that searching is optional, then this law should not be derived from how Samuel refused to obey God’s command. Later on, the Netziv will discuss why God initially asked Samuel to endanger himself.
²⁰ Some say this was stated by R. Nahman ben Yitzhak.
²¹ The rulings, in any area, of a halachic authority who violates Halachah must not be cited. The three mighty men who violated the Torah by endangering their lives in order to perform a mitzvah are similar to a halachic authority who violates any other command of the Torah, such as eating bread made by an Aramean.


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:10
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:10)

והזהיר עוד ואל תתחכם יותר הוא מענין אזהרה ראשונה ובא"א, היינו שלא יעפיל להתחכם יותר מחלקו וכחו שזכה בעת מ"ת והוא ניכר מתכונת האיש ולפי שכלו ועל שתי אזהרות אלו אמר טעם טבעי למה תשומם שהמצטדק לעמוד במקום סכנה ומחקה בטחונו שזכות המצוה תעמוד לו ולא עלה בידו קרוב לצאת מדעתו, וכן המעפיל להתחכם יותר מכח שכלו קרוב לאבד דעתו ביגיעו הרבה על כל פרט ופרט שהוא למעלה מכחו. זהו הנראה לפי הפשט.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
Solomon’s additional warning, “Do not be overly wise,” is related to the first clause, [“Do not be overly righteous”]. In other words, he warns not to strive to be wiser than the capacity we merited to receive at the time of the giving of the Torah. This potential is recognizable from a person’s makeup and intellect. Pertaining to these two warnings, [Solomon] wrote in accordance [with the laws] of nature: “Why become demented?” For he who is overly confident that his righteousness will enable him to endure a dangerous situation, being overly confident that the merit of a mitzvah will stand him in good stead ─ when he fails, he is likely to become insane. Similarly, he who strives to become wiser than his mental capacity is likely to destroy his intellect in any area [of study] he toils to understand that is beyond his mental capacity. This appears to be the simple meaning of this verse.


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:11
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:11)

אבל א"כ קשה שהרי ראינו מאמרים באגדת חז"ל להיפך. בשבת דפ"ג אי' אין ד"ת מתקיימן אלא במי שממית עצמו עליה שנאמר זאת התורה אדם כי ימות באוהל, ואין לפרש משמעות ממית כעין הפי' בתמיד דל"ב מה יעשה אדם ויחיה א"ל ימית א"ע ופי' המפרש ישפיל את עצמו, ור"ל יאבד את הרגשותיו על העדר הכבוד והרצון שמבטל ומפריע כח התורה כדאי' בעירובין דנ"ד מ"ד וממדבר מתנה אם משים אדם עצמו כמדבר הזה שהכל דשין בו תלמודו מתקיים בידו ועוד יש הרבה מאמרים כאלה, ויהי' פי' בהא דשבת הנ"ל שממית עצמו באוהל עושה עצמו כמת שאינו מרגיש בהבלים אלו.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
However, one can argue [against this interpretation], as we see many Aggadic statements where our Sages of blessed memory seem to convey the opposite [point of view]. Tractate *Shabbos* 83b states, “The words of Torah are retained only by one who *memis* [kills himself] over them, as it states, ‘This is the Torah [law] concerning a person when *yamus*, he dies in a tent’ (Deut. 19:14).” One cannot retort that *memis* is not be taken literally as “kills himself,” but [as “deadening” one’s sensitivity to pride]. This would accord with Tractate *Tamid* 32a: “What should a person do so that he may live [spiritually]? He should kill himself.” The *Mefaresh*²² refers to a Rishon of unclear identity. explains that the phrase “kill himself” means that he should lower himself [make himself modest], implying that he should eliminate his sensitivity to not receiving [sufficient] honor or [being unable to exercise his own] desires,²³ 2:4, “Treat His Will as if it were your own will, so that He will treat your will as if it were His Will. Nullify your will before His will, so that He will nullify the will of others before your will.” for those sensitivities can nullify or disturb the power of the Torah. Tractate *Eruvin* 54a states, “R. Mattena said: ‘What is the meaning of “From the wilderness is Mattanah?”²⁴ If a man allows himself to be treated as a wilderness on which everybody treads, his study will be retained by him. Otherwise it will not.’”²⁵ can also be translated as “gift.” If a person allows himself to be treated as a wilderness, he will receive the Torah as a gift. There are many other similar [Aggadic] statements. Therefore, [one could strongly argue] that the previously cited statement from Tractate *Shabbos*, “one who kills himself over them,” refers to one who makes himself similar to the dead by [deadening his sensitivities and] ignoring these vanities.

footnotes:
²² The term Mefaresh
²³ See Avos
²⁴ Num. 21:18.
²⁵ The word matanah


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:12
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:12)

אבל אאל"כ שהרי בגיטין דנ"ו ב' דריש על הא דכתיב כי עליך הורגנו כל היום רנב"י א' אלו ת"ח שממיתין עצמן על ד"ת כדרשב"ל דא' רשב"ל אין ד"ת מתקיימין אלא במי שממית עצמו עליה, הרי דמפרש דעושה תכונת לימודו באופן שאלו הי' עושה כן בחכמה אחרת הי' קרוב למות אלא שזכות התורה עומדת לו, והכי משמע גוף הדרשה כי ימות באוהל, משמע בשעה שיושב והוגה באוהל תורה, ואלו לפי' הראשון בע"כ צריך לבטל עצמו ולהיות כמדבר אפי' בשעה שאינו באוהל, אלא ע"כ הפי' כמשמעו, שמוסר עצמו להסתכן בלמודו.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
However, it is impossible to explain [Tractate *Shabbos*] in this manner because of the manner in which Tractate *Gittin* 56b,²⁶ cites many stories of those who sacrificed their lives for the Torah. explains that same statement: For Your sake we are killed all the day long, we are counted as sheep for the slaughter” (Psalms 44:23). R. Nahman ben Yitzhak stated: “[This verse] can be applied to the students who kill themselves for the words of the Torah, in accordance with the saying of R. Shimeon ben Lakish, who said: ‘The words of the Torah reside only with one who kills himself for them, as Scripture states, “This is the Torah law concerning when a man dies in a tent.”’” We see that the Talmud says explicitly that if one attacks his learning in such a way that if he would take the same approach with other forms of wisdom, it would result in his death ─ the merit of the Torah protects him. This [interpretation aligns well] with the inference from, “when a man dies *in* a tent.” For we infer that he [can act in a manner that is dangerous] *specifically when*he is dwelling and meditating in the tent of Torah. Whereas, according to the former explanation, [i.e., “kills himself” means that he is to kill his sense of vanity, this interpretation] would have to apply even when a person is *not*in the tent.²⁷ Therefore, one must conclude that the explanation is, as it says, that he endangers himself with his studies.

footnotes:
²⁶ I found it on 57b. Gittin
²⁷ One would need to guard himself from arrogance at every moment.


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:13
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:13)

והכי מצינו בהלל שסכן עצמו על ד"ת בדאי' ביומא ספ"ג והיא שעמדה לו לעלות לראש חכמי ישראל, וכן ר"א הגדול כדתני' באדר"נ ובראש פרקי דר"א שלא אכל כמה ימים והסתכן בשביל ד"ת, ובכתובות ס"פ המדיר אי' בריב"ל דהוי כריך עם בעלי ראתן ועסק עמם בתורה ובטח על זכות התורה דאגני ומצלי, וה"ז להיפך מפירושנו באל תצדק הרבה, והוכחנו מסוגי' דב"ק דס"א, וכן באזהרה דאל תתחכם יותר ראינו בעירובין דנ"ד לא בשמים היא שאם בשמים היא צריך אתה לעלות אחריה וביארנו בשאילתא י"ט דזה המאמר אינו כמשמעו אלא שאם הוא למעלה משכלך וקשה להשיגו כמו דבר שמונח בשמים צריך אתה להתיגע ולהתחכם להוריד.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
So did Hillel endanger himself for the words of Torah, as stated at the end of the third chapter of Tractate *Yoma*.²⁸. One day, he earned no money and the guard at the *beis ha-midrash* would not permit him to enter. Hillel climbed up on the roof and listened through the skylight so that he could hear the words of the living God from the mouths of Shemayah and Avtalion. It was Shabbos eve in the middle of winter, and snow began to fall. When the dawn rose, Shemayah said, ‘Brother Avtalion, every day this house is light and today it is dark. Is it a cloudy day?’ They looked up and saw the figure of a man on the skylight. They went up and found Hillel covered with three cubits of snow. They took him down, bathed him, and placed him in front of the fire. They said, ‘This man deserves to have us violate Shabbos on his behalf.’" It was [that quality of sacrifice] that stood him in good stead to ascend as the leader of all of the Sages of Israel. Similarly, Rabbi Eliezer the Great,²⁹ as it is taught in *Avos de-Rabbi Nassan*³⁰ 3. and in the beginning of *Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer*, that he did not eat for many days and endangered himself for the sake of the words of the Torah. Also in Tractate *Kesubos* at the end of the chapter entitled *Ha-moder*,³¹ [it relates] that R. Yehoshua ben Levi would mingle with those who were stricken with [the contagious disease] *ra’asan*³² and study Torah with them, as he relied on the merit of the Torah to protect him. He was spared from harm. This is just the opposite of the way we explained, “Do not be overly righteous,” and what we had proven from *Bava Kamma* 61a–b [pertaining to how the three mighty men of King David acted wrongly to endanger their lives for the Torah]. We also learn this concept from Tractate *Eruvin* 54,³³ [that states:] “‘It is not in Heaven,’³⁴ for if it were in Heaven, you should have gone up after it.” We explained in [*Ha’amek She’elah*] 19:4, that this statement is not to be understood literally, rather as: if it is “above” [beyond the capability] of your intellect, and it is difficult to achieve, as [if it were] something that is placed in the heavens, you are required to toil thereby becoming wise [enough] by bringing it “down” [i.e., within your grasp of understanding].³⁵

footnotes:
²⁸ 35b. “Every day Hillel would work and earn one tropaik. Half would go for his food and family, while the other half he would give to the guard at the beis ha-midrash
²⁹ This is R. Eliezer ben Horkenus.
³⁰ Chapter 6, os
³¹ 77b.
³² A contagious type of skin disease that carries a symptom of great weakness.
³³ I found it at 55a.
³⁴ Deut. 30:12.
³⁵ Verses 12–14 state: “It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven and acquire it for us, and inform us of it so that we may fulfill it?’ Nor is it across the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will travel across the sea and acquire it for us, and inform us of it so that we may fulfill it?’ The matter is very close to you; in your mouth and in your mind to fulfill it.” The Netziv explains that there is a difference between what is expressed by the parable of it not being in heaven versus traveling overseas. Traveling overseas, as explained in the Talmud, refers to traveling as far as necessary to find the proper rabbi from whom to learn. The parable of ascending into the heavens cannot possibly refer to traveling a great distance, as it is impossible to ascend to the heavens. Rather it is referring to one being discouraged from acquiring a deep understanding of the Torah due to its difficulty to comprehend and its great holiness. God therefore states that it is within our grasp, for if you apply great toil in study in order to acquire various forms of knowledge and skills in analysis, you will achieve it.


###### Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:14
[Haamek Sheilah on Sheiltot d'Rav Achai Gaon, Kidmat HaEmek, Part III 2:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Haamek%20Sheilah%20on%20Sheiltot%20d%27Rav%20Achai%20Gaon/s/Kidmat%20HaEmek,_Part%20III/r/2:14)

ובכתובות דס"ג בהא דר"ע התחכם הרבה וקאמר שם אדעתא דגברא רבה מי גדרת, הקשו התוס' הא הוי נולד ויישבו שאין זה פלא וחדוש כ"כ שנעשה גדול דדרך הוא בהולך ללמוד שנעשה אדם גדול, הרי אפי' באדם פשוט שלא הי' נראה הכשר בו ללמוד תורה כמו ר"ע שהי' בור, ובאדר"נ תני' שהמשיל ר"ע עצמו בשעה שהחל ללמוד לאבן דמים הנוטפין תדיר עושים פעולה, והרי הצליח באופן שאין למעלה ממנו ושלא כדברינו באזהרה דאל תתחכם יותר.

**The path of Torah, introduction to Ha'amek she'elah. Trans. by Elchanan Greenman. Urim, 2009:**
Also in Tractate *Kesubos* 63a regarding R. Akiva, [when he returned home as a great sage, his father-in-law,³⁶ hearing that a great scholar had come to his town, approached R. Akiva (not realizing that R. Akiva was his son-in-law) in order to request an annulment of his vow in which he disowned his daughter for having married him. When he completed his request, R. Akiva] asked, “Would you have made your vow if you had known that he was a great man?” [His father-in-law replied, “No, even if he had known but one chapter or even a single halachah.*”*“Akiva then said to him, ‘I am the man’. The other fell upon his face and kissed his feet and also gave him half of his wealth”]. Tosafos³⁷ questions [why R. Akiva was allowed to suggest to his father-in-law an opening to absolution for a vow, as Akiva became a great Sage *after*the vow had been made], and it is thus considered to be *nolad*, [i.e., a different set of circumstances existed when the vow had been uttered]?³⁸ [an expert judge], such as R. Akiva. In order to annul a vow, the one who took it must express regret for it. The court or *mumheh* provides an opening for this expression of regret. *Nedarim* 63a states that according to the sages, if a *nolad*, new fact, arises after the vow, it cannot be used for such an opening. Tosafos therefore questions how R. Akiva could provide an opening to his father-in-law since a particular event – his becoming a great scholar – occurred after the vow was made. Tosafos answers: Since R. Akiva had been a student at the academy at the time of the vow, it would not have been considered unusual for Akiva to become a great scholar, as it is likely that those who go to the academy [to study Torah] become great men. Thus we see that [even] a simple man who does not seem competent to study Torah, such as R. Akiva who was illiterate, [can overcome his intellectual deficits]. Also, *Avos de-Rabbi Nassan*³⁹ relates how R. Akiva, at the time he began to pursue his studies, felt that just as a stone’s [shape] was changed by a constant drip of water, [so he, by constant study, could sharpen his mind and achieve knowledge]. He became so successful that there was no [scholar] greater than he. This is [obviously] unlike the way we explained the warning, “Do not be overly wise,” [that a person should not strive to achieve wisdom beyond his inborn capabilities].

footnotes:
³⁶ Ben Kalba Sabua, who was one of the three richest men of Jerusalem at the time of Vespasian’s siege.
³⁷ See Tosafos s.v. Ada’ata de-gavra rabbah mi nedart.
³⁸ If one wishes to annul a vow he requires three ordinary judges, or a mumheh
³⁹ Chapter 6.