Has any mention been made of this parallel?
Not to be born surpasses everything, but when a man has been born, to return to whence he came as soon as possible is by far the next best thing, since when youth is present bringing light folly, who escapes being full of troubles ? what labour is absent from him ? Murders, seditions, quarrel, battles and envy, and last on the top of all comes detestable, powerless, unsociable, friendless old age, where all evils coexist together, in which this wretched man (not I alone) being, as some northern wave-battered stormy coast is agitated from all quarters, so also terrible calamities like vast seas ever with him overwhelmingly agitate him} same coming from the setting of the sun, some from the east, some from the mid-day south, and some from the sunless Rhipae.
Tragedies of Sophocles (A common theme in Greek tragedies)
and
Our Rabbis taught: for two and a half years, the house of Shammai and the house of Hillel argued. One side said: “It is (“Noach”) better for man not to have been created than to have been created,” and the other side said, “it is better for man to have been created than not.” They voted and concluded: better for man that he had not been created. (Eruvin 13b)
In this case, the parallel may not be significant. Already Yirmiyahu (20:14-18), lamented his birth and it is a short step from there to philosophical speculation on the merits of existence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
DF
It could be. There was a lot of Greek influence on Jews. There is an old aggada somewhere [I saw it inside many years ago, forget where] describing a meeting between . . . Aristotle and Jeremiah, I think. Not sure. The dates dont work, I know. But it was one of the big 3 Greek philospohers, and one of the Nevii'im of Tanach.
DF
DF
For some reason I am thinking it was cited in Toras Haolah of Rama, but it was so long ago, could be wrong.
There is no such Rama not in Toras Haolah or anywhere else.
However, over the last century we find many sources quoting this story in the name of Rama. I don't know how this started.
Anon 9:52;
You seem pretty sure of yourself, most probably because you have learnt the whole Toras HaOlah you find the courage to make such a comment. But even if this is the case, aren't you infallable just like the rest of us? Even amongst chazal we find "אישתמיטתיה להא וכו ," likewise, in a case like this we would apply the ruling שכחה אונס הוי (see Birkei Yosef O.C. 108;6, Afarkasta D'ania, Mishne Halachos vol. 3 s. 87;v'hine, Divrei Yatziv Y.D. 104 - I trust you'll keep reviewing).
However if you did not learn through it, then you'd have to be pretty brazen to exclaim "there is no such Rama" , wouldn't you agree?
In short, the passage qouted by "many sources quoting this story in the name of Rama" is I believe found in the aforementioned sefer vol. 1 ch. 11. Now, first check, then comment (I agree it is not with the exact names, but it definitley is fairly close enough. There too he qoutes what he has seen that the earlier gentile philosophers were in communication with some of our Nevi'im - the names escaped me - and alot of their thought was based on our Tora views etc.).
www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14100&st=&pgnum=24&hilite=
You, the reader, be the judge, if the story appears there. The hyperbole too is unprecedented...
Post a Comment