The gemara's hava amina is that the word "vayihi" by itself is a loshon tzar, but then rejects this because of some counter examples and says instead that the loshon of "vayihi bimay" is instead.
However, in Ester rabbah, the hava amina is raised, the same objections are brought up, but they are answered. Why does the gemara not like the teretz of the medrash?
David Manheim, Har nof, Israel / Atlanta, Ga, USA
The Gemara proves that Vayehi cannot always imply Tza'ar from the verses "Vayehi Erev Vayehi Boker" that are repeated for the six days of creation. The Midrash in Esther Raba (Pesichta #11) asks also from "Vayehi Or." It answers these "Vayehi"s by asserting that the there was sorrow by the creation of the heavens and earth since they would eventually cease to exist, and by the other days since the creations of those days were not complete; wheat requires grinding and baking etc. The creation of Light was sorrowful since it was hidden away immediately after it was created.
As to why our Gemara did not accept these answers, I would suggest the following:
(a) A telling reference that puts the answers of the Midrash Raba in perspective is the Midrash Bereishis Raba 42:3, which adds one word to these answers. It states not that these Vayehis did not represent a Simcha, but that they did not represent a full Simchah . That is, there certainly is nothing sorrowful about the creation of the world, per se. However the joy of creation was incomplete , since something was still lacking in creation (i.e. the heavens and earth would eventually expire, and the rest or creation was not fully prepared for use).
If so, the Midrash need not disagree with the statement of our Gemara. Our Gemara refuted the claim that "Vayehi" always represents sorrow since these "Vayehi"s do not herald a cause for mourning and sorrow. The Midrash makes another postulate, namely that Vayehi represents a joy that is lacking in some respect, and it defends that postulate appropriately. Our Gemara might agree to this statement of the Midrash.
(By the way, your statement that in the Midrash "the same objections are brought up, but they are answered" is inaccurate. The Midrash does not explain why "Vayehi" is appropriate in the verse discussing the building of the First Temple and in Yakov's meeting with Rachel, which the Gemara cites as additional proofs that Vayehi is not Tza'ar. However, the answers the Midrash would give to these verses can be learned from Rashi Bereishis 29:11 (Yakov cried at the time he met Rachel since he saw that Rachel would not be buried with him) and Rashi Shemos 38:21 (at the building of the Mishkan the verse alludes to the grief we would experience due to the destruction of the two Batei Mikdash -- the same would apply for the building of the Mikdash).
(b) However, I believe that although what I have written above is correct there is yet more to the picture. The Midrash itself cites a disagreement on this matter. Although it cites Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani as postulating that "Vayehi"s are signs of sorrow, it also cites Rav Shimon bar Aba as saying that "Vayehi" means either unparalleled grief or unparalleled joy . He apparently was of the opinion that the Vayehi's of the Creation of the World all were Vayehi's of joy that were not mixed with grief at all. (The Gemara implies as well that the Simchah of creation was complete when it says that the Simchah of the completion of the Mishkan was the epitome of joy, as exemplified by the joy of the creation of the heavens and the earth.)
Why didn't Rav Shimon bar Aba accept the arguments of Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani, who showed that the Simchah of creation was indeed a mixed joy?
The answer to this might lie in the argument between Rebbi Yirmiyah and Rebbi Zeira (Berachos 30b) as to whether one may "fill his mouth with joy" in this world (see Insights there; see also Insights to Avodah Zarah 3:2:b). It is clear from that Gemara that there is a difference of opinion as to whether one may view the present world as "complete," since it fully serves the purpose for which it was created, or as "incomplete," since compared to the state of matters in the World to Come it is found lacking. Rav Shmuel is asserting that the joy of creation is lacking (and that is why it says "Vayehi") since this world is obviously not the final goal. It will be replaced by a better world, in which "loaves of edible bread will grow on trees" (Shabbos 30b), and in which the Or ha'Ganuz will shine brightly and constantly. This is the true state that one should aspire for. Rav Shimon, on the other hand, maintains that the shortcomings of this world relative to Olam ha'Ba are not reasons for sorrow. This world is exactly as is necessary for us to use it to earn Olam ha'Ba through the service of Hash-m, and as such its creation is indeed a cause celebre -- which is probably the same reason that Rebbi Yirmiyah permits one to be filled with joy in this world.
Purim Same'ach!
Mordecai Kornfeld
Baruch Chai ha' Olamim.....Blessed be the life of the world(s) plural. what are the other worlds refered to here? What does Daas Torah say about life on other planets? Could there be other planets with life on them and that God gave them Torah too according to what was appropriate to them?
shaul
Shaul,
The "worlds" I referred to were Olam ha'Zeh vs. Olam ha'Ba, which is considered a "new world." This appears in many Tefilos, such as "Min ha'Olam Ad ha'Olam."
As for life on other planets, I think the subject is dealt with in "Challenge" (edited by Rabbi Carmel), and other such books.
Be well,
Mordecai Kornfeld