Reasons and Sources:
Besides examining the nature of the statement, “Shared trouble is half a consolation,” and whether it is correct, we must also find its source and determine whether it is drawn from the wellspring of life, our holy Torah and our Sages of blessed memory.
The Source in Midrashim, Rishonim, and Acharonim
Indeed, among our Rishonim we find wording close to this saying. See the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 331), who writes that the mitzvah of sounding the shofar on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year, proclaiming that slave owners must set their slaves free, was intended to arouse people’s hearts and strengthen them to fulfill this mitzvah. Seeing that the matter applies equally throughout the land and that everyone does so, we were commanded to proclaim it with the shofar, because nothing strengthens human hearts like the conduct of the many, as the wise man said: “The suffering of many is consolation.”
We may further cite the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim (Part III, chapter 40), who sees this consolation as part of human nature. He thereby explains, according to peshat, why upon the death of the Kohen Gadol, the unintentional killer may leave the city of refuge freely, without fear of vengeance by the blood-avenger: because the death of the Kohen, which is a shared trouble, serves as consolation for the blood-avenger. In his words: “For this is part of human nature: whoever suffers a misfortune, if another suffers one like it or more severe than it, finds consolation for his own misfortune thereby.”
Likewise, Rabbeinu Bachya explains (Bamidbar 35:25, in his second reason): “The death of a Kohen Gadol is consolation for the relative of the murdered person, so that his heart will no longer burn and they will not worry about him as much.” His source apparently is the commentary of Rabbeinu Menachem Tzioni, who writes there: “His return is made dependent upon the death of the distinguished man, the greatest in Israel and beloved by all; thereby the mind of the blood-avenger is calmed. This is natural for every person to whom trouble occurs: he is consoled when a similar or comparable trouble comes upon someone else.” See there.
It appears that the source is Midrash Rabbah (Va’etchanan, parashah 2, section 22, cited in Yalkut Shimoni there, remez 827) on the Torah verse (Devarim 4:30), “When you are in distress and all these things have befallen you.” There it is brought that Rabbi Yochanan explained in the name of Rabbi Akiva: “Every trouble that is borne by an individual is trouble; every trouble that is not borne by an individual is not trouble.” Likewise, on the negative side of the matter, we find in Megillat Eichah (2:13), “What can I testify for you? To what can I compare you, daughter of Jerusalem? What can I liken to you, that I may console you, virgin daughter of Zion? For your breach is as great as the sea—who can heal you?” Rashi explains there, as does Rabbeinu Yosef Bechor Shor similarly: What can I compare to you and console you with? When trouble comes upon a person, one tells him, “This also happened to so-and-so”; this is consolation for him. That is, Yirmeyahu laments the inability to compare Jerusalem’s destruction to other calamities, so that she might find consolation in the fact that another nation had suffered similarly—the customary manner of offering consolation.
An elaboration and illustration of this is found in Pesikta Rabbati (piska 30, “Nachamu Nachamu”), as follows: To whom did Yirmeyahu say this verse? Was it not said only regarding Jerusalem? All the prophets sought a counterpart with which to compare Jerusalem, but found none. A parable: A man’s wife died, and his friends came to console him. If they console him regarding his wife and he is not consoled, they say to him: “Was your wife more beautiful than so-and-so’s wife, who died and for whom he accepted consolation?” If it concerns his son, they similarly say: “Was your son more beautiful than so-and-so’s son?” So you find that when HaKadosh Baruch Hu brings calamity upon one country, He pairs it with another country through which it may be consoled. When He brought calamity upon Nineveh, He paired Alexandria of Egypt with it, as it says, etc. (see Nachum 3:7–9). For Alexandria, He paired Nineveh with it for consolation, as it says, etc. (see Yechezkel 31:2–3 and 12). But for Knesset Yisrael He found none with which to pair her, until Israel said (Tehillim 123:2), “Behold, as the eyes of servants are toward the hand of their master, and as the eyes of a maidservant are toward the hand of her mistress, so are our eyes toward Hashem our God, until He favors us.” Yoel came and paired her, as it is written (Yoel 2:23), “Children of Zion, rejoice and be glad in Hashem your God.” See there.
Thus, we have a source for the idea in Midrashim and in the words of the Rishonim. But the saying in its precise formulation, “Shared trouble is half a consolation,” is found in the Derashot Maharit (Ki Tisa, second derashah), regarding the words of the prophet Yirmeyahu (47:1), see there; and likewise in the Maharsha (Gittin 58a) on Yirmeyahu’s lament (6:26), “Daughter of my people, gird yourself with sackcloth and roll in ashes; make for yourself mourning as for an only child,” see there.
A Tannaitic Dispute Whether Shared Trouble Provides Consolation
However, in contrast, we find in Avot d’Rabbi Natan (Version A, chapter 14, section 6) that when the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai died, Rabbi Eliezer entered to console him, sat before him, and said: “Rabbi, would you like me to say something before you?” He replied, “Speak.” He said: “Adam HaRishon had a son who died, and he accepted consolation… You too, accept consolation.” He replied: “Is it not enough that I am grieving myself, that you have reminded me of Adam HaRishon’s grief?” Rabbi Yehoshua entered and said to him: “Would you like me to say something before you?” He replied: “Speak.” He said: “Iyov had sons and daughters, and they all died in one day, and he accepted consolation for them. You too, accept consolation…” He replied: “Is it not enough for me, etc.?” Rabbi Yosei entered and sat before him. He said: “Rabbi, would you like me to say something before you?” He replied: “Speak.” He said: “Aharon had two great sons, and both died in one day, and he accepted consolation for them… You too, accept consolation.” He replied: “Is it not enough for me, etc.?” Rabbi Shimon entered and said: “Rabbi, would you like me to say something before you?” He replied: “Speak.” He said: “David HaMelech had a son who died, and he accepted consolation; you too, accept consolation…” He replied: “Is it not enough that I am grieving myself, that you have reminded me of the grief of David HaMelech?” See there for the continuation of the episode involving Rabbi Elazar ben Arach.
This shows that Rabbi Yochanan’s disciples held that shared trouble provides consolation to the individual, whereas Rabbi Yochanan himself, who was expected to be consoled, did not hold so. Rather, he felt that this was not consolation but, on the contrary, an addition to his grief.
Indeed, we find in the Gemara (Berachot 5b) that Rabbi Yochanan said, “This is a bone from my tenth son,” meaning that ten of his sons had died, and he would customarily carry with him a bone of his tenth son in order to console mourners (see Tosafot, Maharsha, and Ye’arot Devash I, derashah 4). Thus, Rabbi Yochanan himself held that another person’s suffering could console one who is grieving such a loss. Seemingly, we would have to say that although at first he refused consolation, ultimately he adopted the view of his disciples. In truth, however, there is no difficulty at all, because they are not the same Rabbi Yochanan. The incident in Avot d’Rabbi Natan concerns the Tanna Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, disciple of Hillel HaZaken; whereas the Gemara in Berachot concerns the Amora Rabbi Yochanan bar Nappacha, the teacher and colleague of Reish Lakish. Likewise, the Rabbi Yochanan cited in the Midrash as stating in Rabbi Akiva’s name that “every trouble that is not borne by an individual is not trouble” is Rabbi Yochanan the Amora—for the Tanna was the teacher of Rabbi Akiva’s teacher. He follows his own view, and there is nothing further to discuss.
True Consolation versus Incidental Consolation
We find that the Gaon Rabbi Yehonatan Eybeschutz writes in his Ye’arot Devash (I, derashah 4) that there are two types of consolation. One is “true consolation,” such as a physician consoling a sick person with the news that he will recover and therefore should not worry about the suffering currently his lot. The other is “incidental consolation”: “They tell him, ‘Did this happen only to you? Surely many have drunk from the cup of calamity!’ As people say, ‘Shared trouble is half a consolation.’” See there. Thus, he noted the deficiency in this consolation, but did not reject it; rather, he called it incidental.
It should be noted that in his work Ahavat Yehonatan, on the haftarah of Chazon Yeshayahu and the haftarah of Chazon Ovadiah, he writes that the word “chazon” is an acronym for “half wrath and half consolation” (its source is Agudot Shmuel in the name of Sod Yesharim). See there for his explanation.
Commentators Who Explained the Saying Non-Literally
Indeed, we find that the holy Maggid who appeared to Maran the Beit Yosef (Maggid Meisharim, Parashat Miketz) addressed Rabbi Yochanan’s statement, “This is a bone from my tenth son.” He wrote that one must certainly wonder how he could console people by saying, in effect, “The suffering of many is half a consolation”; this is not the consolation of sages such as he. Rather, the secret of the matter is that he said this only to righteous people who had been reincarnated solely to complete their generation. He told them not to grieve because they had no need for children, just as he had sons who died and did not grieve for them because he had no need for them. His saying, “This is a bone from my tenth son,” hinted that he was a suckling of the ten Sefirot, all of which flowed into him, and that they died only because he had no need for them. This is his wording. See Rashi in Berachot there, that these were yissurin shel ahavah. Thus, the holy Maggid appearing from Heaven understood that it was inconceivable that Rabbi Yochanan would console others by saying that the trouble was not theirs alone, for this is not the consolation of sages. He therefore diverted the plain meaning of the incident toward matters of sod. Incidentally, we hear from him a different wording of the saying: he says “suffering” rather than “trouble.”
We find other Gedolei Yisrael who addressed the meaning of this statement and likewise did not accept its plain meaning—that the trouble of the many should be considered consolation for the individual. Therefore, they offered various explanations, as follows. First, we cite the wording of the distinguished Rabbi Betzalel Ze’ev Shafran in Responsa Ravaz (Yalkut HaChinuchi, siman 31), where he presents the difficulty: “This saying is common on people’s lips in the name of a statement of Chazal, but its source is unknown. Everyone is astounded by this remarkable statement. Can it be that, regarding a trouble—may it never come—such as a destructive plague affecting all inhabitants of the world, a person would ease his pain thereby, until it would seem to him half a consolation? This can be nothing but an evil heart and envy of one person toward another!”
To resolve the matter, he explains the saying based on the statement of the wise man (Mishlei 12:25), “Worry in a man’s heart—yeshichenah,” which Chazal interpret as “to others” (Yoma 75a). Rashi explains: “He should relate it to others—perhaps they will advise him.” The Aruch (entry shach, section 6) explains: “So that they will pray for mercy on his behalf.” In accordance with the Aruch, we find in the Gemara (Shabbat 67a) concerning one who has a sick person in his home: “He should make his distress known to the public, and the public will pray for mercy on his behalf.” This properly explains the words of our Sages in the saying, expressed in their figurative style: “Shared trouble is half a consolation.” If many participate in the individual’s trouble and it pains them as well, they will certainly pray and plead for mercy on his behalf—especially if he is a Torah scholar, for whom people must make themselves ill, as it were, in prayer (Berachot 12b). He thereby attains half a consolation, for “prayer accomplishes half” (Vayikra Rabbah, parashah 10, section 5; see Rashi, Parashat Ekev 9:20).
See there, where he found a reference to this saying in the Midrash’s statement that trouble not borne by an individual is not trouble, as above. Furthermore, see the work Melechet Machshevet (Ki Tavo, section 5, p. 313; in the Venice edition of 5470, folio 90, column 3) by the Gaon and Divine philosopher Rabbi Moshe Chafetz, zt”l, who cites this saying as an “ancient proverb” and understands it literally, see there. I examined it and saw that he continues by explaining the verse (Eichah 3:38), “From the mouth of the Most High do not emerge the evils and the good.” “Evils” is in the plural while “good” is singular, because the evils that come from Hashem are upon the community, and therefore the individual does not grieve as much; but good comes to each individual, and therefore he rejoices in it more intensely. See there for his further explanation of the passage of mikra bikkurim; this is not the place to elaborate.
Returning to the words of the Sages who explain this statement other than literally: the Rebbe, the Pnei Menachem of Gur (Otzar Derashot u’Ma’amarim III, p. 232), also wrote: This saying, “Shared trouble is half a consolation,” requires explanation. What consolation does a person have if his trouble is also the trouble of many? Why should he feel relief in knowing that others too suffer and are distressed? Furthermore, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (104a) states concerning the verse (Eichah 1:12), “Is it nothing to you, all who pass by on the way?” Ravah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: From here is a complaint mandated by the Torah. Rashi explains: When a person tells another of his distress, the other must say, “May this not happen to you as it happened to me,” because it is difficult to hear that it may recur to him. Thus, the proper conduct is to pray that an individual’s trouble not become the trouble of many, Heaven forbid. What, then, is the consolation in this?
He writes there that when he asked this of his father-in-law—the pious Rabbi Avraham Mordechai, z”l, son of his cousin, the holy Rabbi Moshe Betzalel, z”l, Hy”d—he gave the following fine explanation. When trouble comes upon a person, his pain is doubled. In addition to the pain and anguish of the trouble itself, he is troubled and fearful that the Attribute of Judgment is directed specifically against him, and that Heaven is exacting with him. But when he sees that his trouble is a communal trouble, he is consoled that the anger is not directed specifically at him. This is half a consolation, for his pain is no longer doubled by imagining and believing that the Attribute of Judgment is directed particularly against him. [However, on the other hand, it may be said that if it is directed against him, he should do teshuvah and attain atonement. Also, perhaps the merit of others will protect him and help him emerge meritorious, unlike when the Attribute of Judgment is directed against the community, when he may no longer be able to be saved; see what Rabbi Kol Eliyahu HaTzarfati writes concerning this in his derashah on the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash, p. 333.]
I found another approach—which combines the approaches of Ravaz and the Rebbe of Gur—in Responsa Yaskil Avdi (VII, Orach Chaim, siman 44, responsum to question 8, section 2), regarding the Tannaitic dispute (Shabbat 12a): Our Rabbis taught: One who enters to visit the sick says, “It is Shabbat, when one should not cry out, and healing will soon come.” Rabbi Meir says, “It can have mercy.” Rabbi Yehudah says, “May the Omnipresent have mercy upon you and upon the sick of Israel.” Rabbi Yosei says, “May the Omnipresent have mercy upon you among the sick of Israel.” Shevna of Jerusalem, upon entering, would say, “Shalom,” and upon leaving would say, “It is Shabbat, when one should not cry out, and healing will soon come; His mercies are abundant, and rest peacefully on Shabbat.” He explains that the first Tanna and Rabbi Meir disagree as to whether mentioning mercy causes distress to the sick person. Rabbi Yehudah holds that even if one says, “May the Omnipresent have mercy upon you,” etc., it causes the sick person no distress, for joining him with other sick people consoles him: when there is trouble affecting many, their records are not scrutinized and they are answered quickly. This is what people mean by, “Shared trouble is half a consolation”—namely, that they are answered swiftly. Rabbi Yosei adds that one should say, “among the sick of Israel,” thereby emphasizing that he will not be judged separately and in detail, but together with the community. These are his words relevant to our subject.
The Distinction of the Pele Yoetz
From all the rabbis mentioned, we see that they declined to accept this saying literally. From the words of the holy Maggid, we see that this is consolation unworthy of sages. Indeed, as you noted in your question, as a counterweight to the expression, the phrase “Shared trouble is the consolation of fools” is widespread. It is common for one person to say, “Shared trouble is half a consolation,” and another to respond, “The consolation of fools.” This accords with the Maggid’s words, and we must investigate whether we find this formulation, “the consolation of fools,” regarding shared trouble.
It appears that the source of the phrase, “Shared trouble is the consolation of fools,” is the holy Gaon Rabbi Elazar Papo’s work Pele Yoetz, where he writes it in three places, establishing a presumption (entries Ahavat Re’im, Hitorerut, and Teshuvah). All are in the context of one who falls short in the service of the Creator: he should not desire that his fellow also be like him, so that shared trouble should become the consolation of fools. One who follows the path of sin desires and wishes to have companions like himself. This is comparable to a matron who has ten sons, and the king commands them to feed and support her and provide all her needs. One day, one of the king’s sons violates the decree and does not give his allotted portion to his mother. Although he will certainly be punished, nevertheless, the son who loves his mother and is distressed that he withheld his portion will ask whether at least his brothers supplied their portions, for this will be half a consolation to him. If they tell him that all betrayed her as he did, his sorrow will increase, as his mother weeps and wails because she has been left hungry, thirsty, and without anything. The lesson is self-evident.
However, this is difficult, for in Pele Yoetz itself, in the entry Nechamah, where he sets out types of consolation, he writes that there is another kind of consolation, as our Sages said: “Shared trouble is half a consolation.” A person should reflect that many have drunk from this cup and that flames have fallen upon cedars; how many great people, mighty men, have had raging waters pass over their heads—many evils and troubles of all different kinds. Examine and you will find that every type of suffering in the world has begun with great people, and it is no better for them. This is his pure wording. Thus, he plainly understands this saying—that shared trouble is half a consolation—and even attributes it to our Sages. We must therefore distinguish between worldly matters, in which a person may console himself thus, and matters of Heaven, when he falls short in serving the Creator and damages the sacred order; in that case it is the consolation of fools. (The same applies in other areas, such as being satisfied with little.) This is remarkable.
“Neither Mine Nor Yours Shall It Be”
To complete the discussion, we should cite what is brought in Avot d’Rabbi Natan (chapter 16): Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi said: I will give you a parable. To what is the evil inclination comparable? To two people who entered one inn. One of them was seized on account of banditry. They said to him, “Who was with you?” Could he say, “My companion was not with me”? Rather, he says, “Since I am being killed, let my companion be killed with me.” So too, the evil inclination says: Since I am lost to Olam HaBa, I will cause the whole body to be lost. Thus far.
There is a concept of “Let me die with the Philistines,” said by Shimshon (Shoftim 16:30), but its meaning is the reverse: in his desire to destroy the Philistines, he was prepared to give up his own life as well; or, since he was going to die in any event, he would also gain the death of his enemies. There is also the matter of envy, as in the well-known parable in which the king told one person, “Whatever you request, I will give you, and I will give your fellow double.” He replied, “Blind one of my eyes, and my fellow’s two eyes.” But in the parable in Avot d’Rabbi Natan, seemingly he has no interest in his fellow’s death; only because he himself has already been seized does he want his fellow to be with him. Yet upon reflection, we see that this too is a form of envy, though one arising after a particular situation. As we find concerning Chavah (Bereishit 3:6), who ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, “and she also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” Rashi explains: “So that she should not die while he lives and marries another woman.” Consider this well. We likewise find in the “Judgment of Shlomo” (Melachim I, chapter 3, verse 26) that the mother of the dead child said regarding the living child, “Neither mine nor yours shall it be; divide it.” Seemingly, this was envy generated by the circumstances: they had both given birth at the same time, one lost her child, and therefore found it difficult to see the other remain with hers. Some commentators there explain, however, that they were two co-wives, both married to one man, and therefore there was pre-existing hatred between them, not merely hatred arising from that event.
This response was translated automatically from Hebrew and has not yet been reviewed by a person. Therefore, it may contain inaccuracies and should not be considered a definitive reference.
