Psychology of the Daf Maseches Eruvin

Psychology and the Daf Yomi

For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”:

https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi

For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”:

https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi

For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”:

https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi

For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”:

https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

Half-Baked Arguments

וּפְרוּסָה מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל אָמַר רַבִּי: מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה.

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yehoshua’s position itself: And with regard to a broken loaf of bread, what is the reason that it may not be used for an eiruv? Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The reason is due to potential enmity between neighbors. To avoid a situation where one person says to the other: You contributed a mere slice of bread, while I donated an entire loaf, the Sages instituted that each person should provide a whole loaf.

Rashi

משום איבה - שבאין לידי מחלוקת שאומר אני נותן שלימה ואתה פרוסה:

Rabbenu Chananel

ופרוסה מ"ט לא משום איבה דאמר אמאי מייתינא אנא שלימה והאי פרוסה

Slight difference in language between Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel:

Rashi says there is potential for discord: The one who brought a whole loaf will complain to the one who brought the partial loaf, “I brought a whole loaf and you bring a broken piece?”

Rabbenu Chananel describes a situation that is not a direct confrontation, but rather the person who brought a whole loaf says to the other contributors, “Why did I bring a whole loaf and this OTHER guy brought only a broken piece?”

In effect, Rashi is describing an argument between two people while Rabbenu Chananel is describing l’shon hora and backstabbing.

Rashi’s idea of the problem is also echoed in Sanhedrin 110a

(במדבר טז, כה) ויקם משה וילך אל דתן ואבירם אמר ר"ל מכאן שאין מחזיקין במחלוקת דאמר רב כל המחזיק במחלוקת עובר בלאו שנאמר (במדבר יז, ה) ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו

With regard to the verse: “And Moses arose and went to Dathan and Abiram” (Numbers 16:25), Reish Lakish says: From here we derive that one may not perpetuate a dispute, as Rav says: Anyone who perpetuates a dispute violates a prohibition, as it is stated: “And he will not be like Korah and his assembly, as the Lord spoke by the hand of Moses to him” (Numbers 17:5). Even the aggrieved party must seek to end the dispute. Dathan and Abiram accused Moses and by right should have initiated the reconciliation. Nevertheless, Moses was not insistent on this; he went to them.

This Gemara implies a separate prohibition to cause quarrel. Most commentaries understand this to be an asmakhta, a rabbinic inference, and not a true commandment (see Torah Temima Deuteronomy 6:7 and 21:23) However, Ramban in his commentary on Rambam’s Sefer Hamitzvos (Siyum 3) counts לא יהיה כקרח as an explicit negative prohibition. Because actually the simple reading of the verse is prohibition against doubting leadership or perhaps rebelling against the divinely mandated privilege of the priesthood.

Perhaps we can say the machlokes Rabbenu Chananel and Rashi depends on if one considers causing discord to be a Biblical prohibition or not. Rashi will hold like Ramban, that Causing discord and strife is a Biblical negative prohibition, therefore this is the primary concern of our Gemara that allowing incomplete loaves would lead to strife. While Rabbenu Chananel holds there is no biblical provision, and therefore interprets this as a problem using incomplete loaves would lead to forbidden speech l’shon hora.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

The Sins of the Fathers

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב (בְּרֵיהּ) דְּבַת יַעֲקֹב

Rashi:

בריה דבת יעקב - אביו לא היה הגון לפיכך לא הזכירו:

Rashi tells us that this Amora was called “Yaakov Son of the Daughter of Yaakov” because his father was not fitting to mention.

We cannot know what crimes his father committed but it is inspiring to see that a major Amora can come from less than suitable yichus and still rise up the ranks based on merit.

Also this Amora is rarely quoted. One other instance is a somewhat ambiguous statement in Shabbos 149b

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בְּרֵיהּ דְּבַת יַעֲקֹב: כָּל שֶׁחֲבֵירוֹ נֶעֱנָשׁ עַל יָדוֹ — אֵין מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ בִּמְחִיצָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא.

And Rabbi Ya’akov, son of the daughter of Ya’akov, said: Anyone who causes another to be punished on his account, they do not bring him within the partition of the Holy One, Blessed be.

Various commentaries discuss what Kinds of situations this dictum applies to, such as is it just if you curse or wish a punishment, or even if inadvertently the person is punished for doing wrong toward you. (See Tosafos Bava Basra 22a, Dibur Hamaschil “Ana”).

In any case, I wonder if having a father who was evil sensitized him, in some way, to this issue. As the relationship may have been difficult and Rav Yaakov needed to watch that he would not incite his father lest his father suffer on account of this. Or, perhaps the sages of the Gemara deemed Rav Yaakov to be the right messenger to give over this message as he fulfilled its dictates in the highest sense.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

The Importance of a Secret

This Gemara tells over several teachings in the names of the סבי דפומבדיתא

Who are the סבי דפומבדיתא, the Elders of Pumbeditha?

סנהדרין י״ז, ב

סבי דפומבדיתא רב יהודה ורב עינא

The phrase: The Elders of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina

The Gemara Chagigah 13a tells us an interesting story about the סבי דפומבדיתא

רב יוסף הוה גמיר מעשה המרכבה סבי דפומבדיתא הוו תנו במעשה בראשית אמרו ליה ליגמור לן מר מעשה מרכבה אמר להו אגמרון לי מעשה בראשית בתר דאגמרון אמרו ליה ליגמרון מר במעשה מרכבה אמר להו תנינא בהו (שיר השירים ד, יא) דבש וחלב תחת לשונך דברים המתוקין מדבש וחלב יהו תחת לשונך

The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef would study the Design of the Divine Chariot and was familiar with the subject, whereas the Elders of Pumbedita would study the act of Creation. They said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master teach us the Design of the Divine Chariot. He said to them: You teach me the act of Creation. After they taught him that subject, they said to him: Let the Master teach us the Design of the Divine Chariot. He said to them: We learned with regard to them the secrets of the Torah: “Honey and milk are under your tongue” (Song of Songs 4:11), meaning that matters that are sweeter than honey and milk should remain under your tongue. In other words, one should not speak of such matters, and anyone who is familiar with them may not reveal them to others.

Why did he say no, why were the Rav Yehuda and Rav Eynah not worthy? Torah Temimah (Shir Hashirim 4:11) asks this:

תחת לשונך. אמרו ליה סבי דפומבדיתא לרב יוסף, לגמר לן מר במעשה מרכבה, א"ל, תנינא בהו דבש וחלב תחת לשונך, דברים המתוקים מדבש וחלב יהיו תחת לשונך קמבלכאורה צ"ע הא במשנה חגיגה י"א ב' קיי"ל דליחיד חכם ומבין מדעתו מותר ללמד במעשה מרכבה, ובסנהדרין י"ז ב' מבואר דסבי דפומבדיתא הם רב יהודה ורב עינא, והם הלא היו חכמים ראויים לזה, וא"כ למה לא רצה ללמדם, וצ"ל שבקשו ללמד להם ביחד, וזה אסור אפילו לחכמים.

.

He answers that they wanted to be taught together, and that was forbidden. The question we must ask then is why did they insist on studying it together ? The answer may be that since it was so complex and fraught with danger, they did not want to do it alone.

The importance of recognizing that there are portions of the Torah that is secret. Even more important is to recognize that like the proverbial submerged part of the iceberg versus the tip, the secret portion of the Torah is far greater.

This is evidenced by the following declaration in Gemara Succah 28a

דבר גדול מעשה מרכבה דבר קטן הויות דאביי ורבא לקיים מה שנאמר (משלי ח, כא) להנחיל אוהבי יש ואוצרותיהם אמלא וכי מאחר שקטן שבכולן כך גדול שבכולן על אחת כמה וכמה אמרו עליו על יונתן בן עוזיאל בשעה שיושב ועוסק בתורה כל עוף שפורח עליו מיד נשרף:

The Gemara elaborates: A great matter is referring to the secrets of the Design of the Divine Chariot, the conduct of the transcendent universe. A small matter is, for example, halakhot that were ultimately formulated in the framework of the disputes of Abaye and Rava. He did not neglect any of these disciplines so as to fulfill that which is stated: “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance and that I may fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21), as Rabban Yoḥanan was filled with the disciplines of Torah and wisdom. And if the youngest of them was so prolific, the greatest of them was all the more so prolific. The Gemara relates that the Sages said of Yonatan ben Uzziel, the greatest of Hillel’s students, that when he sat and was engaged in Torah study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that any bird that flew over him was immediately incinerated.

Abaye and Rava were the most popular Amoraim mentioned in Shas, with more than 150 analysis and discussions, yet, they were a small matter compared to the esoteric Torah.

Granted the Ritva ibid explains that it is still important to study all the basics and therefore in a certain sense הויות דאביי ורבא are more important as in more fundamental, the idea the Gemara is stressing is that there is a large “dark matter” of the Torah Universe that is largely unseen.

Why do I stress the secret parts of the Torah? To make Torah more exciting and interesting, so that we are energized to keep digging and keep trying to understand. Respect the depth of the Torah so you will feel curiosity, wonder and awe!

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

It’s What is Brought that Counts

This section of the Gemara discusses a scenario where the ladder or wall giving access was built out of wood from an Asheira Tree. Since an Asheira tree is idolatrous, It is forbidden to derive benefit from the wood. There are many times in the Gemara where this form of idolatry is mentioned. Let us take a closer look to understand the Asheira phenomenon and what was the nature of its prohibition :

The first instance of Asheira Tree mentioned is in Devarim 16:21

לֹֽא־תִטַּ֥ע לְךָ֛ אֲשֵׁרָ֖ה כָּל־עֵ֑ץ אֵ֗צֶל מִזְבַּ֛ח יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּעֲשֶׂה־לָּֽךְ׃

JPS Translation: Thou shalt not plant thee an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee.

Ramban explains:

יזהיר הכתוב שלא יטע אילן אצל מזבח ה' לנוי ויחשוב שהוא כבוד והדר למזבח השם ואסר אותו בעבור שהוא מנהג עובדי עבודה זרה לטעת אילנות בפתחי בתי עבודה זרה שלהם

because it was the custom of idolaters to plant trees by the entrances of their houses of idolatry....

So according to Ramban, The tree itself was not necessarily worshiped. Rather it was some customary enhancement to the adulterous place, and therefore the Torah forbade it out of its resemblance and similarity to idolatry.

Seforno Ibid expands on this idea with a deeper message:

לא תטע לך אשרה, in this verse the Torah lists three items whose common denominator is that they appeal to the senses, are desirable, but at the same time are all spiritually negative, harmful.

The first one is האשרה, something beautiful and decorative for buildings, but at the same time something ugly from the vantage point of holiness as it is usually a conduit leading to idolatrous practices. Seeing that this is so, we are commanded whenever faced with such choices to give preference to that which leads to spiritual righteousness at the expense of physical perfection or beauty. By the same token, we are to prefer spiritual qualities possessed by someone chosen as a judge to external features, impressive though they may be.

The second item is המצבה, even though such a kind of altar was welcomed by G’d as an outlet for someone who wanted to bring an offering to G’d, this was before the Torah had been given. Consider, for example, Exodus 24,4 where the Torah welcomed 12 such monuments erected by Moses, where these monuments symbolised the fact that the person offering a sacrifice considered himself as constantly in the presence of the divine. (compare Psalms 16,8 שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד, “I feel myself constantly in the presence of the Lord.”) The Jewish people had not been able to maintain this spiritual level after they had committed the sin of the golden calf. Even when such a מצבה is dedicated to heaven it had become hateful in the eyes of the Lord, i.e. G’d had expressed His distaste in Exodus 33,3, after having provisionally “forgiven” the people by appointing an angel to lead them to the Holy Land, but refusing to lead their ascent by His presence being among them. We encounter a similar concept described as the difference between an old man whose beard proclaims his respectability, as opposed to the old man whose beard is disheveled, i.e. reveals traces of a youth which was spent irresponsibly. We look for people whose exterior testifies to their blameless interior, character. [This metaphor is used by the Chazzan in his private introductory prayer on Yom Hakippurim. Ed.]

The third item, also reminding us of the rejection of an externally basically beautiful animal as a sacrifice, is a series of blemishes, some quite minor, not affecting the value of the animal in question in the market place at all. Such a blemish in an animal worth 1000 dollars disqualifies it as an offering, whereas another similar animal worth one single dollar, but without such a blemish, is given preference over the far more expensive animal, which is rejected. The Torah gives us three examples to teach us basically the same lesson. What is true of the blemished animal for presentation on the altar, is equally true for the venerable old scholar who is afflicted with some character fault. We are to look further in order to find a less impressive individual not afflicted with such character fault.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

Stairway to Heaven

This Gemara mentions a סולם המצרי, literally an Egyptian Ladder, which according to the Talmud’s definition is a small ladder which has less than four rungs. What is this Egyptian ladder? Were the Egyptians midgets?

The term comes up in only one other place in the Talmud, and that is in Mishna Bava Basra 3:6

סֻלָּם הַמִּצְרִי אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה, וְלַצּוֹרִי יֶשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה

An Egyptian ladder cannot give title through possession but a Tyrian ladder can.

The Egyptian ladder may possibly come from the ancient Egyptian belief that the triangle was sacred and domain of the gods, therefore one should not pass beneath a ladder. This is probably the origin for the common superstition of not walking underneath a ladder. Therefore, it would make sense that Egyptians would only use small ladders to avoid causing people to walk underneath them. (https://www.ancientpages.com/2015/08/26/walking-ladder-superstition-can-traced-ancient-egypt/)

In any case, the term is rather strange. Toldos Yaakov Yosef (Parashas Tzav) notes this and reads a mystical message into this mundane term:

עוד י"ל ונבאר תחלה משנה בפ"ג דב"ב סולם המצרי אין לו חזקה ולצורי יש לו חזקה וכו' ומפרש בש"ס היכי דמי סולם המצרי אמרי דבי ר' ינאי כל שאין לו ארבעה חווקים ופי' רש"י שליבות ולהבין דברי חכמי' וחידותם בדרך מוסר נ"ל דזכרנו ביאר מאמר כל מקום שנ' נצים נצבים זהו דתן ואבירם וכו' יעו"ש.

והעולה משם כי האדם נברא בחומר וצורה והם ב' הפכים כשזה קם זה נופל והוא ענין הסולם מוצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה ופי' בעו"א שהוא ענין עוה"ז שתהי' הכנה וסולם לעלות למעלה שיזכה לעוה"ב יעו"ש.

ובאמת שיש ב' מיני סולם א' שעולה בו למעלה והוא שייכא לאנשי הצורה והב' סולם היורד בו למטה והוא של אנשי החומר ההולכים בעצת יצה"ר וסולם זה הוא מצרי ר"ל מיצר הרע משא"כ סולם הא' שהוא לעלות בו ליוצר ובורא הכל אותיות דדין כאותיות לצור"י ומפרש בש"ס כל שאין בו ד' שליבות והוא דאי' בדברי חז"ל בזכות ד' דברים נגאלו אבותינו ממצרים שלא שינו את שמם ולא שינו את לשונם ולא הי' בהם לשון הרע ולא היו פרוצין בעריות וכו' יעו"ש.

Adding to this in Parashas Shoftim

He notes:

ובזה יובן סולם המצרי אין לו חזקה שאף אם הי' רשע כל הימים ומוחזק ברשעו ולבסוף נתחרט ועשה תשובה מקבלין אותו א"כ לזה אין חזקה שישאר ח"ו בקליפה אבל לצורי יש לו חזקה במאמר חז"ל כיון שעברו רוב שנותיו ולא חטא שוב לא יחט' וכמ"ש רגלי חסידיו ישמור וק"ל.

In this beautiful piece Toldos Yaakov Yosef notes that a ladder is used to ascend and descend and thus represents spiritual potential to elevate or sink lower. Thus the “Egyptian” ladder, which represents the yezter (phonetically similar to the Hebrew word for Egypt - Mitzrayim) which has less than four key rungs, is temporary and beings you down. But a permanent ladder, consisting of four key rungs brings you upward spiritually. What are the four rungs? As was taught in the midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 32):

Israel were redeemed from Egypt on account of four things; because they did not change their names, they did not change their language, they did not go tale-bearing, and none of them was found to have been sexually immoral.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

Lomdus vs. Reality

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר כִּי דַּיָּינֵי דְקֵיסָרִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן דְקֵיסָרִי, דְּאָמְרִי: עִיגּוּלָא מִגּוֹ רִיבּוּעָא — רִיבְעָא, רִיבּוּעָא מִגּוֹ עִיגּוּלָא — פַּלְגָא.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan spoke in accordance with the opinion of the judges of Caesarea, and some say in accordance with the opinion of the Sages of Caesarea, who say: A circle that is circumscribed within a square is smaller than it by one quarter; with regard to a square that is circumscribed within a circle, the difference between them is equal to half the square. According to this explanation, Rabbi Yoḥanan calculated as follows: Since a square of four by four handbreadths has a perimeter of sixteen handbreadths, the circumference of the circle that encompasses it must be fifty percent larger, or twenty-four handbreadths.

How could the sages of Cesearea made such an obvious mathematical blunder that one can readily see With their own eyes? It is clear that the diagonal of a square is not double the side . Tosafos explains that the sages of Cesearea are referring to the area, not the perimeter, and that in this case the calculation is relatively accurate. Just as in our mathematics the perimeter of a circle is two times pi, while the area is two times pi squared. In biblical and Talmudic math they did not use pi which is 3.14..,. Instead they just approximated as three.

However, what that does mean is that according to Tosafos, Rabbi Yochanan did make a mathematical error in following the teachings blindly without checking the calculations in real life. Because had Rabbi Yochanan stepped out of his studies and actually drew a circle and a square he would’ve seen immediately that he misheard or misinterpreted the sages of Cesearea. Had Tosafos not said this we would not be allowed to say this.

This is fascinating because it speaks of a certain kind of scholarly mode. Sometimes, you could be so involved in the details and the lomdus that you miss out on real life implications and practicalities. This reminds me a bit of how certain rabbinical authorities have dealt with real life problems trying to use lomdus.

For example, during the early years of growing awareness of sex abuse within the community, perpetrators were able to escape major consequences by dint of the fact that the rabbonim in various batei din were following there lomdishe kup and not real life. Below are at least four lomdishe errors that contributed to cover ups, which today, after having paid a heavy price, the thinking has re-oriented itself.

We cannot trust the testimony of a young child.

The person admits that he’s sorry and repented, therefore we must accept him and it is considered l’shon hora to bring it up anymore nor tell his future employer.

It wasn’t actual penetration so it is a “mild” crime, halakhically speaking.

It is mesira to give information to the secular authorities that might lead to this person‘s arrest and incarceration.

Now all of these halakhos are technically true but in a practical sense inapplicable due to the realities of the situation, such as:

Many perpetrators need treatment and repentance alone will not change their behavior. In fact, some perpetrators may not even be able to control their urges no matter how sincerely they want to or try to. Certainly, those are committed sexual acts with minors should never work with minors again.

Even though technically one cannot trust the testimony of minors, the potential severe and communal dangers call for extra legal actions and considerations. Consider the following metaphor: if a young trial “testified“ that someone threw cyanide into a factory production of baby formula, no Rabbi or Beis Din would rule that the testimony is in admissible in a practical sense because the danger is too great to ignore.

The amount of trauma suffered has little to do with the extent of actual violation of Jewish law, therefore the analogy about non-penetration is irrelevant. It is kind of like saying that since we hold in lomdus that the majority nullifies the minority I can drink from the cup of someone who just had Covid as long as I add a majority of fresh liquid. Clearly, the medical realities do not care much about the halakha. In fact, this kind of application of Lomdus to real world situations, probably explains some of the magical thinking that is employed in regard to coronavirus.

it is worthwhile to keep in mind Rav Kook’s words in Shemonah Kevatzim 1:463, (translation mine):

“The folk who live according to their instincts, and are not learned, are actually superior in many respects to the learned folk. In particular, their instinctive common sense decency and morality was not corrupted by the intricate, wearying and too-clever burdens of scholarship