Psychology of the Daf Maseches Eruvin

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

פַּעַם אַחַת הִכִּירוּ בָּהֶן אוֹיְבִים וְרָדְפוּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם, וְנִכְנְסוּ לִיטּוֹל כְּלֵי זֵיינָן, וְנִכְנְסוּ אוֹיְבִים אַחֲרֵיהֶן. דָּחֲקוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה, וְהָרְגוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁהָרְגוּ אוֹיְבִים. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ חוֹזְרִין לִמְקוֹמָן בִּכְלֵי זֵיינָן.

Once, their enemies noticed that they were no longer carrying their weapons, and they chased after them; and the defenders entered the house to take up their weapons and fight, and their enemies entered after them, causing great confusion. In the chaos, the defenders began to push one another, and they killed more of each other than their enemies killed of them. At that time the Sages instituted that they should return to their locations, i.e., their destinations, with their weapons.

This is similar to another situation described in Gemara Shabbos 60a

סַנְדָּל הַמְסוּמָּר מַאי טַעְמָא?

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages prohibited going out with a spiked sandal on Shabbat?

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שִׁלְפֵי הַשְּׁמָד הָיוּ, וְהָיוּ נֶחְבָּאִין בִּמְעָרָה, וְאָמְרוּ: הַנִּכְנָס — יִכָּנֵס, וְהַיּוֹצֵא — אַל יֵצֵא.

Shmuel said: They were those who eluded the decrees of religious persecution, and after one of the wars they were hiding in a cave. And those hiding said: One who seeks to enter the cave may enter, but one who seeks to leave the cave may not leave. One leaving has no way to determine whether or not the enemy is lying in wait outside the cave. Therefore, leaving could reveal the presence of those hiding in the cave.

נֶהְפַּךְ סַנְדָּלוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן, כִּסְבוּרִין הֵם אֶחָד מֵהֶן יָצָא וְרָאוּהוּ אוֹיְבִים וְעַכְשָׁו בָּאִין עֲלֵיהֶן. דָּחֲקוּ זֶה בָּזֶה וְהָרְגוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁהָרְגוּ בָּהֶם אוֹיְבִים.

It happened that the sandal of one of them was reversed, the front of the sandal was in the back, and his footprints appeared like the steps of one leaving the cave. They thought that one of them left and feared that their enemies saw him and were now coming upon them to attack. In their panic, they pushed one another and killed one another in greater numbers than their enemies had killed among them. To commemorate this disaster that resulted from a spiked sandal, they prohibited going out into the public domain with it.

A few observations:

We Jews have a long memory. The particular kind of shoe is forbidden because of one incident. The shoe was not really the cause but the way to commemorate it because fixed on the shoe. So much respect for past and history of events!

In both stories (Eruvin and Shabbos), the narrator tells us that the numbers of dead were more by their own panic and trampling each other than by the enemy. A strong lesson in how fear and panic is our own worst enemy. The Gemara Relate several versions of the story. In one version, they were misled because a backward sandal imprint made it look like somebody left the cave. There is a well-known idea Zoharitic and mystical literature that whenever there is a disagreement it is not actually a disagreement but a presentation of Different aspects of the story. (A good example of that is the fact that in the gemara, there are three different possibilities for what is the shofar sound of Teruah, and so in doubt we make three different sounds.) yet in the Zohar, each of the three sounds represent different aspects and there is no halakhic question.) It is easy to imagine that a backward-looking sandal imprint is somehow a metaphor or perceiving the opposite and therefore panicking. This idea is relevant for our times where the media ensues panic in the various stories about the world, and causes a lack of unity, turning ourselves into our own worst enemy.

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

אִם הָיָה בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם — כְּאִילּוּ לֹא יָצָא. כׇּל הַיּוֹצְאִים לְהַצִּיל — חוֹזְרִין לִמְקוֹמָן.

If he was within his original limit, it is considered as if he had not left his limit, and he may return to his original location. The Sages formulated a principle: All who go out to battle and save lives may return to their original locations on Shabbat.

תוספות יום טוב עירובין ד:ג

חוזרין למקומן. פירש הר"ב התירו להם לחזור עם כלי זיינן למקומן. הכי מפרשים בגמ' וטעמא שמא ירגישו בהם האויבים שיצאו וירדפו אחריהן ואין כלי זיין בידם להציל. ולמקומן דתנן היינו למקום שנתנו להם חכמים שהוא עד אלפים אמה דבשיעור היתר הליכה אין בין יוצא ברשות לעדות החדש וכיוצא בו לבין יוצא להציל. ומיהו איכא עוד אוקימתא בגמרא דאם נצחו האויבים ומפחדים לשבות שם רשאים לחזור בכלי זיינן עד למקומן ממש. ופסקו הפוסקים לתרווייהו. ועיין משנה ז' פרק ו' דיומא:

כל היוצאין להציל חוזרין למקומן - הא דלא חשיב ליה בפ"ק דביצה (דף יא:) גבי הנך ג' דהתירו סופן משום תחילתן דזה אינו חידוש וכל הנהו צריכי כדאמרינן התם:

ביצה יא, ב

אמר עולא שלשה דברים התירו סופן משום תחלתן ...ורחבא אמר רבי יהודה אף הפותח חביתו ומתחיל בעיסתו על גב הרגל ואליבא דרבי יהודה דאמר יגמור

And Ulla said: With regard to three matters, the Sages permitted an action whose result is undesirable in order to encourage a desirable initial action...And Raḥava said that Rabbi Yehuda said: There is also one other matter, i.e., another instance where the Sages permitted an action whose result was undesirable in order to encourage a desirable initial action. This concerns a ḥaver, a member of a group that is meticulous with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, who opens his barrel of wine or prepares and begins to sell his dough to pilgrims for the sake of the Festival. And this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: He may finish selling all the bread made from that dough and all the wine in the barrel. Wine or dough sold to the general public is usually classified as ritually impure, as it might have been touched by an am ha’aretz, one who is not careful with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. During a Festival, however, the Sages decreed that all wine and dough sold in Jerusalem is ritually pure, so as not to embarrass ignorant people, and they may therefore be bought even by a ḥaver. Rabbi Yehuda adds that even if a large quantity of wine or dough remains after the Festival, it retains its status as ritually pure and one may continue to sell it to a ḥaver. This is a case of permitting an action whose result is undesirable for the sake of an initial action, in that the Sages maintained the wine and dough’s status as ritually pure after the Festival in order to encourage people to sell wine and dough on the Festival.

רש״י שם

אף הפותח את חביתו - חבר כשהתחיל למכור יינו או ככרו לעולי רגלים ברגל וממשמשי בה יד הכל וטומאת עם הארץ ברגל טהורה כל ימות הרגל ובמה שנשאר לאחר הרגל נחלקו רבי יהודה וחכמים בפרק חומר בקדש (חגיגה דף כו.) רבי יהודה אומר יגמור וימכרנה לחברים ולכל אדם ויזהר שלא יגע עם הארץ עוד וחכמים אומרים לא יגמור ולא ימכרנה עוד משום דנטמאת ברגל במגע עם הארץ ונהי דכל ימות הרגל אשתראי שלא לביישם מיהו לאחר הרגל חלה למפרע ואשמעינן רחבא דרבי יהודה לא אמר יגמור אלא משום תחילתן דאי לא שרית ליה לא פתח ליה מעיקרא:

A Chaver, literally “friend”, is part of a society of rabbis who took upon themselves a series of abstentions and customs, in order to promote humility and piety. Socially, a Chaver was the opposite of an Am Ha-Haaretz, which literally means “nationals”, and comes to mean regular folk. Although there must have been people who were somewhat literate and devout, in practice there was a polarity. A Chaver would only eat Hulin al Taharas HaKodesh. This meant all his food was eaten with the same sanctity and purity requirements of Terumah food of a Cohen.

So the Chaver would assume that any Am-Haaretz was impure and not eat food touched by one. However, during the festivals, the rabbis treated all Am-Haartzim as pure so as not to cause strife or hurt feelings. It is a fine lesson that at least in regard to personal voluntary stringencies, harmonious sociability is more important.

שו״ת אגרות משה א״ח ד:פ

בענין חברה הצלה

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָנֵי שָׁב שְׁמַעְתָּא דְּאִיתְאַמְרָן בְּצַפְרָא בְּשַׁבְּתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא בְּסוּרָא, בַּהֲדֵי פַּנְיָא בְּשַׁבְּתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא.

מַאן אַמְרִינְהוּ? לָאו אֵלִיָּהוּ אַמְרִינְהוּ? אַלְמָא אֵין תְּחוּמִין לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה! לָא, דִּלְמָא יוֹסֵף שֵׁידָא אַמְרִינְהוּ.

Who said those teachings, and delivered them from one place to the other? Was it not Elijah the Prophet, who traveled from Sura to Pumbedita by way of a miraculous leap through the air above ten handbreadths from the ground, who said them? Apparently, the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, for Elijah would not have transgressed this prohibition. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is no proof; perhaps Yosef the demon, who does not observe Shabbat, reported these teachings and brought them from Sura to Pumbedita.

The Amoraim apparently had the power to engage and actually use demons as their personal informants and assistants, see for example

פסחים ק״י

אמר רב יוסף אמר לי יוסף שידא אשמדאי מלכא דשידי ממונה הוא אכולהו זוגי ומלכא לא איקרי מזיק איכא דאמרי לה להאי גיסא אדרבה מלכא [רתחנא הוא] מאי דבעי עביד שהמלך פורץ גדר לעשות לו דרך ואין מוחין בידו

And Rav Pappa actually used a demon as a house servant!

חולין קה, ב

ההוא בר שידא דהוה בי רב פפא אזל לאתויי מיא מנהרא איעכב כי אתא אמרו ליה אמאי איעכבת אמר להו עד דחלפי מים הרעים אדהכי חזנהו דקא שדו מיא מפומא דחצבא אמר אי הוה ידענא דרגיליתו למיעבד הכי לא איעכבי

Although it is well known that the Rambam, and the Meiri who followed him, did not believe in demons, the Maharitz Chayes rejects their position that these cases where figures of speech or parables.

מהרי״ץ חיות מבא לתלמוד

מעניני המזיקין, ועין הרע, ורוח רעה. אשר בא מזה בש״ס, בלי ספק צריכין לקחת הדברים כפשטם. ואין לסבור בהם סברות ולפרש בענין רחוק. אחר שפשטות הדברים מורים שהאמינו במציאותם, וספרו מהם טבעם וגדרם והלוכם,

On the other hand, Rav Tzadok HaCohen Mi-Lublin offers an interesting idea in the name of the Maharal

פרי צדיק וישב ה... וכמו כן בחינת התגלות אליהו כדאי' (מנחות מה.) פרשה זו אליהו עתיד לדורשה ובחידושי הרש"בא שם כ' שאליהו יתגלה לא' בביהמ"ד לדרוש הפרשה. והיינו שיופיע בלבו התגלות התחדשות בד"ת והוא בחינת התגלו' אליהו. וכדאי' בס' נצח ישראל ממהר"ל מפראג על מ"ש (עירובין מג.) הני שב שמעתא דאיתאמרן בצפרא בשבתא וכו' לאו אליהו אמרינהו כו' דלמא יוסף שידא אמרינהו ואם היה התגלות אליהו בפעל שהיה נראה אליהם איך היו מסופקים בגמ' על ידי מי היה. רק שזהו בעצמו שמופיע בלב ההתחדשות בד"ת הוא בחי' התגלות אליהו ורק נצרך מבינות על זה שלפעמים הוא בא מצד ההיפך יוסף שידא.

Rav Tzadok seems to be saying that there is a kind of internal Intuition in Torah which is similar to or even known as an appearance of Eliyahu, however sometimes a Torah intuition can actually be masquerading as genuine Torah but is really demonic.

This idea that Eliyahu is not so much an appearance of an apparition but more of internal Meditative experience is supported by an interesting testimony about the Chazon Ish. It is known and accepted that Rav Yosef Karo, the author of Shulkhan Arukh and many other masterful halakhic works, wrote an entire Sefer, Magid Mesharim, which was a diary of his experiences of Torah taught to him via his personal maggid, an entity that appeared to him. Tzvi Yabrov (Maaseh Ish, Vol. 1, 1998, pp. 119, 187) relates the following conversation Rabbi Kloft had with Rabbi Yeshaiah Karelitz (1878-1953), the renowned Chazon Ish. Rabbi Kloft asked the Chazon Ish: Since Rav Karo’s halakhic rulings in Magid Mesharim were of supernatural origin, should we not rule exclusively according to any verdicts found in the book? Rabbi Karelitz reportedly replied, “Rav Karo’s Magid is also Rav Karo.” Meaning, the halakhic import of Rav Karo’s Maggidic rulings carries no more authority than Rav Karo himself. This suggests that Rav Karelitz believed the Maggid to be a manifestation of an unknown spiritual resource within Rav Karo.

Why is it important to discuss details? I believe, most of the time it is easy to file away these stories as some kind of incomprehensible magical mythology. Sure, no one is going to admit it because that would be heretical, but if we do not contend with trying to understand it, we are doing ourselves a disservice because these experiences are valid as evidenced by the integrity of the rabbis who went through them. We must try to understand on some level what these experiences meant psychologically and spiritually so that on our level we can make use of them. It is unlikely that we will have a visitation from Elijah the prophet, but we should be open to what it might be for us, even in an analogous lesser experience and not merely relegate it to the fantasmal.

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵין רוֹאִין פְּנֵי גֵיהִנָּם, אֵלּוּ הֵן: דִּקְדּוּקֵי עֲנִיּוּת, וְחוֹלֵי מֵעַיִין, וְהָרְשׁוּת. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה רָעָה. וְאִידָּךְ? אִשָּׁה רָעָה מִצְוָה לְגָרְשָׁהּ. וְאִידָּךְ? זִימְנִין דִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ מְרוּבָּה. אִי נָמֵי, אִית לֵיהּ בָּנִים מִינַּהּ, וְלָא מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ לַהּ.לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְקַבּוֹלֵי מֵאַהֲבָה.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this statement? The Gemara answers: It is significant as it teaches one to accept those afflictions with love, knowing that they will exempt him from the punishment of Gehenna.

יבמות סג, ב

אמר רבא אשה רעה מצוה לגרשה דכתיב (משלי כב, י) גרש לץ ויצא מדון וישבות דין וקלון

ועוד שם סג, ב

היכי דמי אשה רעה אמר אביי מקשטא ליה תכא ומקשטא ליה פומא רבא אמר מקשטא ליה תכא ומהדרא ליה גבא

בן יהוידע שם, ועוד עיין בן יהוידע על שבת יא, א

Seems to learn it to be a metaphor for weaponizing sexuality and using it to tease and torture her husband.

משלי י״ז:טו

דֶּ֣לֶף ט֭וֹרֵד בְּי֣וֹם סַגְרִ֑יר וְאֵ֥שֶׁת מדונים [מִ֝דְיָנִ֗ים] נִשְׁתָּוָֽה׃

An endless dripping on a rainy day And a contentious wife are alike;

A couple of points:

It seems Ben Yehoyada defines an אשה רעה as someone who weaponizes sex. It seems that there are circumstances where one is permitted to divorce or even should divorce, but must stay due to financial considerations or child care.

I think it is important to analyze and generalize some of these ideas expressed by these Gemaras because it is easy to use or misuse general statements of chazal to reinforce self-rationalization. After all, let’s get one thing clear and out of the way, the Torah is described as דְּרָכֶ֥יהָ דַרְכֵי־נֹ֑עַם וְֽכָל־נְתִ֖יבוֹתֶ֣יהָ שָׁלֽוֹם׃ Her ways are pleasant ways, And all her paths, peaceful.(משלי ג:י״ז) so the upshot of any teaching cannot be to cause misery and suffering.

The challenge here is that the Gemara is not coincidentally in the same position as a couples therapist. If you try to bring out the side of one party with the best of intentions, often the other party feels like you are biased against them. Any Gemara about Middos and human nature is subject to many qualifications and circumstances. Having said this Introduction, let us try to understand what this Gemara might be saying and what it probably is not saying.

There is a relationship where a person uses withholding sexuality as a form of emotional blackmail. Obviously this is an unhealthy relationship and needs a resolution. At the same time, there are many circumstances where a person is traumatized, hurt or feels unsafe emotionally and that being sexual is damaging. The rabbis were obviously not referring to such a situation. And, even in the scenario where there is spite, there might be history behind that behavior. It doesn’t excuse the behavior but it does mean that every effort needs to be made to get to the bottom of the problem.

Regarding item number two, where the Gemara discusses both the imperative to get divorced and the situation that might compel a person to stay, it would seem that we can extract some universal principles from it. It also is reasonable to say that if the principles sees universal than they may apply to both genders, despite being expressed according to one gender’s viewpoint.

The two universal principles seem to be: (1) If an impossible and intractably cruel situation cannot be resolved, even if it does not involve physical abuse, it is not considered improper to divorce. (2) If there are substantial financial needs or emotional needs of the children, and one feels compelled to stay the correct attitude is to consider it a form of suffering and penance.

I would like to add a psychological footnote to item number two: There are times when encounter spouses who see themselves as “righteous” and “suffering under the tyranny of an immature or difficult spouse.” Now, I am not saying such scenarios aren’t possible, they obviously are and the Gemara is referring to such as case. However, in my experience the majority of the situations such as this involve a spouse whose own behavior is a significant factor in the difficulty, and instead of looking inward at the causes, takes on his or her suffering like a martyr. It is far easier to live an entire life suffering as a martyr than it is to experience one painful moment of self-honesty and introspection. It is easier to die al piy kiddush Hashem than it is live that way, and it is easier to be miserable with mesiras nefesh than it is to be happy or honest with mesiras nefesh.

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

The Gemara quotes the machlokes Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya versus Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehoshua. This machlokes also was enacted in regard to a voyage that all four of them took together as reported in the Mishna 4:1

משנה עירובין ד׳:א׳

מִי שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּהוּ גוֹיִם אוֹ רוּחַ רָעָה, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. הֶחֱזִירוּהוּ, כְּאִלּוּ לֹא יָצָא. הוֹלִיכוּהוּ לְעִיר אַחֶרֶת. נְתָנוּהוּ בְדִיר אוֹ בְסַהַר, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמְרִים, מְהַלֵּךְ אֶת כֻּלָּהּ. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמְרִים, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ מִפְּרַנְדִּיסִין וְהִפְלִיגָה סְפִינָתָם בַּיָּם. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה הִלְּכוּ אֶת כֻּלָּהּ. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לֹא זָזוּ מֵאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, שֶׁרָצוּ לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמָן:

Mishnah Eruvin 4:1

One whom Gentiles, or an evil spirit, have taken out [beyond the Shabbat border] has no more than four cubits [in which to move]. If they brought him back, it is as if he had never gone out. If they took him to another town, or if they put him in a pen or a sahar: Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah say he may move throughout the entire area; But Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiva says: he has only four cubits [in which to move]. It once happened that they were coming from Brindisi and their ship sailed out to sea [on Shabbat]. Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah walked about throughout its area, but Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiba did not move beyond four cubits because they wanted to be stringent upon themselves.

There are several Mishnayos and Midrashim that record the travels of this quartet, Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah, and Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiba. It is difficult to know if These voyages are part of one long Voyage, or separate ones. Nevertheless,I will list them and point out some interesting observations on a few of them.

Although this quartet often are quoted arguing with each other, this appears to be the only incident where they argue in two pairs: Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah versus Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiba. Another interesting point, is the conclusion for various reasons explained in the gemara, Rabbi Joshua and Rabbi Akiba are stringent upon themselves and only carry inside 4 cubits. While I do not have a complete answer, I wonder if it is somehow related to another voyage described:

Makkos 24a-b

ו כיון שהגיעו להר הבית ראו שועל שיצא מבית קדשי הקדשים התחילו הן בוכין ורבי עקיבא מצחק אמרו לו מפני מה אתה מצחק אמר להם מפני מה אתם בוכים אמרו לו מקום שכתוב בו והזר הקרב יומת ועכשיו שועלים הלכו בו ולא נבכה אמר להן לכך אני מצחק דכתיב ואעידה לי עדים נאמנים את אוריה הכהן ואת זכריה בן יברכיהו וכי מה ענין אוריה אצל זכריה אוריה במקדש ראשון וזכריה במקדש שני אלא תלה הכתוב נבואתו של זכריה בנבואתו של אוריה באוריה כתיב לכן בגללכם ציון שדה תחרש בזכריה כתיב עוד ישבו זקנים וזקנות ברחבות ירושלם עד שלא נתקיימה נבואתו של אוריה הייתי מתיירא שלא תתקיים נבואתו של זכריה עכשיו שנתקיימה נבואתו של אוריה בידוע שנבואתו של זכריה מתקיימת בלשון הזה אמרו לו עקיבא ניחמתנו עקיבא ניחמתנו

Since they were discussing the destruction of the Temple on this voyage, is it possible some how in some way they were in acting another teaching what we find in Gemara Berachos 8a

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַמֵּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אֵין לוֹ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּעוֹלָמוֹ אֶלָּא אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁל הֲלָכָה בִּלְבַד.

Another story of their voyages

Sukka 41b

Sukka 23a

Yevamos 121a

Lastly, we find this story in Horiyus 10a

אמר ליה כוכב אחד לשבעים שנה עולה ומתעה את (הספינות) [הספנים] ואמרתי שמא יעלה ויתעה [אותנו]

It is fascinating to note that the Rabbis apparently knew about Halley's Comet. While this is indeed impressive, in the name of intellectual honesty it is possible that the Babylonians also knew about Halley's Comet as they were sophisticated astronomers. However, if the rabbis observed at themselves or they were able to engage in study of the secular wisdom it is impressive regardless. On that topic, let's clear up a misconception about scientific knowledge found on 43b:

תָּנָא: שְׁפוֹפֶרֶת הָיְתָה לוֹ לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה מַבִּיט וְצוֹפֶה בָּהּ אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה בַּיַּבָּשָׁה, וּכְנֶגְדָּהּ אַלְפַּיִם בַּיָּם.

In order to clarify this issue, the Gemara cites that which was taught in a baraita: Rabban Gamliel had a special tube through which he would look and see a distance of two thousand cubits on land, and also determine a corresponding distance of two thousand cubits at sea.

Some people think this means that he had a telescope. However, That would be unlikely.

Boaz Keylim 30:1

Tiferes Yisrael rejects as preposterous that the sages of the Talmud could have had a “Brille” which means a telescope or spectacle in German.

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

לִבְרוֹךְ עֲלֵיהּ וְלַנְּחֵיהּ — הַמְבָרֵךְ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם! לִיתְּבֵיהּ לְיָנוֹקָא — לֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב אַחָא, דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְמִסְרַךְ.

And if you say that he should recite the blessing over a cup of wine and leave it and drink it only after the conclusion of Yom Kippur, this too is difficult, as the principle is that one who recites a blessing over a cup of wine must taste from it. If you say that he should give it to a child, who is not obligated to fast, this too is not feasible because the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa, who made a similar suggestion with regard to a different matter, due to a concern that perhaps the child will come to be drawn after it. The child might come to drink wine on Yom Kippur even in future years after he comes of age, and we do not institute a practice that might turn into a stumbling block.

You might ask on this Gemara, “Why not simply explain to the child that this is an exception to the rule?” The answer is, simply, people learn far more from actions then from what they're told. Many years later, this child will get into a fight with his wife and say oh, I don't care what you did in your house in my house my father would make his and drink the wine on Yom Kippur.

Children emulate their parents actions and attitudes. Certain attitudes can only be absorbed from the air and not taught explicitly. I would call this being an “Absorbent Jew”, instead of “Observant Jew”, such as:

Honesty -- keeping your word. This is not merely about not lying. It is more subtle. It is about doing whatever you said you would do. A parent’s word should be gold. Though there are technically times where it might be permitted to lie, it is still harmful to children. See סוכה לו, ב and Yevamos 63a.

Optimism is also an attitude that Can be taught through modeling. This is not about Pollyanna false hope that “everything will be fine”, this is about projecting confidence that whatever happens, somehow we will either benefit from it or find a way resolve the challenge. While Bitachon might be a theological concern, it is difficult to maintain without a psychological disposition of optimism.

Empathy is also taught through observation. How do they see the way you listen and react to other peoples stories? Does your face and body language convey concern and care?

Respect is encouraged through setting boundaries and modeling how we respect other boundaries. How do we relate to elders? To Rabbis and teachers? An often neglected mitzvah is to stand up for an elderly person even in relatively developed circles, which is odd because it is a positive biblical commandment. See Arukh Hashulkhan 244:12 where he attempts to resolve the custom and Concludes that one is only obligated to slightly rise for a non-learned elderly person, and to stand up fully for a learned person even if he is not elderly. However, even if one follows this lenient opinion it still means that for an elderly person one must slightly rise up to give honor. What a powerful message it would be for a child to see a parent stand up fully for an elderly person. And even more telling was the custom of Rabbi Yochanan to even stand up for a gentile elderly person. He said, “How many experiences [harpatkei] have occurred to these individuals. It is appropriate to honor them, due to the wisdom they have garnered from their long lives.” Kiddushin 33a. You You might wonder how did Rabbi Yochanan understand that this person went through so many experiences? The answer is, because everybody in life goes through difficult experiences. Well, then how did he know that he became wise? Because, he survived, obviously you must have been wise and learned from them.

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

אִי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן הוּא, אָמְרִינַן: שְׁמַעְתָּא מְשַׁכְתֵּיהּ. וְאִי עַם הָאָרֶץ הוּא, אָמְרִינַן: חַמְרָא אִירְכַס לֵיהּ.

The Gemara explains: If he is a Torah scholar [tzurva merabbanan], we, the observers, would say: Perhaps his study pulled him, i.e., he was engrossed in his study and was not paying attention to where he was going. And if he is an ignoramus, we would say: Perhaps he lost his donkey and went to look for it. His actions give no indication that he is going to establish an eiruv for the following day, as establishing an eiruv does not require any recognizable action.

One of the most tragic incidents of משכתא שמעתא occurred on Erev Yom Kippur:

כתובות סב, ב

כי הא דרב רחומי הוה שכיח קמיה דרבא במחוזא הוה רגיל דהוה אתי לביתיה כל מעלי יומא דכיפורי יומא חד משכתיה שמעתא הוה מסכיא דביתהו השתא אתי השתא אתי לא אתא חלש דעתה אחית דמעתא מעינה הוה יתיב באיגרא אפחית איגרא מתותיה ונח נפשיה

This is as it is related about Rav Reḥumi, who would commonly study before Rava in Meḥoza: He was accustomed to come back to his home every year on the eve of Yom Kippur. One day he was particularly engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and so he remained in the study hall and did not go home. His wife was expecting him that day and continually said to herself: Now he is coming, now he is coming. But in the end, he did not come. She was distressed by this and a tear fell from her eye. At that exact moment, Rav Reḥumi was sitting on the roof. The roof collapsed under him and he died. This teaches how much one must be careful, as he was punished severely for causing anguish to his wife, even inadvertently.

This story Makes no sense on the surface. Is it fair that the The loyal wife who missed her husband, and was waiting forlorn for her husband to show up should suffer the loss? She shed only one tear, and this is what happens?!?

Perhaps this story is an allegory: His name was Rechumi, which means love, which is ironic. The entire incident occurs on Erev Yom Kippur. The roof fell in means his home collapsed and also suggests that though Rav Rechumi was devout and lofty, he fell. It means that though Rav Rechumi was as devout as they come, and on the day of the year that one is most devout, somehow he was missing something in his sh’lom bayis. We all need to think about that one.

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

שמות ט״ז:ה

וְהָיָה֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁ֔י וְהֵכִ֖ינוּ אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־יָבִ֑יאוּ וְהָיָ֣ה מִשְׁנֶ֔ה עַ֥ל אֲשֶֽׁר־יִלְקְט֖וּ י֥וֹם ׀ יֽוֹם׃ (ס)

But on the sixth day, when they apportion what they have brought in, it shall prove to be double the amount they gather each day.”

אגרא דכלה בשלח ל״ח

או יאמר המשך הפסוקים. על פי מ"ש חכמי האמת וספרי המוסר בנידון התשובה, שיראה האדם להרהר בתשובה לעתותי ערב בזמן מנחה קודם שיחזור היום לנרתיקו, שאז יהיה הפגם במקום היותר עליון מקום עליית היום בשורשו, דאם לא כן כאשר יעלה היום בשורשו, יגיע הפגם ח"ו לשורשו למקום היותר עליון וצריך תשובה יתירה, וכן בערב שבת קודם עליית ימי השבוע למקום היותר עליון, וכן בערב ראש חודש קודם עליית השבועות לנרתיקם, וכן בערב ראש השנה קודם עליית החדשים, המשכיל יבין עיין בשל"ה. והנה אמר (שמות טז ד) הנני ממטיר לכם (כפי מדריגתכם, כי ירד המן לכל אחד כפי צדקו כמ"ש לעיל) לחם מן השמים, (ובשביל זה כשיארע) ויצא העם, (כשיצאו ח"ו חוץ לשיטה מדרך התורה להדעת דס"א), ולקטו דבר יום ביומו, (אזי בודאי יראו הנצוצין והדיבורים והאותיות שהוציאו באותו היום, ילקטוהו מן הקליפה ביומ"ו על ידי התשובה תיכף ולא ימתינו עד למחר, פן יתגלה קלונם לעין כל בירידת המן, (כי ירד לכל אחד באופן אחר אם צדיק ואם רשע (עיין יומא ע"ה ע"א)). וזהו למען אנסנו וכו', והבן. ואמר אחר כך (שמות טז ה) והיה ביום הששי והכינו א"ת אש"ר יביא"ו, א"ת אש"ר, היינו תשובה עלאה ותתאה. או א"ת אש"ר, האותיות שהוציאו מן הקליפה, על אש"ר תשובה עילאה, והיה משנה על אשר ילקטו יום יום, דהיינו שביום הששי יוסיפו שנית לעשות תשובה מחדש, נוסף על מה שעשו בכל יום ויום:

The Halakha of Hachana is calling to our attention the need to prepare, and especially to prepare before a transition to new a new stage or state. The idea here is that any liminal moment requires a consolidation of previous efforts into a new whole. Erev Shabbos, Erev Rosh Chodesh and Erev Rosh Hashana. Adam was created on the sixth day, Erev Shabbos and Erev Rosh Hashana. That is why teshuva is important at such moments because we are most vulnerable when we are in transition. Think of any transition, such as going from dry land to a boat, or the ultimate transition, such as being born. There is a moment when all hangs in the balance and you are neither here, nor there. You might fall through if you are not careful. Preparation is key.

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

הָא וַדַּאי אִיפְּכָא תַּנְיָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּאוֹמֵר ״מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתִי יְהֵא מְחוּלָּל עַל סֶלַע חֲדָשָׁה שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה בְּיָדִי מִן הַכִּיס״ — שֶׁחִילֵּל. מִדְּקָאָמַר הָכָא שֶׁחִילֵּל, מִכְּלָל דְּהָתָם — לֹא חִילֵּל.

The Gemara answers: This Tosefta was certainly taught in reverse, as the latter clause states: And Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to one who says: The second tithe that I have in my house shall be redeemed with the new sela coin that will happen to come up in my hand when I remove it from the pouch, that he has redeemed the second tithe. The Gemara makes the following inference: From the fact that it said here that he has redeemed the second tithe, it can be proven by inference that there, in the first clause of the Tosefta, he did not redeem the second tithe. Therefore, the wording found in the earlier part of the baraita is clearly incorrect and must be reversed.

ערכין טז, ב

מר בריה דרבינא אמר אפילו נהפך לו חלוקו רבא ואיתימא רב חסדא ואיתימא רבי יצחק ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא אפילו הושיט ידו לכיס ליטול שלש ועלו בידו שתים

Mar son of Ravina says: Even if one’s cloak turns around as he puts it on, so that he has to take it off and put it on again, this too is considered a form of suffering. Rava said, and some say it was Rav Ḥisda, and some say it was Rabbi Yitzḥak, and some say it was taught in a baraita: Even if one reached his hand into his pocket to take out three coins, but two coins came up in his hand, it is considered a form of suffering.

Ben Yehoyada asks why two and three coins, and not one and two ? Also why not just dropped a coin and needed to pick it up?

I believe the cloak is about the persona and affectation of the person. This idea is supported by the Jungian interpretation of clothing symbolically in dreams. In addition, as well as some mystical interpretations of the word בגד in the verses in Shemos 21:8 refers to a wife or lover. So it is alluding to the need to sometimes turn yourself inside out at times when confronting challenges, especially challenges in marriage. Similarly, one who reaches for three but gets two may be referring to someone who wanted to get married and have children but did not (two versus three), or who married one person but wishes for another (three versus two). The point being that there is value in accepting what has occurred and learning to adapt (switching the clothes or the persona.)

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְכוּ׳. וְרַבָּנַן — זִימְנִין דְּנִיחָא לֵיהּ בְּחַבְרֵיהּ טְפֵי מֵרַבֵּיהּ.

We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one of the Sages was his teacher, he may go only to his teacher, as we can assume that this was his original intention. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Rabbis do not accept this straightforward argument? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis maintain that sometimes one prefers to meet the Sage who is his colleague rather than the Sage who is his teacher, as sometimes one learns more from his peers than from his teachers.

אבות א:טז

יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה וְנִתַּאי הָאַרְבֵּלִי קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה אוֹמֵר, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ רַב, וּקְנֵה לְךָ חָבֵר, וֶהֱוֵי דָן אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לְכַף זְכוּת:

Joshua ben Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received [the oral tradition] from them. Joshua ben Perahiah used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, and acquire for thyself a companion and judge all men with the scale weighted in his favor.

Maimonides commentary on Avos

"Make for yourself a mentor": He means to say even if he is not fit to be your mentor; still place him upon you as a mentor, so that you can give and take (discuss and argue) with him, and as a result of this the study of wisdom will come to your hand. As the study of a man on his own is good, but his study from someone else will be better established in his hand and it will be more clear - and even if he is like him in wisdom or below him. And so did they elucidate the explanation of this commandment. And he said, "acquire for yourself a friend". He said it with an expression of acquisition and he did not say, "Make for yourself a friend," or "Befriend others." The intention of this is that a person must acquire a friend for himself, so that all of his deeds and all of his matters be refined through him, as they said (Taanit 23a), "Either a friend or death." And if he does not find him, he must make efforts for it with all his heart, and even if he must lead him to his friendship, until he becomes a friend. And [then] he must never let off from following [his friend's] will, until his friendship is firmed up. [It is] as the masters of ethics say, "When you love, do not love according to your traits; but rather love according to the trait of your friend." And when each of the friends has the intention to fulfill the will of his friend, the intention of both of them will be one without a doubt. And how good is the statement of Aristotle, "The friend is one." And there are three types of friends: a friend for benefit, a friend for enjoyment and a friend for virtue. Indeed, a friend for benefit is like the friendship of two [business] partners and the friendship of a king and his retinue; whereas the friendship for enjoyment is of two types - the friend for pleasure and the friend for confidence. Indeed, the friend for pleasure is like the friendship of males and females and similar to it; whereas the friend for confidence is when a man has a friend to whom he can confide his soul. He will not keep [anything] from him - not in action and not in speech. And he will make him know all of his affairs - the good ones and the disgraceful - without fearing from him that any loss will come to him with all of this, not from him and not from another. As when a person has such a level of confidence in a man, he finds great enjoyment in his words and in his great friendship. And a friend for virtue is when the desire of both of them and their intention is for one thing, and that is the good. And each one wants to be helped by his friend in reaching this good for both of them together. And this is the friend which he commanded to acquire; and it is like the love of the master for the student and of the student for the master.