Psychology of the Daf Maseches Eruvin

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: רַבִּי, שָׁנִיתָה לָנוּ: סַנְדָּל שֶׁנִּפְסְקָה אַחַת מֵאׇזְנָיו וְתִיקְּנָהּ — טָמֵא מִדְרָס.

נִפְסְקָה שְׁנִיָּה וְתִיקְּנָהּ — טָהוֹר בָּהּ מִן הַמִּדְרָס, אֲבָל טָמֵא מַגַּע מִדְרָס.

וַאֲמַרְתְּ עֲלַהּ: מַאי שְׁנָא רִאשׁוֹנָה — דְּהָא קָיְימָא שְׁנִיָּה? שְׁנִיָּה נָמֵי — הָא קָיְימָא רִאשׁוֹנָה?!

וַאֲמַרְתְּ לַן עֲלַהּ: פָּנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת בָּאוּ לְכָאן. הָכָא נָמֵי, פָּנִים חֲדָשׁוֹת בָּאוּ לְכָאן.

קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ: לֵית דֵּין בַּר אִינָשׁ. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: כְּגוֹן דֵּין בַּר נַשׁ.

Rabbenu Channanel Shabbos 113b

ואמר חזקיה על ר' יוחנן לית לן בר אינש אלא מלאך הוא אימא דאמר כגון דין בר אינש ומאן דליתיה הכי כבהמה הוא כנגד זה:

Two questions: (1) What is so spectacular about Rabbi Yochanan’s peshat, that Chizkiya declares him to be supernatural? (2) What is the difference in the first loshon and the second loshon?

We can understand the discussion in this sugya to be about what makes identity. Consider this object, a sandal from day one of its existence to day 365. Now, over time, it wears down and changes. So, Sandal-Day-One is NOT the same sandal as Sandal-Day-365? But, then again, that is absurd. The owner knows that it is his same sandal. So, let us then say, it is the basic form of a sandal. But, that too is absurd since there are thousands of sandals out there that fit the basic form and description, so why is THIS sandal the same one? And, if it is not, then how does he possess it?

Taking this further into the human realm, according to researchers, the body replaces itself with a largely new set of cells every seven years to 10 years, and some of our most important parts are revamped even more rapidly SOURCE: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/science/your-body-is-younger-than-you-think.html].

If this is so, what makes us into US? We are not even the same person physically moment to moment, and within 10 years we have been completely replaced. Clearly, then, identity is not contained within the body. The body is merely a vessel for something else. Call it your identity, your self or the soul, if you would like. This soul must, in some way, be eternal, immortal and unchanging, otherwise, we will have the same problem as the Sandal and the cells, what was yesterday is not what is today, and certainly over time, what was a decade ago is not today.

Hinting at this paradox, Chizkaya declared, “This is not a human being….this is Truly a human being.” Meaning, that the nature of man’s identity, and in actuality, all physical and temporal matter both exists and doesn’t exist. Without a deeper constant beyond the physicality, there is nothing to say that it exists from moment to moment as the same object, since it is constantly changing. In Tanya, Shaar Hayichud (chs. 6-8), the Baal HaTanya takes this idea to the extreme explaining that in truth nothing exists at all aside from G-d. Even the Lurianic concept of Tzimtzum is not an actual withdrawal of G-d, but an illusion that He allows us to experience. It is as if we are all simulations running in the “G-d Mainframe “. We do not exist except as software running on G-d’s CPU.

What is all of this in terms of practical relevance? Well, first of all if your toast gets burned in the morning, in may not be worthwhile to get too upset about it considering that nothing really exists. And, joking aside, understanding that there exists logical arguments for the existence of, and the eternality of the soul, may help us get along a bit better in this world and the next.

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

״וְעַל פְּתָחֵינוּ כׇּל מְגָדִים״ — אֵלּוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמַּגִּידוֹת פִּתְחֵיהֶן לְבַעֲלֵיהֶן. לָשׁוֹן אַחֵר: שֶׁאוֹגְדוֹת פִּתְחֵיהֶן לְבַעֲלֵיהֶן.

“And at our doors [petaḥeinu] are all manner of choice fruits [megadim],” these are the daughters of Israel who inform [maggidot] their husbands about their passageway [pit’ḥeihen], i.e., they tell them when they are menstruating. Another version of this interpretation is: They bind [ogedot] their passageway and save it for their husbands, and do not have relations with others.

One area of marriage that requires absolute trust are the laws of Niddah. Every woman must constantly make decisions about what internal experiences and states are important to ask she’elos about and what are not. It is all too easy to go to either extreme, that is obsessing too much about minor issues, or becoming resentful and jaded and not asking enough questions.

My friends, in this matter, a husband is key. No matter what complication, what question, no matter how frustrating or inconvenient, no matter if she “shouldn’t have looked” or “shouldn’t have forgotten”, never, ever show resentment or anger. Doing internal examinations and having to show them to others is a potentially humiliating experience. No husband should add to this distress by acting in any way annoyed or irritated. He should always be grateful and supportive that his wife expends time and energy, and is open about highly personal matters.

My friends, in Psychology of the Daf we are going to say things that others will not say. Can you imagine for a minute that in order to be intimate with your wife you had to stick a white cloth up your rectum, twice daily? And, even better, any time there was an unusual color, no matter how small, you would have to send it to a rabbi to let you know if you are “kosher”? Try to have some empathy and understand the incredible trust and courage Jewish women have displayed for thousands of years!

I can attest there are women who hide shaalos, and even some that lie about going to the Mikvah altogether for decades, out of fear of their husbands’ reactions. I have encountered this from women who otherwise are devout. Please do not underestimate how fearful and dysfunctional relationships can become. Be a good Jew, and be a good man. Treat your wife with sensitivity and respect regarding any matter of hilchos niddah.

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אֹרֶךְ הֶחָצֵר מֵאָה בָאַמָּה וְרֹחַב חֲמִשִּׁים בַּחֲמִשִּׁים״. אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: טוֹל חֲמִשִּׁים, וְסַבֵּב חֲמִשִּׁים.

The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda said: This is learned from the verse that stated: “The length of the courtyard shall be a hundred cubits, and the breadth fifty by fifty, and the height, five cubits of fine twined linen, and their sockets of brass” (Exodus 27:18). The Torah said: Take a square of fifty cubits by fifty cubits, and surround it with the remaining fifty cubits until they form a square, each side of which measures seventy cubits and a remainder.

The idea of 50 x 100 represents a folding of space, and the Gemara itself, does another fold making it 70 and bit by 70 and a bit. The Midrash understands this and relates several instances where the small area miraculously absorbed the entire people. The courtyard of the Bais Hamikdash was one such place, where they would be jam packed like a pre-Covid NYC subway car during rush hour, yet when they would bow down, they all had room.

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּזֹאת תֵּדְעוּן כִּי אֵל חַי בְּקִרְבְּכֶם, וְאַף בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, דִּתְנַן עוֹמְדִים צְפוּפִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים רְוָחִים. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרַבִּי חָנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אַחָא אָמַר, אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת לְכָל אֶחָד וְאַמָּה מִכָּל צַד, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹא יְהֵא אָדָם שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִלָּתוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ.

When they bowed they had four cubits and one more cubit so they can pray in privacy.

Bereishis Rabbah 5:7

The way of the world is that one pours a full vessel into an empty one. Perhaps you can pour a full vessel into a full vessel?! All the world was water in water and you say “…into one place…” (Genesis 1:9) Rather from here we learn that a little can hold a lot. ...Similarly – R’ Yosi bar Chalifta said: “The length of the courtyard shall be one hundred cubits and the width fifty by fifty cubits,” (Exodus 27:18) and all of Israel stood there? That’s strange! Rather from here we learn that a little can hold a lot. Similarly - “And Joshua said to the children of Israel, Come here…” (Joshua 3:9) R’ Huna said: he stood them all up between the two poles of the ark. R’ Acha bar R’ Chanina said: he placed them between the two poles of the ark. The Rabbis said: he shrank them between the two poles of the ark. Yehoshua said to them: from the fact that the two poles of the ark could hold you, you know that Presence of the Holy One is among you. This is what is written “By this you shall know that the living God is in your midst…” (Joshua 3:10) So too regarding Jerusalem it is taught ‘they stood crowded together, but prostrated themselves with plenty of space between them. R’ Shmuel bar R’ Chana said in the name of R’ Acha: each one had four cubits, and a cubit of space to each side so that no one heard the prayer of his fellow. So too it will be in the time to come, as it says “At that time, they will call Jerusalem the Throne of the Lord…” (Jeremiah 3:17)

Notably, the earth for the Sotah ritual that is mixed with the water must come form the floor of the Temple which is in the center of the Courtyard.

Mishna Sotah 2:2

נוֹטֵל עָפָר מִתַּחְתֶּיהָ וְנוֹתֵן כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה עַל הַמַּיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה) וּמִן הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן יִקַּח הַכֹּהֵן וְנָתַן אֶל הַמָּיִם:

he would take some dust from beneath it which he puts [into the bowl] so that it would be seen on top of the water; as it is said, “And of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water” (Numbers 5:17).

I wonder if these matters are related. How so? The enclosure of the Bais Hamikdash represents Hashem’s home and his boundaries. Within that, Hashem miraculously allows for the privacy and space of each person who is praying. The earth of the Sotah represents the physicality, and also represents the Jewish people who are compared to be as numerous as the dust of the earth (Numbers 23:10). When boundaries and privacy is respected, then there is plenty of space to grow and indeed, if the Sotah is innocent she is blessed with children (Numbers 5:28). However, lack of respect for boundaries can lead to catastrophe.

Lest some of you think I am making all of this up, and Eruvin is just a halakhic mesechta, with no meaning beyond Hilchos Shabbos and Yom Tov, keep in mind the words of Maaseh Rokeach Seder Moed Maseches Eruvin on this Mishna of Karpef

וכבר כתבתי כל הדינים אינם יוצאים מפשטן אבל מרמזים לדברים גדולים...וה' יאיר עינינו בתורתו. וידעתי גם ידעתי שיש במסכתא זו רזין דרזין אך כבר כתבתי שאין לנו עסק בנסתרות, עד שיבא עני ורוכב על חמור ויתבערו רוח הטומאה מן הארץ ותמלא הארץ דיעה כמים לים מכסים. בבי"א.

“Though no halakha is removed from its plain meaning and intent, however here there are hints at exalted matters...Eruvin contains secrets upon secrets

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

רָבָא אָמַר: בְּמִי שֶׁמֵּשִׂים עַצְמוֹ אַכְזָרִי עַל בָּנָיו וְעַל בְּנֵי בֵּיתוֹ כְּעוֹרֵב. כִּי הָא דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָא הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל לְבֵי רַב, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ דְּבֵיתְהוּ: יָנוֹקֵי דִידָךְ מַאי אֶעֱבֵיד לְהוּ? אֲמַר לַהּ: מִי שְׁלִימוּ קוּרָמֵי בְּאַגְמָא?

Rava said: In him who makes himself cruel to his sons and other members of his household like a raven for the sake of Torah. This was the case with Rav Adda bar Mattana, who was about to go to the study hall to learn Torah, and his wife said to him: What shall I do for your children? How shall I feed them in your absence? He said to her: Are all the rushes [kurmei] in the marsh already gone? If there is no other bread, let them eat food prepared from rushes.

This is obviously a disturbing Gemara. It cannot be taken literally as Rava HIMSELF says in Berachos 35a:

אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא לְרַבָּנַן: בְּמָטוּתָא מִינַּיְיכוּ, בְּיוֹמֵי נִיסָן וּבְיוֹמֵי תִּשְׁרֵי לָא תִּתְחֲזוֹ קַמַּאי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא תִּטַּרְדוּ בִּמְזוֹנַיְיכוּ כּוּלָּא שַׁתָּא.

Similarly, Rava said to the Sages who would attend his study hall: I implore you; during the months of Nisan and Tishrei, the crucial agricultural periods, do not appear before me. Engage in your agricultural work then so that you will not be preoccupied with your sustenance all year.

Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Hatorah 3

שנעשה אכזרי על בניו והם תולדות שלו וכל אשר הוא לאדם הוא מבטל בשביל התורה השכלית שהיא על הכל ובאדם כמו זה תמצא התורה. ואי אפשר לפרש יותר כי הדברים עמוקים מאוד מה שרמזו כאן:

So the Maharal learns “ignoring his children” as a metaphor for his emotional and worldly concerns.

But there is a difficulty, as there is an story being told about Rav Ada bar Masna who seems to have actually ignored the pleas of his wife and children?

And here is where it gets tricky and subtle. Of course the listening audience should not attempt this stunt at home. Meaning, the typical person cannot be devoted to Torah study to such an extent as to ignore the needs of his wife and children, and not even his own health needs. Yet, there is such a human character who is so devoted to his craft, that almost compulsively and with irrational devotion, he or she gives up everything.

This is not only in Torah. There have always been famous artists, scientists and explorers who were so driven, that they would work day and night without any regard for their own welfare or others. When someone reaches that level in Torah devotion, it happens without thought and with little conscious choice. The difference is, that when it comes to Torah study, there is a promise that just as Hashem makes sure the raven’s offspring do not starve, so too Hashem will care for the needs the true devotee and lover of Torah. There is indeed a concept and pattern of human behavior that allows for the rare individual to become so intensely devoted and monomaniacal that all concerns, emotional, personal, physical and relational are mostly ignored. Such a rare person, if his heart is in the right place, and his efforts merit it will receive supernatural intervention.

However, it is important to keep in mind Abaye’s warning (ibid):

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַרְבֵּה עָשׂוּ כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְעָלְתָה בְּיָדָן. כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי, וְלֹא עָלְתָה בְּיָדָן.

Summing up this dispute, Abaye said: Although there is room for both opinions, many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and combined working for a living and learning Torah, and although they engaged in activities other than the study of Torah, were successful in their Torah study. Many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai and were not successful in their Torah study. They were ultimately forced to abandon their Torah study altogether.

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

וּמַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן — דְּלָא אָתוּ רַבִּים וּמְבַטְּלִי מְחִיצְתָּא, הָא אֲמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר חֲדָא זִימְנָא

The Gemara asks: And what is he teaching us by this statement, that the passage of many people does not come and negate the effectiveness of a partition? But Rabbi Elazar stated this idea once before.

דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיְתָה דֶּרֶךְ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מַפְסַקְתָּן — יְסַלְּקֶנָּה לִצְדָדִין, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַויְיהוּ: כָּאן הוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן שֶׁל מְחִיצּוֹת.

As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says the following with regard to the upright boards surrounding a well: If the path of the public domain passes through the area of the wells and the posts and obstructs them, he must divert it to the sides, or else the partition is invalid. And the Rabbis say: He need not divert the path of the public domain, for even if many people pass through there, the partition is valid. With regard to this mishna, Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar both said: Here, the Rabbis informed you of the strength of partitions. Therefore, we see that Rabbi Elazar already expressed his opinion that the validity of a partition is not canceled by the passage of many people through it.

Here we find a disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages. The sages hold that once a boundary is set, even if public foot traffic passes through it, the boundary remains valid. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the boundary must be moved aside, and accommodate the foot traffic.

I wonder if this idea of Rabbi Yehuda, that the general welfare takes precedence over individual boundaries is also expressed in other ways in Rabbi Yehuda’s halakhic rulings. For example we find him taking an interesting position in regard to Torah study, both related to public welfare and public sorrow. Let us look at these other rulings from Rabbi Yehuda:

Kesubos 17a

תנו רבנן מבטלין תלמוד תורה להוצאת המת ולהכנסת כלה אמרו עליו על רבי יהודה ברבי אלעאי שהיה מבטל תלמוד תורה להוצאת המת ולהכנסת כלה במה דברים אמורים כשאין עמו כל צרכו אבל יש עמו כל צרכו אין מבטלין

The Sages taught: One suspends the study of Torah to attend the removal of a corpse for burial and to attend the entry of a bride into the wedding canopy. The Sages said about Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, that he would suspend the study of Torah to attend the removal of a corpse for burial and to attend the entry of a bride into the wedding canopy. In what case is this statement said? In a case where there are not enough people with him, i.e., accompanying the corpse, to satisfy all his needs, i.e., to appropriately honor him. However, if there are enough people with him to satisfy all his needs, one does not suspend Torah study.

Kiddushin 29a

רבי יהודה אומר כל שאינו מלמד את בנו אומנות מלמדו ליסטות ליסטות ס"ד אלא כאילו מלמדו ליסטות:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Any father who does not teach his son a trade teaches him banditry [listut]. The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Can it enter your mind that he actually teaches him banditry? Rather, the baraita means that it is as though he teaches him banditry. Since the son has no profession with which to support himself, he is likely to turn to theft for a livelihood.

So for Rabbi Yehuda, though individual boundaries are important, the public welfare and interests take precedence, halakhically and philosophically.

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָאִיכָּא ״גֵּיהִנָּם״! — גֵּיא שֶׁעֲמוּקָּה (בְּגֵיהִנָּם), שֶׁהַכֹּל יוֹרֵד לָהּ עַל עִסְקֵי הִנָּם.

The Gemara poses a question: Are there no more names? Isn’t there the name Gehenna? The Gemara answers that this is not a name rather a description: A valley that is as deep as the valley [gei] of ben Hinnom. An alternative explanation is: Into which all descend for vain [hinnam] and wasteful acts, understanding the word hinnam as if it were written ḥinnam, meaning for naught.

על עסקי הנם - עריות:

How does Rashi see Arayos here? Perhaps, “Hinam - them” a euphemism for others? That is, incestuous relationships that are necessarily in a state of “otherness”. Or, we can say that Rashi is also working with the play on words chinnam - because arayos is sexuality without responsibility.

If we use the second interpretation, the message is that “free sex” is immoral sex. Meaning, that the Torah wants to conserve the intense pleasures of sexuality to be used within the confines of commitment and devotion. All pleasures are best enjoyed when moderated. Too much food, too much vacation, too much of anything actually reduces satisfaction. Sexuallity within committment, consistency, love and emotional commitment offers the greatest chance of overall happiness and satisfaction.

Psychology of the Daf Eruvin Rabbi Simcha Feuerman LCSW-R, DHL

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

לְכִדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא. דְּדָרֵישׁ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא: ״וַיִּבֶן ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַצֵּלָע״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁקִּילְּעָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְחַוָּה וֶהֱבִיאָהּ לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁכֵּן בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם קוֹרִין לְקַלָּעִיתָא בַּנָּיְיתָא.

The Gemara responds: This must be interpreted homiletically, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya interpreted homiletically the verse: “And the Lord God built the tzela.” This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, braided for Eve her hair, and then brought her to Adam, as in the coastal towns, they call braiding hair building.

קהלת רבה ז:ב

אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה גְּמִילוּת חֶסֶד בַּתּוֹרָה, בְּרֹאשָׁהּ, וּבְאֶמְצָעִיתָהּ, וּבְסוֹפָהּ. בְּרֹאשָׁהּ, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית ב, כב): וַיִּבֶן ה' אֱלֹהִים אֶת הַצֵּלָע, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁקִּלְעָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְחַוָּה וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל הָאָדָם וְנַעֲשָׂה שׁוֹשְׁבִין לָהֶם, שֶׁכֵּן בִּכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם קוֹרִין לְקַלְעִיתָא בָּנְיָאתָא. וּבְאֶמְצָעִיתָהּ, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית יח, א): וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה' בְּאֵלֹנֵי מַמְרֵא, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבִּקְּרוֹ (בראשית כה, יא): וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת יִצְחָק בְּנוֹ, זוֹ בִּרְכַּת אֲבֵלִים. בְּסוֹפָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים לד, ו): וַיִּקְבֹּר אֹתוֹ בַגַּי. ...מְקַשֵּׁט כַּלּוֹת דִּכְתִיב (בראשית ב, כב): וַיִּבֶן ה' אֱלֹהִים, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בְּנָאָהּ וְקִשְׁטָהּ וְהֶרְאָהּ לוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ שֶׁמָּא תֹאמַר מִתּוֹךְ חָרוּב אֶחָד אוֹ מִתּוֹךְ שִׁקְמָה אַחַת הֶרְאָהּ לוֹ, אֶלָּא מֵאַחַר שֶׁקִּשְׁטָהּ בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי תַּכְשִׁיטִין, אַחַר כָּךְ הֶרְאָהּ לוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ב, כב): וַיְבִאֶהָ אֶל הָאָדָם.

בן יהוידע שבת צה,א

מְלַמֵּד שֶׁקִּלְּעָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְחַוָּה, וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֵצֶל אָדָם. פירוש בעת שבראה גזר שיהיה שערה נברא קלוע מעיקרו, ולא סתור שתצטרך לקלעו אחר כך בידיה כדי שאדם הראשון יראנה שערה קלוע הוא נוי שלה תיכף בראיה הראשונה שרואה אותה אחר שנבראת, וצריך להבין למה עשה כן שתהיה גם קליעת שערה שהוא רק לנוי בידי שמים, והוה סגי שיהיה שערה נברא סתור ויתן בינה בחוה שתקלע אותו בשביל נוי ויופי, כמו שנתן בינה באדם הראשון כמ"ש להכות אבן באבן ולהוציא אש מתוכם? ונראה לי בס"ד דרמז לה בזה שהקשוט באשה הוא חיוב עליה השורת הדרך ארץ שתקשט עצמה בפני בעלה, לכן גם קליעת שערה שהוא מכלל הקישוט נעשה לה בידי שמים מתחלת בריאתה.

This Shows the importance of a woman’s beauty, and particularly her hair. I cannot question another person’s Minhag, however suffice it to say if it is NOT your original minhag to shave your hair, don’t start doing so out of piety.

Perhaps one could answer for the minhag as follows: Chava had her hair only on the wedding day; it doesn’t say what happened the next morning. While that is a technical answer, it seems that the point was for Chava to be beautiful through her hair; shaving it the next day would run against that.

Another interesting idea that comes out from this Midrash is that However, it gives support to the custom that a bride does not cover her hair under the chuppah on the wedding night.

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

וּפְטוּרִין מֵרְחִיצַת יָדַיִם. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מַיִם רִאשׁוֹנִים, אֲבָל מַיִם אַחֲרוֹנִים חוֹבָה.

We learned in the mishna that in a military camp one is exempt from ritual washing of the hands. Abaye said: They taught this exemption only with regard to first waters, i.e., hand-washing before eating. However, final waters, i.e., hand-washing after eating and before reciting Grace after Meals, is an obligation even in a military camp.

אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ מַיִם אַחֲרוֹנִים חוֹבָה? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמֶּלַח סְדוֹמִית יֵשׁ, שֶׁמְּסַמֵּא אֶת הָעֵינַיִם.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: For what reason did the Sages say that the final waters are an obligation? It is due to the fact that there is the presence of Sodomite salt, which blinds the eyes even in a small amount. Since Sodomite salt could remain on one’s hands, one must wash them after eating. This obligation is binding even in a camp because soldiers are also obligated to maintain their health.

Tosafos

מים אחרונים חובה - עכשיו לא נהגו במים אחרונים דאין מלח סדומית מצוי בינינו אי נמי לפי שאין אנו רגילים לטבל אצבעותינו במלח אחר אכילה:

So we see an important principle of סכנתא חמירא מאיסורא, but we also see a change in practice for surmised reasons.

Similar to שו״ע ר״ל:ג

הנכנס למרחץ אומר יהר"מ ה' אלהי שתכניסני לשלום ותוציאני לשלום ותצילני מהאור הזה וכיוצא בו לעתיד לבא יצא בשלום אומר מודה אני לפניך ה' אלהי שהצלתני מהאור הזה:

ט״ז שם בשם הב״ח

הנכנס למרחץ כו'. עכשיו לא נהגו לומר כן ונתן מו"ח ז"ל טעם דלא נתקן אלא בימיהם שהיו מסיקין האש מלמטה בחפירה ורוחצים באמבטי למעלה כדאיתא בפרק ע"פ דרב ציוה לבניו שלא ליכנס למרחץ חדש עד אחר י"ב חדש פן תפחת מלמעל' אבל בזמן הזה התנור עומד בזוית ליכ' סכנה ובירושלמי נמי מחלק א"ר אבהו בד"א במרחץ שהיא ניסוקת אבל במרחץ שאינה ניסוקת אינו אומר אלא מהיזק חמין בלבד ומביאו ב"י ועכשיו א"צ לחוש להיזק תמין כי העין רואה והלב מבין לזהר מהיזק חמין שעומדין בגלוי עכ"ל:

How did they know when to accept a custom and went to reject it? One thing we can see, they were practical and respected certain trends. Clearly they were coming up with reasons to explain why the custom exists, but they accepted the custom first.

On the one hand, you could argue, it was easier to accept a custom that went against the teaching of the Gemara because it did not involve a violation of deoraysa. But, on the other hand, it is important to keep in mind the principle we saw earlier , that danger is more serious than an Torah prohibition סכנתא חמירא מאיסורא. So it is an interesting matter that requires more study to understand the criteria for excepting or rejecting a custom. Perhaps, though danger is more serious than a Biblical violation, they are more apt to recognize change in social or physical circumstances that make the rule unnecessary in a situation of danger, versus a situation of Torah prohibition. So, in that way, Issurah is still more chamur than sakanta. Regardless, what does emerge is a willingness to notice that not every issue that was a concern in the times of the Gemara remains a concern.

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

הֲדַר אוֹקֵים רַב נַחְמָן אָמוֹרָא עֲלֵיהּ וּדְרַשׁ: דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם טָעוּת הֵן בְּיָדִי. בְּרַם כָּךְ אָמְרוּ: יָחִיד — נוֹתְנִין לוֹ בֵּית סָאתַיִם, שְׁנַיִם — נוֹתְנִין לָהֶן בֵּית סָאתַיִם, שְׁלֹשָׁה — נַעֲשׂוּ שְׁיָירָא וְנוֹתְנִין לָהֶן כָּל צָרְכָּן.

Rav Naḥman then placed a speaker standing over him, and taught: The matters that I stated before you are an error on my part. Indeed, this is what the Rabbis said: With regard to an individual, the halakha provides him with an area of two beit se’a. With regard to two individuals, the halakha provides them with an area of two beit se’a as well. Three individuals assume the legal status of a caravan, and the halakha provides them with space to satisfy all their needs.

Tosafos Avodah Zara 58a

מי כסיפא ליה מילתא לומר טעיתי בהדיא וחוזר אני בו הרי בכמה מקומות מצינו שהיה אומר דברים שאמרתי לפניכם טעות הן בידי

The Peri LaTzaddik (Re’eh 7) notes that Rava was zoche to extraordinary hatzlacha that the din should be emes because of his great humility in admitting he was wrong, who we find admitted similarly to Rav Nachman, in four places in Shas. We see his supernatural success in the famous story of the “cane of Rava”:

Nedarim 25a

לא לאפוקי מקניא דרבא דההוא גברא דהוה מסיק בחבריה זוזי אתא לקמיה דרבא אמר ליה ללווה זיל פרע לי אמר ליה פרעתיך אמר ליה רבא אם כן זיל אישתבע ליה דפרעתיה

The Gemara responds: No, this warning comes to exclude a case similar to that cane of Rava, in which a person attempts to deceive the court but does not necessarily utilize his own terminology, as there was a certain man who claimed money from another. He came before Rava to adjudicate the case. The creditor said to the borrower: Go repay me your debt. The borrower said to him: I already repaid you. Rava said to him: If so, go take an oath to him that you repaid him.

אזל ואייתי קניא ויהיב זוזי בגויה והוה מסתמיך ואזיל ואתי עליה לבי דינא אמר ליה למלוה נקוט האי קניא בידך נסב ספר תורה ואישתבע דפרעיה כל מה דהוה ליה בידיה

The borrower went and brought a hollow cane, and placed the money inside it, and was leaning upon it, and went leaning upon it to the court. He said to the lender: Hold this cane in your hand so that I can take an oath while holding a Torah scroll. The borrower took the Torah scroll and swore that he had repaid the entire sum that had been in his possession.

ההוא מלוה רגז ותברה לההוא קניא ואישתפך הנהו זוזי לארעא ואישתכח דקושטא אישתבע

That creditor then became angry upon hearing the borrower taking a false oath and broke that cane, and all of those coins placed inside fell to the ground. And it turned out that he had taken the oath in truth, since he had returned all the money at the time of the oath by giving him the cane with the money inside. However, this was a deceitful tactic, as he intended that the creditor return the cane and the money in it to him after he had taken the oath. In order to prevent this kind of deception, the one taking the oath is warned that he must take the oath according to the understanding of the court.

What kind of wonderful things and supernatural success can WE merit if we are able to admit that we are wrong?

The Daf from a Psychological Perspective

For Mareh Mekomos Click Below

וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְדָבָר הַכּוֹרֵת בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. לְכִדְתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתִּי יַיִן, עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא תֵּלְכִי לְבֵית אָבִיךְ לְעוֹלָם — אֵין זֶה כְּרִיתוּת. כָּל שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם — הֲרֵי זֶה כְּרִיתוּת.

The Gemara continues: And the Rabbis explain that this phrase: A scroll of severance, is required to teach that a bill of divorce must be a matter that severs all connection between him and her. As it was taught in a baraita: If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce, on condition that you will never drink wine, or on condition that you will never go to your father’s house, that is not severance; the bill of divorce is not valid. If a bill of divorce imposes a condition upon the woman that permanently binds her to her husband, her relationship with her husband has not been completely severed, which is a prerequisite for divorce. If, however, he imposes a condition for the duration of thirty days, or any other limited period of time, that is severance, and the bill of divorce is valid, as the relationship will be completely terminated at the end of the thirty-day period.

Bechor Shor Devarim 24:1

כריתות. דבר הכורת בינו לבינה, שאם אמר על מנת שלא תשתי יין לעולם, או שאמר הרי את מגורשת ממני (או) [על מנת] שלא תלכי לבית אביך לעולם, אין זה כריתות, שהרי אגידה ביה, דמחמתיה אינה שותה, ואם שתה חזרה לו

Magid Mishne Gittin 8:4

ולא ישאר ביניהם שום אגידה בשום אופן

The Halakha is presenting an importance truth about moving on: Ideally, there should be no loose ends or issues holding them together. Sometimes people remain tied together through hostility, such as trying to get financial restitution or custody issues. Occasionally, some matters are worth fighting about, however most legal and custody battles end up costing large sums of money, and lead to results more or less close to what could have been mediated through common sense. When there are children involved, there is an automatic connection and that is important to maintain a working relationship to co-parent, but not a romantic one. There is a saying in the recovery community which is pertinent: “Holding a grudge allows someone to live in your head rent free.”