The Blogs: Becoming Nothing: Prayer and Self-Obliteration and More Sanhedrin 21-24

Deferred Desires: Rashi, Tosafos, and the Psychology of Restraint

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the status of Tamar’s mother, Ma’acha, and whether she was Jewish at the time of Tamar’s conception. Ma’acha was a “Captive Woman,” subject to the laws described in Devarim (21:10–14):

When you [an Israelite warrior] take the field against your enemies, and Hashem your God delivers them into your power, and you take some of them captive,

and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire her and would take her [into your household] as your wife,

you shall bring her into your household, and she shall trim her hair and pare her nails.

She shall discard her captive’s garb and spend a month in your household lamenting her father and mother; after that, you may come to her, and she shall be your wife.

Then, if you no longer desire her, you must release her outright. You may not sell her for money or treat her as a slave, because you degraded her.

Our Gemara asserts that since Ma’acha was a captive woman, and Tamar was conceived prior to her mother’s conversion, Tamar was not technically considered Amnon’s sister.

Rashi and Tosafos: Dispute on the Captive Woman

The idea that the initial sexual encounter with a captive woman is permitted is subject to a dispute between Rashi and Tosafos in Kiddushin (22a, Tosafos “Shelo”). Tosafos follows the plain reading of these verses, which implies that during the fog of war, the Torah allows for a one-time sexual encounter with the woman prior to her undergoing conversion. Rashi, however, maintains that the woman is only permitted after conversion.

Tosafos challenges Rashi’s interpretation: If the first encounter is only allowed post-conversion, how does Rashi understand our Gemara’s assertion that Tamar was conceived as a gentile and thus not technically Amnon’s sister? Tosafos (ibid) explains that according to Rashi, Ma’acha was already pregnant by another man before King David captured her. Thus, Tamar was not even King David’s daughter, and the Gemara’s point about Ma’acha being a captive woman was to show that Tamar was not Jewish initially, and not a relative of Amnon.

The Gemara (Kiddushin 21b) provides the rationale for permitting the captive woman: allowing a controlled process prevents unrestrained and abusive behavior in wartime. This process requires the soldier to take responsibility and treat her with dignity, ideally leading to marriage. Tosafos maintains that the soldier is granted a one-time allowance for intimacy prior to conversion, while Rashi contends that even the initial encounter is only permitted after conversion. According to Rashi, the concession lies in permitting marriage despite doubts about the sincerity of the conversion process. Furthermore, Rashi suggests that the mere promise of future permissibility suffices to curb the soldier’s immediate desires.

Rashi and Tosafos: Managing Desires in Other Contexts

A similar psychological debate between Rashi and Tosafos appears in Kiddushin (29b), which discusses whether it is better to marry before studying Torah or to study first. Marrying first might prevent sinful distractions caused by unfulfilled desires, while studying first might allow for greater focus during the formative years of Torah learning:

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that one should marry a woman and afterward study Torah.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: How can one do this? With a millstone hanging from his neck, i.e., with the responsibility of providing for his family weighing upon him, can he engage in Torah study?

The Gemara comments: Actually this is only an apparent disagreement. Each Amora is discussing a different locale and situation: One Amora is discussing us (Babylonians) and the other Amora is discussing them (those living in Eretz Yisrael.)

Which ruling applies to the scholars or which location?

According to Tosafos, in Babylonia, where scholars traveled to study and lacked financial means, Torah study preceded marriage. In Eretz Yisrael, where scholars often studied locally and were supported by their families, marriage came first.

Rashi interprets the Gemara differently, positing that Babylonian scholars married first and then traveled to study. By being married but living apart from their wives, they enjoyed the benefits of marital stability without the distractions of daily familial responsibilities. Tosafos questions how this arrangement alleviates sexual distraction, but Rashi appears consistent: just as the soldier’s awareness of eventual permissibility calms his battlefield desires, the scholar’s knowledge of having a wife, albeit distant, provides sufficient reassurance to focus on Torah study.

Psychological Perspectives of Rashi and Tosafos

This debate highlights a broader difference in Rashi’s and Tosafos’s approaches to psychological incentives. Tosafos emphasizes the need for immediate, concrete solutions to manage desires. In contrast, Rashi trusts in the power of long-term assurances to provide psychological relief. The promise of eventual gratification, according to Rashi, can be sufficient to manage present impulses, whether on the battlefield or in the beis midrash.

Becoming Nothing: The Art of Prayer and Self-Obliteration

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the well-known verse in Tehillim (16:8): “I have set Hashem before myself continuously.”

Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: One who prays needs to see himself as if the Divine Presence is opposite him, as it is stated: “I have set the Lord always before me” (Psalms 16:8).

The simple meaning of this is to visualize, when praying, that one is actually standing before the Shekhina. However, the Hebrew word “before” (kneged) also connotes opposite to, and perhaps even in confrontation. The Maharal (Nesiv HaAvodah 6) offers a deeper explanation. He says the act of prayer itself represents the positioning of the enacted upon, the causee, to the actor, the causer, meaning the human submits himself and recognizes that he receives everything from God. When he enters this state, he allows himself to become united with God. This too, he explains, is the deeper meaning of the teaching in Gemara Sotah (5a):

Ḥizkiyya says: The prayers of a person are heard only if he casts his heart to be soft like flesh, [instead of stone].

The Maharal interprets “casting his heart to be as flesh” to mean reverting completely to matter (flesh), without form.

To understand Maharal, we need to grasp something about his view of science. Ancient physics believed that all physical matter takes shape by imposing form on the matter. The form is a non-physical entity and exists as an idea. For example, a triangle is an abstract idea that doesn’t exist in the real world. That is, a triangle in the sense of three connected lines forming a perfect 180 degrees. There might be matter that has a triangular shape, but it is not a triangle in essence. Similarly, the form of gold is imposed on matter to make it gold, and the same applies to silver, plants, and living flesh. You might say the form is the software, and the matter is the hardware.

To pray effectively, the Maharal teaches that we must obliterate any pre-existing superimposed form on our flesh or matter. This means completely divesting the self from the picture, becoming a blank slate to allow God to bestow His form upon us.

This is a profound description of the art of prayer. The supplicant must cultivate a state of mind where he or she removes all preexisting thoughts and biases, allowing an unformed self to present before God. The more one removes self, the more room there is for God’s presence and will to join with yours, bringing about providential protection and guidance. This is placing oneself before God, realizing one’s place of utter nothingness before Him.

Balancing Acts: Divine Patterns in Chaos and Creation

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the concept of Zabl”a, where two litigants choose a judge, and those two judges then select a third.

Chaim V’Chessed (124) compares this to the encounter of Chessed (total giving) with Gevurah (strength, boundaries), which manifests Tiferes (compassion and mercy).

The idea that stability is achieved through the encounter of two, producing a balanced third, is a recurring pattern throughout the physical and material world. The need for balance—neither too much of one thing nor too little—is a fundamental truth across biological, physical, social, emotional, and spiritual realms. Buildings, personalities, and even planets thrive when varying forces are balanced.

It is fascinating to observe how patterns consistently manifest in every aspect of the physical and spiritual world, often unnoticed and taken for granted. Besides the need for balance, other patterns that are evident across biological, relational, physical, and spiritual realities include:

The risk-reward ratio: The more one plays it safe to avoid downside risks, the less potential there is for upside gains. This applies to religion, relationships, and finances. Balance integrates with this principle, ensuring that risks are taken without recklessness. Growth and change are impossible without letting go. Whenever one lets go—whether to entertain a new idea or adopt new behavior—there is always a risk of losing the old and not achieving the desired outcome. The greater and more desirable the achievement, the more one must risk letting go to receive it.

Another constant pattern is that difficulties tend to strengthen individuals, provided they endure. This is true for metal forged in a furnace, acquired immunity after recovering from a disease, grit developed through years of hard work, and even the notion that a penitent is considered greater than the righteous Berachos (34b).

Additionally, creation often arises from the encounter of two opposites. God created the world, biological entities reproduce through sexual intercourse, and even new ideas emerge from two people brainstorming and debating, or from one person grappling with a dialectical problem.

There are also mathematical patterns that repeat themselves, such as Fibonacci numbers, which appear in various natural objects, including the arrangement of flower petals, the spiral of galaxies, and the scales of pinecones. Another significant pattern is the near-universal presence of almost identical DNA across all living organisms. While some may see this as evidence of evolution, from a religious perspective, it highlights God’s efficiency and the work of a master planner. The subtle but consistent repetition of these patterns across physical and spiritual spheres indicates a strong, unifying, and organizing force. While this force can be called by many names, we recognize it as God, whose presence is revealed through these constant indicators of a grand and purposeful design.

Rolling the Dice: The Moral Gamble of Careers

Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses why a career gambler is not trusted as a witness:

Rav Sheshes says: Those who play dice are disqualified because they are not involved in settling the world, i.e., in productive occupations that demand hard work.

What is this flaw exactly, and why does it disqualify them? Rashi here offers two factors which, combined, lead to a person who cannot be trusted to testify on financial matters because his perception is altered from a lack of appreciation for its gravity:

People whose sole occupation is gambling are not engaged in anything socially useful. As a result, they are unacquainted with basic business law and commerce, and have no fear of God, making them less averse to illegal activity.

It is easy to understand Rashi’s first point, that the lack of connection to the everyday life of contributing to the world leads to a mentality disconnected from reality, making their perception and judgment suspect. However, how does this cause disconnection from God? Perhaps being removed from mundane concerns should allow for greater spiritual contemplation and devotion. I believe the idea is that just as a child never truly appreciates his parents’ efforts and sacrifices until he becomes a parent, so too, a person cannot appreciate the Creator’s kindness and goodness until he behaves as a creator.

The Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishna (Sanhedrin 3:3), offers a similar explanation:

Since the professional gambler is busy with something that does not benefit the settlement of the world or the foundations of the Torah, he is disqualified. It is not fitting for a person to be busy in this world except with one of two things: either with the Torah so that his soul may be completed with its wisdom, or with a work that will contribute to the maintenance of the world and society, such as crafts, repairs, construction, or merchandising. Of course, it is fitting to do little of these and much in the Torah, as the sages said (Avos 4:10): “Let him do little in business and be busy in the Torah.”

The Rambam adds a concern regarding this person’s character: He is not contributing to the world through the acquisition of wisdom or through work that creates, repairs, or helps the economy by distributing goods and materials.

What would our sages say about a day trader or investment banker? According to Rashi, such a person certainly understands money and must work for it by researching and analyzing worthwhile investments and trends. This ought to instill a sense of humility, fear of God, and a connection to reality sufficient to be part of the social contract and to be trusted as a witness. However, the Rambam might find this still deficient. Investing on the scale of stocks or commodities is not like true commerce or personal investing in businesses. In the latter, the economy is being boosted, and actual goods and services are being distributed. In the former, where money is invested and divested in short-term trades, it resembles gambling on temporary ballooning and inflation of value and does not represent true exchange and trade, which promotes societal welfare.

Of course, in the final analysis, almost any trade or profession can be used as a force for good with the right intentions or can be ruined when approached without humility or fear of God. Even so, if one is choosing a career to begin with, it is worth considering the moral stance that the Rambam takes; not all careers are the same.