Biblical Russia Collusion Hoax and More Bava Basra 157-160

157

Unpaid Debts of the Dead

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the idea that there is a degree of responsibility for a child to pay his deceased parent’s debts. The poskim analyzes the nature and basis of this obligation, which also suggest ideas about the limits and obligations of the commandment to honor one’s parents. This obligation is beyond a financial lien, such as if the parent did not leave real estate (in the times of the Gemara, non-real estate holdings that were inherited or sold, i .e. chattel, was never subject to a lien.) So even though the creditor could not extract payment via an act of legal repossession, the child is still obligated through force of a mitzvah to try to make restitution.

One question in the poskim arises regarding if the parent left no assets at all. Some argue that since a child is only obligated to honor his parents using their funds and not his own, here he would be exempt. Others argue that even though that is technically true, it is still recommended to perform the mitzvah of honoring parents even with one’s own funds, if necessary. In addition, some argue that when there is a matter of disgrace and not merely wishes or requests, the obligation is in force even without funds. Since not repaying debt is dishonorable, the child must do what he can to redeem his father’s honor. All the more so if the father was negligent in not paying his debts, thereby making it important for the son to redeem his soul. (See Rambam Mamerim 6:10, Shu”t Chasam Sofer CM 177,  Aruch Hashulchan CM 107:2.) 

Up to this point, we are discussing the halakhic technicalities, and in essence how this is one final way for a child to honor a parent. It is also important to reflect on the powerful beneath-the-surface emotional processes for the child as well. In many situations there is an strife and familial discord when it comes to inheritances. A large portion of civil court and Jewish court cases are in regard to arguments about the estates. I do not believe this is simple greed. Indeed, certain family disputes transcend rationality, and are not really about money at all. Rather, for many people, the inheritance is the final act of love that the parent does for the child. There can be an enormous amount of meaning attached to various objects in the estate, including money. All the more so if the attachment to the parent was not ideal, then the only place for the love to be symbolically represented is in the leftover estate. The estate can be experienced as one last attempt to heal an unrequited wish for recognition and love from parent to child. 

Ironically, this might be the true unpaid debt of the father.

158

Good Vibrations

Our Gemara on amud beis states that there is something about the air of the Land of Israel that inspires wisdom. What is this really about?  

From a psychological perspective, it is understandable that the sense of confidence, security and identity that comes with living unapologetically as a Jew in the Jewish homeland certainly can enhance all kinds of creativity and development. Rabbenu Bechaye (Shemos 25:39) actually says something similar about a healthy and growth producing atmosphere, but he was referring to it in a more ecological sense, in that literally the climate was optimal for human health and development, leading to intellectual growth. The Ramah in Toras Haolah (71:11) also says that the climate in Israel is balanced and helps develop a balanced character. He goes further to suggest this is why a Nazir from outside Israel must re-do his nazirhood upon entering the land of Israel. 

(This is a mystical divergence and amplification of the reason supplied in Gemara Nazir (19b-20a) which says the Nazir redoes his Nazirhood because lands outside of Israel are considered as impure as a cemetery, causing the entire inception of Nazirhood to be incomplete, see Mishna Nazir 3:5).  We see this commonly, that a later sage can add a mystical dimension or interpretation that is different than the Gemara, so long as it does not change halacha.)  

It is possible, had Rabbenu Bechaye and the Ramah been exposed to our modern terms that express identity and ethnic pride, they might have added those psychological and sociological factors. There is no Biblical term for “identity”.  True we have terms for self (Anochi), or something closer to core identity such as “nafshi” or “kevodi”, which in Tehilim’s lexicon implies some unique aspect of self contained in the soul (see Tehillim 30:13 and metzudas tzion), but none of these words capture the modern term of identity any more than the Biblical word chashmal means electricity.  

Rav Tzaddok (Sichas Malachei HaShares.1.9) explains that there is something about the climate in Israel that leads to a specific kind of wisdom and knowledge in being more able to recognize and see God and the Godly. In a similar manner, but more specifically, Likkutei Moharan (II:40 and 61:2) explains that what the eyes see generate understanding. When the Torah describes the Land of Israel as having “God’s eyes constantly upon it” (Devarim 11:12), since God does not have eyes, it actually refers to the deepest function of seeing, which is literally in-sight. Therefore, that God is “looking” at Israel, by reflection allows Jews in Israel to know and see more about God. 

A final optimistic thought is expressed by Likkutei Moharan. This spiritual dynamic which is most powerful in Israel, can also come about outside of Israel through creating and understanding Torah insights, and particularly via the mystical impact of the motion of the stylus writing Torah as it moves through the air. To the mystic nothing happens without impact. The waves of air that are disrupted actually contain the words of Torah, and so being in an atmosphere of Torah learning actually allows one to breathe in the residue. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Consider that when we hear sounds, those are merely the vibrations of sound waves that reach our eardrum which correspondingly vibrates and is interpreted by our auditory nerves, caused by vocal cords or other vibrations, such as music. Therefore any place of intense study of Torah can have a similar effect as the atmosphere in Israel, because the air still contains some impression of the word of Torah.

159

Biblical Russia Collusion Hoax

Our Gemara on amud aleph grapples with why relatives are not able to testify. The logical reason is that since they have bias, their testimony is suspect. The gemara rhetorically asks, “If so, why are Moses and Aaron disqualified from bearing witness for their father-in-law? Could this be because their testimony is not deemed credible? Are we to think that THEY could lie?” This leads the Gemara to conclude that the disqualification must be understood as “The King’s edict, i.e., a divine decree” that has reasons that we may not be able to fully understand.

The acharonim ask, there is a Jewish jurisprudential principle called, “Anan Sahadi”, which means literally, “We, (the judges), are witnesses.” That is to say, if there is something so plainly self-evident as true, the judges do not require testimony. If so, what could be more self-evident than the unimpeachable testimony of Moshe and Aharon? True they are invalidated as witnesses, but they ought to be credible in a different form of evidence, such as anan sahadi.  

Rav Elchonon (Kovetz Shiurim 580) answers, technically this is true. The Gemara did not raise this point because the status of Moshe and Aharon as witnesses is still different. An anan sahadi can not refute other testimony, while valid witnesses can. Therefore, it is materially and legally significant that Moshe and Aharon are not kosher witnesses even if we “believe” them.

I always look for the simplest peshat, and therefore I would say that anan sahadi only is operative when it is universally self-evident, and not just self-evident to the judges. Our Gemara that assumed people would find Moshe and Aharon unimpeachable seems to be aspirational, as in fact some members of Moshe’s generation did suspect him of theft and other moral breaches (see Shemos Rabbah 51:6 and Yerushalmi Shekalim 5:2). Therefore, I would argue anan sahadi would not apply even to Moshe and Aharon. However, this is too easy, Rav Elchonon must have realized this possible answer. I believe he did not use my answer because of the following Gemara (Moed Kattan 18b):

The verse states: “And they were jealous of Moses in the camp, of Aaron the Lord’s holy one” (Psalms 106:16). Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: This verse teaches that every man warned his wife against seclusion with Moses because he was jealous. This implies that every man thought that his wife had secluded herself with Moses and sinned, although this was certainly not the case. This demonstrates that it is possible to suspect an absolutely innocent person. 

The Gemara answers: There they did it out of hatred for Moses. They did not actually suspect him of wrongdoing. Instead, their goal was to degrade him by leveling these false accusations against him.

Rav Elchonon can argue similarly, that all the claims of suspicion against Moshe were rhetoric and smear; and the claimants themselves did not believe the propaganda.  A Biblical version of the Russia Collusion Hoax.  I could argue back though, the point of anan sahadi along with all Jewish legal processes, is to settle disputes and maintain law and order. Therefore, a court cannot utilize anan sahadi unless it is so plainly evident that even a cynic would have to admit.  If there was any possible mumble and grumble about Moshe and Aharon, no matter the motivation, it makes their testimony invalid even using the principle of anan sahadi.

Chiddushei Harim (CM 33:4) and Gilyon Maharsha (CM 7:65) argue with Rav Elchonon’s premise. Moshe and Aharon ought to be treated as if they are not to be believed, no matter how credible they actually are.  The Gemara meant that this too is part of the divine decree. 

I have linguistic proof to support the position of the Chiddushei Harim and Gilyon Maharsha. Our Gemara here uses the term “King’s decree” (gzeiras melech) which seemingly is interchangeable with the term scriptural decree (gezeiras hakasuv). As an example, Tosefta Sanhedrin 11:6 and Yersushalmi Sanhedrin 8:1 use the term “King’s Decree” for why a female is exempt from the punishments of ben sorer umoreh, while the Bavli Sanhedrin 69b uses the term gezeiras hakasuv.  It is also notable that the Bavli almost always favors the term gezeiras hakasuv (8 times: Sanhedrin ibid, Bava Metzia 11a, Bechoros 5b, Niddah 22a. Temurah 10a and more), except for two instances when it used gzeiras melech (our Gemara plus Yoma 10a).  Furthermore, it is interesting that there is no “Hey Ha-Yediah”, that is the Hebrew term does not have a prefix letter “heh”, thus it is not THE King’s decree, implying God, but a king’s decree, perhaps just implying a legalism or rule.  The term gezeiras hakasuv also has more divine and specific meaning, as we are referring to a decree from the holy scripture. Therefore perhaps our Gemara deliberately used the term, “gzeiras melech” to imply a general legal principle that had to be applied consistently as many laws must be, even if in this particular instance it may not be justified.  It is less a divine decree than a function of the consistency that is also present in the Torah which requires law to be uniform and broadly applicable.  This supports the position of the Chiddushei Harim and Gilyon Maharsha, as opposed to Rav Elchonon.

160

Choices, Temperament, and Modern Mythology

Our Gemara on amud beis explains why the rabbis instituted a variation on the typical get (divorcement bill) that required an elaborate process of folds and stitches to complete it. Essentially, it was a delay tactic:

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Sages instituted the tied document? The Gemara explains: There was a place where there were many priests, and they were very quick tempered, and they would seek to divorce their wives impetuously. The halakha is that a priest may not marry a divorcée, even his own ex-wife. These priests, who acted impetuously, often regretted having divorced their wives. And therefore, the Sages instituted an ordinance that the bill of divorce for these people should be of the tied format, which is a long, drawn-out process, hoping that meanwhile, their composure would be regained and they would reconsider their decision to divorce.

Sefer Daf al Daf brings a number of acharonim who wonder how the Gemara could blithely suggest that Cohanim are short tempered. This was not a statement about a family or group of people at a particular time, but rather a broad and negative characterization of the entire priestly caste. Noam Elimelech (Mishpatim) explains it is not necessarily a negative feature. They had a zealousness that when appropriately channeled represented intensity and holiness. Their intensity and holiness backfired in certain people and came out as short temperedness. Yaaros Devash (Derush 1) takes this idea further. He says that whenever there is  holiness, it brings out the character in the best way. However, when holiness is withdrawn or driven away, the satanic and evil forces fill in the vacuum with a skewed, perverted version of reality.   (We discussed this idea in Blog Post Psychology of the Daf, Bava Basra 143).  This is a powerful lesson.

This idea can also help us understand the following Gemara (Shabbos 156) that discusses the relationship of one’s fate and free will:

One who was born under the influence of Mars will be one who spills blood. Rav Ashi said: He will be either a blood letter, or a thief, or a slaughterer of animals, or a circumciser. Rabba said: I was born under the influence of Mars and I do not perform any of those activities. Abaye said: My Master also punishes and kills as a judge.

The implication of the Gemara is that a person may have certain innate drives and tendencies, but he may express toward good or evil, depending on his choices.

This Gemara seems to hold valid the influence of Zodiac and horoscopes.  Except one might consider that the rabbis were less concerned with so-called scientific fact and more with the morals and meanings that one assigns to reality.  If the common belief was astrological, the rabbis addressed lessons and approaches based on that. They did not subscribe to the scientific method as we know it. 

Keep in mind, modern science has its own mythologies that, on the surface seem more rational, but also are built on narratives and storytelling of a sort.  We have been told depression is a chemical imbalance but nobody knows what that really means.  That is not to say that certain medications can help regulate neurotransmitters, but the effect is not necessarily the cause.  If I am happy I have more serotonin circulating, but that does not explain the human personality and why I am happy, or not so. The fact that medicine works is no different than tylenol helping a headache. That does not mean my headache comes from a “Tylenol Imbalance.”  There are many other examples of this mythology in science, such as the so-called Big Theory. Believe it or not, prior to the scientific discoveries of the 20th century starting with Edwin Hubble, the scientific community largely followed the Greek notion of an eternal universe. They suggested that the universe had neither a beginning nor an end, maintaining a constant state throughout time. This was the solution as to how the world could have been created without a creator. Answer: it never was created in the first place.  (One more mythology!)

Luke Baxendale writes (https://thegoodreport.co.uk/atheism-and-scepticism/how-big-bang-cosmology-threatens-atheism/):

Edwin Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe was fraught with theoretical and philosophical significance. The idea of an expanding universe planted a seed in the minds of scientists, who began to wonder: if the universe is expanding, could it be traced back to a single point of origin in time?  

The Big Bang Theory began to shift the thoughts of many scientists. This new understanding of our origins sent shockwaves through the esteemed halls of science, philosophy, and theology departments. The unsettling revelation for many was that an absolute beginning to our universe suggested the existence of something beyond physical reality, consequently reviving the God hypothesis.

But eventually, after the shock of it settled down, human nature allowed the atheists to create a new rationalization or mythology to fit the new “facts”.  After thousands of years of great philosophers and scientists believing in a closed eternal universe, the position is reversed and now magically, without God, there was a Big Bang. Oh…now THAT explains it. Yeah, right.