Depressed or Lazy? And More Bava Basra 55-57

55

Depressed or Lazy?

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph refers to a pardakhas, which is an idle person. Rashbam describes this person as follows:

A person who is idle from work, learning, derech eretz, and is not involved with settlement of the world at all.

In the style of the Gemara at times, there is no commentary or moral assessment about this person. The focus is the practical halacha, no judgements. Yet, what are we to make of this person? Is he depressed, or is he lazy? This is often the conundrum of friends and family of individuals who seem to be in a cycle of disengagement from life. Should we show compassion, because the person is unwell? Even if the person is depressed but refuses treatment, should we remain empathic and supportive because, after all, it’s the depression talking, or should we come down hard with tough love?

According to researchers Monaro et. al. (“The Detection of Malingering: A New Tool to Identify Made-Up Depression”, Frontiers in Psychiatry 2018.):

• Major depression symptoms can be faked…individuals who want to feign a depressive disorder do not require any particular knowledge or specific training to produce clinically reliable depressive symptoms and signs. Furthermore, a large majority of both symptoms and signs easy to fake: lack of concentration, restlessness, lack of interest for daily life activities, feelings of guilt, and so on are easy to fake if one wanted and planned to.
• Although it is hard to define it reliably, literature reports an estimate of the prevalence of malingering in a forensic setting as ranging from 20 to 40%. (9–11). In regards to depression, Mittenberg et al. reported that 16.08% of depressive syndromes which are diagnosed in litigation or compensation cases are feigned.

The researchers were discussing prevalence of faking when there were financial or legal benefits, and so the percentages in private individual circumstances may be lower.

There is a clinical questionnaire known as the SIMS (Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology), which employs a number of strategies to flush out fraudulent claims of depression and other mental conditions. The questionnaire uses intermittent trick questions, such as ones that sound like they would be symptoms but are rarely experienced by truly depressed or mentally ill persons. The liars would reply affirmatively while the truly depressed would not.

In any case, it is notoriously difficult to fully prove or disprove the level of helplessness and depression the person has versus possible laziness and avoidance. Because of this, and the frustration, embarrassment and confusion it is difficult for loved ones to respond objectively. Often, family members are at odds with each other, with one seemingly overprotective while the other may seem too harsh. A balanced approach is required, and when motivation is lacking, family sessions may be more helpful than individual sessions. The family sessions could allow the family members and the identified patient to discuss and mediate the concerns and/or possible consequences with the identified patient. For example, if the patient is not taking any steps toward recovery, it could be a legitimate response cut off support, internet access and the like. However, that also may increase conflict or distress to the point of danger. Family sessions discussing collaboratively what to do about this serve a multiple purposes: (1) They allow for warning and discussion of alternative consequences and/or benchmarks or definitions of what is considered progress and/or what is considered beyond the person’s ability (2) The clinician can offer more objective feedback and assessment (3) By virtue of the sessions themselves, at least there is basic accountability and dialogue.

When a family member seems to be lazy and unmotivated, it is frustrating and confusing, and most difficult to know what is fair to expect. However, patience, love and professional guidance can make a difference in navigating this personal and familial challenge.

56

Maintaining Boundaries

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses a certain kind of plant known as Chatzuva, which was used by Yehoshua to mark property boundaries in Israel. This plant has a root structure that extends straight downward, making it a natural, long-lasting and reliable boundary marker.

This unique herbage makes an appearance in Gemara Beitzah (25b), where it sets a different kind of boundary:

Rami bar Abba also said: The sea squill, a plant from the lily family whose roots project deep into the ground, will cut off the feet of the wicked in the future on the Day of Judgment. It was customary to plant sea squill on the edges of fields as boundary markers because their roots grow straight down without spreading out. Those who overstepped boundaries and infringed upon their neighbor’s property should have heeded the markers and desisted.

Similarly, young trees will cut off the feet of butchers and those who have relations with menstruating women. After a tree is planted, one must wait three years before eating its fruit. This serves as a lesson for those butchers who hasten to eat of the animal’s meat before removing its hide, and for those who have relations with their menstruating wives and do not wait for them to achieve ritual purification.

The lupine [turmus], an extremely bitter legume that is edible only after an extensive process, will cut off the feet of the enemies of the Jewish people, a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves. As it is stated: “And the children of Israel continued to do evil in the eyes of the Lord, and served the Baalim and the Ashtaroth, and the gods of Aram and the gods of Zidon and the gods of Moab and the gods of the children of Ammon and the gods of the Philistines, and they forsook the Lord and did not serve Him” (Judges 10:6).

By inference from that which is stated: “And they forsook the Lord,” do I not know that they did not serve Him? Rather, for what purpose does the verse state the seemingly unnecessary words “and did not serve Him”? Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: My children did not treat Me even like this lupine, which, because it is inedible as it is, must be cooked in water seven times in order to temper its bitter taste and is eventually made so sweet that one eats it as a dessert after a meal. They worshipped all seven types of idolatry listed in the verse, and even after I punished them for each and every one of them, they still refused to repent from their evil ways. Instead, they remained rebellious and did not serve Me.

The Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Hatzedek 3) explains this aggadah:

The wicked might try to excuse themselves by claiming self-interest and treachery are natural responses. However, their claim is invalidated because even in nature we see a capacity to discern straight from crooked.

Likewise, the fruit of the fourth year and on is of superior quality, therefore this ought to serve as a lesson that some things are well worth the wait.

The Turmos bean, which goes through many iterations of cooking until it becomes edible also serves as a rebuke for the Jews who chose to serve lesser Gods and spirits instead of God himself. Even if they were to argue that God is remote and it is reasonable to direct the majority of our prayers to the local spirits, at the end of the day a small concentrated portion of prayer ought to be directed toward God. This is just like after all the processing, a small but tasty portion is left from the Turmos bean, which is a delicacy.

Of course the Chatzuva does not really possess morality any more than the frogs of Midrashic fame, who made a decision to martyr themselves. Gemara Pesachim (53b) says that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah inferred a Kal V’chomer from the plague of frogs in Egypt: Frogs, which are not commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, entered the burning ovens of the Egyptians to fulfill God’s directive. All the more so, we, who are commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of God, should deliver ourselves to be killed in the fiery furnace for that purpose instead of bowing to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol. Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah drew strength from the idea that a frog can follow instinct and its purpose, so too must they. Similarly, the chatzuva shows that even within nature, there is an ability to remain steadfast in the boundaries of right and wrong.

57

Ring Leader

Our Gemara on Amud Beis describes the properties of the cloak and table of the Torah sage:

Rabbi Yoḥanan asked Rabbi Bena’a: How should the garment of a Torah scholar worn under his clothes be fashioned? He replied: He can wear any garment long enough that his flesh is not visible from beneath it. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: How should the cloak of a Torah scholar be fashioned? He replied: He can wear any garment long enough that a handbreadth (tefach) of his garment worn under his clothes is not visible from beneath it. Rabbi Yoḥanan asked: How should the table of a Torah scholar appear? He replied: Two-thirds of the table is covered with a cloth, and one-third is uncovered, and upon that third are dishes and vegetables. And its ring, used to hang the table, should be positioned on the outside, not on the side that faces the one who is eating.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraisa that its ring should be positioned on the inside? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This baraisa, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to a case where there is a child who may play with the ring and overturn the table, while that baraisa, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to a case where there is no child (yenuka) present.

And if you wish, say instead that both this and that refer to a case where there is no child present, and this is not difficult: This baraisa, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to a case where there is an attendant (shama’ah) who may bump into the ring, while that baraisa, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to a case where there is no attendant.

And if you wish, say instead that both this and that refer to a case where there is an attendant, and this is not difficult: This baraisa, which states that its ring should be positioned on the outside, is referring to when the meal is eaten during the day, when the attendant can see the ring and avoid it, while that baraisa, which states that its ring should be positioned on the inside, is referring to when the meal is eaten during the night.

The Malbim, in his Sefer Eretz Chemda (Kedoshim 8), explains this entire piece allegorically:

A person weaves a cloak for his soul which he will wear in the World to Come out of the mitzvos he performs in this world. There are numerous teachings that speak of the dangers of ignoring the minor sins, which are described as either the hem or the heel. For example see Rashi Devarim 7:12 and the manner that he interprets Eicha 1:9: “Her uncleanness clings to her hem; She gave no thought to her future.” As if to say, “She allows the small sins to begin at the edge of awareness or transgression, giving no thought to the future, how the sins will spread.” Elsewhere, the Gemara (Chulin 123b) indicates that the amount of Material required on the edge in order for there to be a sufficient ability to grasp an item, is a hand breadth (tefach).

The Tzaddik who is weaving the cloak for his soul during his mission here on earth must still engage in physical activities. However, as in the allegorical language of our Gemara, “A garment long enough that a handbreadth (tefach) is not visible from beneath it.” That is to say, his soul does not get engaged too deeply in this world, so as not to allow the evil inclination to get a “handhold“ on his heart and actions. A similar idea is being expressed symbolically with the table. The table, which represents physical and spiritual sustenance, is divided into three parts, of which 1/3 is revealed. Each third represents an eight hour shift of the day. One shift of eight hours represents physical sustenance, which is eating and sleeping. Another eight hour shift represents spiritual sustenance such as learning Torah and prayer. The final third, is engaging in the world and earning a livelihood. The first 2/3 remain covered because they are private personal affairs. The last third of the table in the allegory is uncovered, as this indicates that when it comes to being engaged in commerce and business, more assertiveness less modesty and privacy is required.

The allegory continues to discuss the positioning of the ring that is used to hang the table when being stored. Is the ring facing outward while dining, or inward? The Gemara makes a number of distinctions between either having children (yenuka) at the table or not (who, sitting next to their father, would grab the ring, and therefore better to have the ring facing outward,) or if he has a servant at the table, or if it is daytime or nighttime (at night, the ring should be turned inward so that nobody bumps into it without seeing it.) Eretz Chemda translates the word ring in this allegory as the impression that the tzaddik makes on others (ring, impression and coin all come from the same Hebrew root T-B-A). When there are people who are hungry to learn Torah (children) or other favorable conditions, then the ring the impression is facing out, that is he engages, teaches and even rebukes. However, during dark times when he senses there’s no receptivity, he turns his studies and spiritual pursuits inwards.

I will add two more symbolic elements that are in this allegory, which the Eretz Chemda did not mention explicitly. The ring, which either faces outward or inward, represents whether the Tzaddik feels that the people and conditions are receptive. In the plain meaning of the allegory it functions as a handle to hold and store the table, such as by hanging it on the wall. Perhaps, the Torah is not just something that the people receive from the sage, but they need to actively grab a hold of it. Also, in the plain meaning of the allegory children ane servants are mentioned. That part of the allegory can still be literal in a sense that though the Tzaddik may ordinarily direct his energies and attention toward teaching to the public, if he has family members such as children and even employees, the ring should face inward. That is to say, his efforts and teaching should be directed towards his household members, and they should not be neglected by his personal studies.