search
Simcha Feuerman
Psychology, Torah and the Daf Yomi

Difficult Children, Independence and Autonomy Bava Basra 111-113

111

Grieving the Loss of Our Dreams

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the fact that Miriam’s banishment was supposed to last for 14 days based on the following logic: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame for seven days?” (Numbers 12:14). The Gemara then argues, in fact, Miriam experienced a more severe reprimand from the Divine Presence, therefore, she ought to have been ostracized for fourteen days. Yet, by dint of the fact that this did not happen, and she only was banished for seven days this teaches us an important element of the hermeneutical principle of Kal V’chomer: Dayo labah min hadin lihyos kanidon a conclusion that emerges from a Kal V’chomer inference is a limited to the extent of its source. Therefore, her punishment cannot be for longer than the punishment of one who is reprimanded by a father, which is seven days.  

While it is understandable that a reprimand from God would be more severe than a reprimand from a parent, the commentaries try to understand how the number 14 was considered the logical conclusion. We will not go into those details except to acknowledge that somehow or another, one can derive from this teaching that when dealing with divine matters, there is a factor of double.

An interesting and sad way that this principle was applied is in regard to Rabbenu Gershom and his son. There is a tradition that one of his sons converted to Christianity, and notably, he sat Shiva for fourteen days. He sat for 14 days instead of seven, based on similar logic discussed above. There is also some dispute as to whether he sat Shiva when he died, or at the time of his apostasy. (See Mordechai Moed Kattan 886, Or Zarua Aveilus 428, Taz YD 340.)

This painful story shows that even great and God-fearing people are not immune from parenting distress. This is a good time to meditate on the challenges of having children who do not follow in your footsteps. While of course we should always be reflective and consider what parenting mistakes we made, and do our best to correct what we can, it is also a normal part of life to fall short in our parenting as well as have our children fall short of our expectations. Our history is filled with stories, from ancient times to the present, of children who have followed in the greatness of their families and those who have not.

The Gemara at the end of Maseches Succah relates a story of one particular priestly family line which was distanced and stripped of certain privileges. Because of the behavior of one family member, the rabbis assumed that it was due to cynical rhetoric in the home, and held the whole family accountable. Indeed it is isolating, painful and shameful when a child does not conform to religious and social standards, and can even cast a poor light on other family members.  However, I think there is some comfort in knowing that this is a deep ingrained pattern and a way in which the world works, derech haolam. Consider the stories of our patriarchs who all had to accept imperfections in their children. Additionally, King David had at least two sons who were rebellious, Avshalom and Adoniyahu. Even more important to realize is that creation itself doesn’t fully obey God or follows the plan. Adam didn’t merely sin, and it wasn’t just Cain murdering Abel or the Tower of Babel or the Flood. Even the very trees did not obey! According to Rashi (Bereishis 1:11) and Bereishis Rabbah 5:9), the trees’ wooden trunk and branches were supposed to taste like the fruit. Shmuel the prophet’s first prophecy was to deliver bad news to Eyli, that terrible suffering would transpire to his descendants because of his son’s sins (Pesachim 57a). Ironically, Shmuel’s sons also neither followed in their father’s virtuous footsteps, though not as corrupt as Eyli’s sons (see Shmuel I:8 and commentaries.)

Personality and religious observance are similar to physical health, which are a combination of exposure to toxins, harmful influences, personal disposition and vulnerabilities that contribute to whether disease or dysfunction will develop. Just as one person can smoke two packs of cigarettes a day for his entire life and not come down with lung cancer, while another might get cancer from the minutest exposure, so too some parents are much more hurtful or inappropriate and their children thrive, while others may have meade relatively small mistakes but pay a big price. The important and unmistakable conclusion is that we simply must accept that sometimes your projects, your children, and your creations just don’t work out the way you hoped and planned.

112

Listen To Your Messages

Our Gemara on this daf discusses the matter of the daughters of Zelophehad , who brought to Moshe an objection that they should also be allowed to inherit in the Land of Israel, on behalf of their father, who died without male progeny (Bamidbar 27:3-5):

Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah’s faction, which banded together against Hashem, but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!” Moses brought their case before Hashem.

Indeed, their claim was validated by God (ibid 6), which became the impetus for a prophetic revelation about various laws of inheritance, which are studied in detail in our Gemara:

The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them.

This is one of the four parts of the Torah where Moshe did not know the law, and had to ask God for further guidance. The other three are: (1) The Mekoshes – the one who gathered wood on Shabbos, Bamidbar 15:32; (2) The Mekallel – the one who cursed Vayikra (24:11-14), and (3) Pesach Sheni the make-up Paschal Sacrifice for those who were ritually impure on the 14th of Nissan, Bamidbar 9:1-14.)  Are these four thematically connected? We might consider that they all have to do with entry into the land of Israel, and the related theme of a birthright and legacy. Supporting this idea, we find Gemara (Shabbos 96a) which tells us that the father of these women, Zelophehad, was either the  Mekoshes or from those who waged an unauthorized military operation to conquer the land of Israel, after the sin of the spies. Gemara Succah (25) says that those who were ritually impure on the 14th of Nissan became so either because they carried the bones of Yosef, who was to be buried in Israel, or because they were involved in the burial of Ahron’s sons.  Burial is also a matter of inheritance and legacy, see an upcoming Gemara (Bava Basra 112a).  Finally, the curser’s main gripe was about being excluded from inheriting the land of Israel, as his father was an Egyptian (Rashi Vayikra 24:10.)  Assuming this analysis is more or less correct, the common thread in these various sections of the Torah have to do with legacy and/or inheritance in the land of Israel. Now, all we need to do is try to understand what about this in particular eluded Moshe’s original revelation on Mount Sinai, requiring subsequent consultation with God0?

At this point, we can turn to the Sefas Emes (Bamidbar, Ma’asay 16) Who makes the following observation:

The Exodus is mentioned 50 times in the Torah, corresponding to the idea mentioned in the Zohar that the Jews ascended from the 49th gate of impurity and entered the 50th gate of understanding. So too there are 50 Shabbosim in the year. Each Shabbos opens one of these 50 gates of understanding. Similarly, the passage implies that there were also 50 journeys, based on Rashi’s commentary that the Israelites retraced their steps during eight of these journeys, making the total 50.

Now, the final journey, which took place on the other side of the Jordan River, was parallel to the 50th gate of understanding. Chazal teach that 50 gates of understanding were given to Moshe Rabbeinu, except for one. This journey corresponds to the gate that was beyond Moshe’s comprehension. Therefore, the passage about the daughters of Zelophehad, where Moshe did not initially know the law, is mentioned during this journey (as also noted by Rabbeinu Bachya).

Incredibly, in this passage of the Torah we have one of the rare instances in which there is a tradition to write a letter larger or smaller. In this case, the verse that describes Moshe bringing their question before Hashem (Bamidbar 27:5) uses the Hebrew word “Mishpatan”, “their case”. The last Hebrew letter in “Mishpatan“ is a Nun, which is made larger and elongated, according to the tradition. Sefas Emes says, the letter Nun which is Gematria 50, alludes to the 50th gate, which is the highest of all gates and thus remained hidden from Moshe. Furthermore, this aspect of understanding is connected to the crossing of the Jordan River, which took place on the 10th of Nissan, a date that is associated with Shabbos HaGadol, the “50th Shabbos” of the year, as referenced in earlier writings on this subject (and also perhaps related to the Paschal sacrifice and those who could not access it.)

Our final question to consider is why in particular did this aspect of the Torah elude Moshe’s awareness? In addition, we have a circular question. Did Moshe sin and lose his ability to enter the land of Israel because he had some blockage in his wisdom and spiritual access? Or, did his sin cause this blockage in wisdom and spiritual access, of which one of the side effects was not being entering the land of Israel?  I am inclined to think that there was some spiritual blockage inside Moshe, of which the manifestation was his inability to enter into the land of Israel and his inability to grasp this 50th level of wisdom. What is it exactly? And why did the daughters of Zelophehad have access to it? For this part, I do not yet have an answer. However, an important idea is that it takes an entire people to have something whole and complete. And as developed and elevated Moshe was, there was still some insight he could not access. He was only able to recover it by listening to the concerns and claims of a minority that might have been ignored. If a person wants complete wisdom, they have to be willing to listen and learn from everyone.

113

Throw Away Your OId Toys

Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses the finely nuanced meaning of the Hebrew word Yidbku (root=D-V-K) which means to be attached, and how this is used to understand an aspect of inheritance when described in the Torah (Bamidar 36:7,9). One of the prooftexts  used to support that this word means “attached” comes from an iconic verse in Bereishis (2:24), that describes the psychological process of romantic attachment:

Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.

This verse speaks of the important psychological principle that for a marriage to succeed, there needs to be a degree of healthy separation and boundary making from one’s parents. However, there is an exegetical and halachic problem with this verse.  In fact, there is no such suspension of the requirement to honor one’s father and mother over one’s wife. While a married woman is considered exempt from honoring her parents if their wishes present a contradiction to her own duties toward her husband (see Shulchan Aruch YD 240:17 and Shach), apparently, it only applies to woman, not a man. The verse is speaking from the vantage point of a man, which is then quite the opposite! Does a man cling to his wife’s wishes or his parents? There is an exception to a son’s requirement to obey his parents in that a man may choose a wife, even if it is contrary to his father’s wishes (ibid Ramah 25).  We could then understand the verse in the most literal sense, that one leaves his father and mother to cling to his wife, by the very fact that he chooses his wife, even contrary to his parents’ wishes. This does not seem likely as the full intent of the verse.  

We may turn to Targum Onkelos who interprets the verse differently.  He translates: Hence a man leaves the sleeping quarters (Aramaic =Beis Mishkavei) of his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.

It is unlikely that Onkelos literally meant sleeping quarters, as even though they did have smaller homes, and though it is likely younger children who nursed longer may well have spent early parts of childhood in their mother’s bed, it couldn’t be that a man went from his parents’ bedroom to his marital home!  We might say Onkelos used the Aramic word Beis Mishkavei because it is simply the Aramic idiom for home of origin. Even if so, the meaning of this is not one of the technicalities of kibbud av v’em, but rather the psychological realities and the necessity to properly individuate from one’s parents in order to form a marital bond and union.  That is a man may be fully obligated to respect his parents even after marriage, but he now is an autonomous person. Sexuality and romance require a sense of self and confidence that cannot easily be achieved if a person is too emotionally dependent upon their parents. The intensity of these emotions are not well managed without a strong, healthy ego. An excessive need for approval, a fear of being independent, or a sense of guilt and undeservedness will interfere with emotional and sexual bonding.

Rabbennu Bechaye (Bereishis 41:51) comments on the Hebrew word nashani (root = N-SH-N) which means to forget.  He says the Talmudic term for a woman’s home of origin is Beis Nsha which is usually translated as, “the women’s home”. But Rabbennu Bechaye says it means, perhaps as a play on words, “The Home that must be forgotten.”  He is alluding to this idea that in order to form a bond with one’s spouse, certain childhood attachments need to be forgotten and released. Forget old patterns and start fresh. 

 

About the Author
Rabbi, Psychotherapist with 30 years experience specializing in high conflict couples and families.
Related Topics
Related Posts