Feeding the Beast—or Taming It? And More Chulin 51-53

51.

Sheepish Aggression

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses an interesting case of animal anatomy and human psychology. By way of introduction, one of the forms of injury that can render an animal tereifa is risuk eyvarim, an internal shattering of the limbs, which we suspect occurs if an animal experiences certain impacts or sudden falls. Obviously, animals are quite resilient, and therefore the Halacha has numerous conditions under which we assume that the animal is fine or not fine, depending on how it falls, such as whether it leaps intentionally or is pushed. One such case involves cattle thieves who stealthily grab a sheep and heave it over a containment wall:

“With regard to these rams that thieves steal and throw over the fence, one need not be concerned with regard to the shattering of limbs. What is the reason for this? When the thieves throw them over the fence, they throw them so that they land on their hips, where they will not be injured, so that they will be able to run before them.”

Yet the Gemara goes on to say that if the thieves suddenly need to throw the animals back inside the corral, they may not be as careful, as there is no gain for them:

“But if the thieves returned them to the owner, we certainly must be concerned that their limbs may have been shattered, since thieves do not throw them carefully when returning them. And this statement applies only when they return them due to fear of being caught, or are otherwise forced to return them.”

Then the Gemara issues one more qualifier regarding the intentions of the thieves when returning the sheep by throwing it back over the wall:

“This statement applies only when they return them due to fear (of being caught), or are otherwise forced to return them. But if they return them due to repentance, they have performed full-fledged repentance and will take care to return them without injury.”

We then have three situations: (1) a cattle rustler who, in the process of stealing the cattle, throws the ram over the fence, but does it in some thoughtful manner so that it is not injured because the whole point is to profit from his venture; (2) the cattle rustler who must return the cattle “out of fear.” He does it hastily and may damage the animal; and (3) the cattle rustler who returns the cattle because he is genuinely repentant, and therefore makes every effort to return it undamaged.

Let us analyze scenario number two, wherein the thief is returning the cattle “out of fear.” If we are talking about the fact that he is afraid of being caught by the law and having to pay, it doesn’t make sense that he would throw it over the fence and cause damage. Indeed, Rabbenu Gershom explains that the thief is stealthily returning it at night, but also with careless disregard. How does this happen? If it was out of fear of legal retaliation, as we said above, he should return it with some degree of care. Classically, the Talmudic Hebrew usage in legal situations of the phrase “out of fear” means a person who is afraid of interpersonal retaliation. (See for example, Moed Kattan 18b.) Therefore, we can surmise that in our case this is talking about where the cattle rustler stole the cattle and then found out that he stole it from the “wrong guy.” He stole it from somebody who had the ability to retaliate in an extra-legal fashion and did not want to be caught red-handed. He quickly and furtively disposed of the evidence by flinging the cattle back into the corral with little regard for their long-term welfare.

Now we enter into the psychological realm. The thief was acting out of fear and just wanted to get rid of the cattle, and not be caught by the powerful owner who might take the law into his own hands. Still, wouldn’t it have made more sense to be careful to return the cattle undamaged? Wouldn’t that be more likely to save his skin? The simple answer is that his fear and panic took over and he was more careless. The complex but psychologically compelling answer is that his behavior was passive-aggressive. He resented the implied aggressiveness and retaliated in a stealthy way by carelessly returning the cattle, in a technical sense, but also possibly causing them damage nonetheless.

This is an important diagnostic feature of passive-aggressive behavior. As with all mental health, it is a matter of degree and never absolute. We all have days when we get depressed, and we all have days when we obsess over things. The difference between mental health and mental illness is in the degree and consistency. A depressed person is often depressed; someone who suffers from obsessive thoughts is continuously oppressed by them. The same is true in regard to passive-aggressive behavior. We all are capable of being passive-aggressive, but a passive-aggressive personality is continuously relating to people that way.

Nevertheless, the psychological roots of passive-aggressive behavior are the same whether it is a personality condition or simply a relatively normal reaction to a difficult situation. Passive aggressiveness is an adaptation to a situation where at least one of three similar conditions exists:

(1) Unconscious hostility experienced as unacceptable or dangerous to express directly.

(2) Fear of retaliation or abandonment if anger is openly expressed.

(3) Power asymmetry—passive aggression is most common in contexts where direct assertion feels risky (authority relationships, dependent relationships).

As was noted, in our case of the Gemara and in many life situations, ordinary people will react passive-aggressively when the circumstances create enough pressure to induce it. On the other hand, someone with passive-aggressive features in his personality experienced enough of the above situations in his developmental context that it becomes part of his way of seeing the world, even when not necessarily in that situation. If one grows up in conditions where direct expression of anger was punished, shamed, or unsafe, the passive-aggressive response becomes ingrained.

As with many personality features that become ingrained, they remain relatively stable and fixed because they work well enough. Much of our interpersonal reality is dynamic and mutually reinforced. For example, someone who has an optimistic, trusting outlook will, through confirmation bias, see many positive situations and feel rewarded for trusting people. One who has a more paranoid and mistrustful outlook will, through cognitive bias, experience enough interactions with people where he can justify mistrusting them. So too, the person who has an ingrained passive-aggressive response because he often feels unsafe expressing his anger and/or feels a power imbalance will either seek out people who relate to him that way or frustrate people so much over time that eventually others become impatient, angry, intolerant, or controlling in response to his avoidance and passive aggressiveness. This continuous feedback loop is what makes certain personality conditions difficult to treat. Difficult, but not impossible. The treatment involves being extremely motivated to make a change, break through, and see relationships in reality in a new light and develop more adaptive skills. Because it is personality, though, and deeply ingrained, it takes a long period of time with continuous feedback and introspection, as well as possibly repairing attachment damage and trauma from prior experiences.

A final note: We keep in mind that human behavior is not necessarily pathology. Our cattle rustler in the Gemara who engaged in passive-aggressive behavior may have just had a bad day. He then realized he stole from the local mafioso and had to return the sheep without much regard for the consequences other than getting away. And, to boot, he could vent some of his frustration by being careless about the sheep as well. Or this fellow may indeed have had passive-aggressive trends in his personality. After all, why was he stealing cattle in the first place?

A key diagnostic distinction: passive-aggressive behavior as a situational response (e.g., in response to a genuinely coercive environment) is not the same as passive-aggressive personality organization. The latter involves rigidity, ego-syntonic quality, and pervasiveness across contexts. Mental health diagnoses are never precise or absolute, but often have to do with statistical tendencies. If this was a one-time event, it just may have been a bad decision and an impulsive reaction. If this is part of a pattern, a deeper problem may exist.

52.

Feeding the Beast—or Taming It?

Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses an interesting aspect of animal psychology, which, as we shall see, is true for humans as well, to the extent that they can be dominated by animal instincts. As it says in Koheles (3:19), “There is no difference between man and beast.”

According to the tradition of tereifos, certain predatory animals inject a venomous poison from their claws. Therefore, certain small punctures can still render an animal a tereifa. In regard to a cat who claws a lamb, since the cat is a relatively small animal, it only injects venom if it is in an angered state. Therefore, if no one is around helping to fight off the cat, and the cat claws the lamb, ironically there is no venom. But if there are people fighting off the cat, and it succeeds in clawing the lamb, its extra aggression releases venom and the lamb is a tereifa.

Arvei Nachal (Vayeshev 2) infers that there is this animal-like quality in people to become more aggressive when met with opposition. But it is not the only factor. He says we have a psychological-Talmudic concept of pas besalo, literally, “One who has bread in his basket is less hungry than one who does not,” which is true even if he chooses not to eat. There are numerous halachic applications of this principle, most famously what is described in Yoma (67a):

“Never in recorded history had the person who escorted the Scapegoat into the wilderness on Yom Kippur needed to eat, even though he would have been permitted to do so. The Gemara attributes this to the fact that at regular intervals on the way, there were stations with food and water that were offered to him. All of us have experienced being hungry on the morning of a fast, even when we often do not eat breakfast on a regular day.”

Yet, Arvei Nachal says this only works to subdue rage or lust, allowing other instincts such as compassion or love to take over. As an example, he says that when Yaakov presented Esav with appeasing gifts, this lack of aggression subdued Esav, as essentially he had pas besalo. This allowed his brotherly love to reassert itself. Arvei Nachal cautions that this can only work if there is some core of goodness that will reawaken once the aggression is no longer occluding it. However, if one were to submit in front of a completely sadistic, cruel enemy, the enemy would simply gun you down (as we have seen with Nazis and others).

The Arvei Nachal’s distinction between when pas besalo is operative and when being conciliatory backfires and incites evil tendencies can be used to understand what has always been, for me, a contradictory conundrum in Chazal’s advice regarding approaching desire.

On the one hand, there is a teaching that warns that one must totally subdue his evil inclination and not try to appease or partially gratify it. As it is taught in Sanhedrin (107a): “There is a small limb in man. If he starves, then it is satiated; but if he attempts to satiate the limb, it becomes even more starved.”

Yet, we have numerous teachings that suggest otherwise. Gemara Kiddushin (21b) considers the captive woman as a concession to the evil inclination. Knowing that warfare arouses animal instincts and breaks many boundaries, if no organized and sanctioned system for taking a captive as a mate is allowed, then there might be wholesale rape (unfortunately, as occurs many times during war). Sanhedrin (107b) also advises that one push sexual lust away with his left hand, but draw it near with his right, implying that there is a need for moderated, appropriate channeling of sexual desire. Additionally, we have the case of Abba Chilkiya’s wife in Taanis (23b), who would greet her husband adorned and dressed up. When a surprised student asked why, he answered: “so that when I walk through the city I will not set my eyes upon another woman.”

And finally, and most strikingly, we have the case of Rava and Chuma, as told in Kesuvos (65a). Chuma was known as an exceedingly attractive woman. When she engaged Rava during a legal dispute, he was so taken by her looks that the Gemara states, without judgment: “Rava arose, went home, and proposed intimacy with his wife, the daughter of Rav Ḥisda.”

In all these situations, an accommodation and partial appeasement to human desire was made.

When does the first principle apply and when does the other? Perhaps there is no hard-and-fast rule, and it depends on the individual and the situation. Or possibly the key is the distinction of the Arvei Nachal. Aggressive opposition to the evil inclination may lead to defiance and pushback. However, capitulation and caving in, even partially, without a basic desire to do well, will only incite further debauchery. Therefore, the formula might be as follows: If the resistance is an attempt to channel higher aspirations, and it is done with an internal sense of kindness and gentleness, without internal scorn or aggression, it may go well. Alternatively, if the person feels mounting desire, a humble partial acceptance and channeling of this desire is also appropriate, hoping that this too will allow for healthy balance and serving God, may also work. And finally, if it is merely impulsive indulgence in desire for the sake of appeasing desire, with no motivation for self-improvement, this may only incite more indulgence because there is no deeper or higher purpose.

53.

The Power of Departure

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph continues to discuss various elements of animal instinct and psychology, which, as we discussed on yesterday’s daf, are aspects of animal psychology that can be true for humans as well, to the extent that they can be dominated by animal instincts. Additionally, as we discussed in the previous daf, according to the tradition of tereifos, certain predatory animals inject a venomous poison from their claws. Therefore, certain small punctures can still render an animal a tereifa.

Our Gemara explains that if a predator clawed an animal, but the claw was severed before the animal could withdraw it, the animal is not a tereifa because the venom is only released when the animal withdraws its hand. Since the limb was cut off and dead before the claw was removed, its power is neutralized.

Sod Yesharim (Simchas Torah 3) observes that this pattern—that the greater power occurs at the time of withdrawal—is true in other areas as well. As we often observe in Psychology of the Daf, to the mystic, a natural physical or anatomical phenomenon is meaningful in spiritual dimensions as well, since the physical world is a lower-form reflection of a deeper truth. Sod Yesharim says that Moshe’s Torah had its greatest effect at the moments prior to his death. He says this is because an external force is always external until it withdraws, and then, if the entity internalizes it, it is no longer foreign or external but now adopted and internal.

The Rambam famously spoke of this phenomenon in a letter to his beloved student Yosef ibn Eknin: “The opposition and criticism of my teachings will die down once the jealousy fades (after my passing).”

Psychologically speaking, there is always a degree of opposition that is aroused by an outsider or external force, even if it comes from a loving or benign teacher or parent. It is not uncommon to first see the wisdom of a parent once they are no longer in this world and the painful oppositional struggles for autonomy are lifted. While this is generally true, because life is not perfect, it does not mean it is a good thing. Let’s try to learn from the people who have wisdom to offer while they are still alive, even if it sometimes bruises our egos. Additionally, sometimes a parent has to deliberately recede in order to allow a child to internalize the messages with less opposition.