Fiddler on the Wall and More Bava Basra 2-5
2
Fiddler on the Wall
Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the rights and responsibilities of partners who share a yard, and intend to construct a partition between them:
הַשּׁוּתָּפִין שֶׁרָצוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת מְחִיצָה בְּחָצֵר – בּוֹנִין אֶת הַכּוֹתֶל בְּאֶמְצַע. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִבְנוֹת גְּוִיל, גָּזִית, כְּפִיסִין, לְבֵינִין – בּוֹנִין; הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה.
Partners who wished to make a partition [meḥitza] in a jointly owned courtyard build the wall for the partition in the middle of the courtyard. What is this wall fashioned from? In a place where it is customary to build such a wall with non-chiseled stone [gevil], or chiseled stone [gazit], or small bricks [kefisin], or large bricks [leveinim], they must build the wall with that material. Everything is in accordance with the regional custom.
Along similar lines as our discussions at the end of Bava Metzia (Psychology of the Daf blogposts for Bav Metzia, dappim 117 & 119), we can see in these Halacho religious metaphors about balance and integration of the spiritual and physical. Sefer Daf Al Daf quotes the Yaaros Devash who explains that the partners in this legal case are the body and soul. They need to work together, and just as the wall goes down the middle of the yard, so too, a middle and balanced approach must be taken toward physical and spiritual concerns. Additionally, one must also set strong boundaries so as to keep centered on the proper path, signified by the various customs of material for wall construction (various sizes of bricks and other building matter.) Each person, based on their tendencies and needs, must know how firm or light the boundaries must be.
Additionally, one of the key concerns regarding the barrier is “היזק ראיה” damage caused by sight and lack privacy. This is metaphorically suggesting that extra caution in this balance must be maintained in regard to “damage caused by sight”, i.e. shemiras ha-eiynayim. The Torah ethic is that lusting with one’s eyes is not a harmless act at all. Even a person who is comfortable and confident about his boundaries in other areas must be extra vigilant when it comes to sexual cravings and drives. Nevertheless, true to the metaphor, a balance and middle path exists even in regard to sexual longings. One must be careful not to deny certain urges and wishes. Recognizing their power and pleasure is not the same as always giving in to it. Instead, it means not being naive, and to understand how powerful it is. How many great politicians, and even religious leaders, lost their reputation and standing that took years to build, with one indiscriminate impulsive sexual act? To totally suppress these desires is just as dangerous as utterly caving into them.
When faced with a distracting and troubling lust, it’s important to find out what it means and where it is coming from. On the one hand, the sexual instinct is strong and doesn’t need much of an excuse, but on the other hand, humans are highly symbolic in their choice of love and lust objects. An infatuation that seems to come randomly out of the blue often represents an unfulfilled longing. As a responsible moral person, some lusts cannot be attained without damage to self and others, however the idea is not to simply suppress it but also understand it. What is it telling you about what is missing in your life, and what are productive and adaptive ways to honor that yearning? Unfortunately, couples don’t tend to have such painful confrontations unless an affair is discovered. In the majority of such situations, I suspect most of the effort is spent on trying to repress the urge, with varying degrees of success or failure. In the cases where there is not much success in suppressing the feelings, wouldn’t it be so much better if all the frustrations that made an affair appealing were discussed frankly and compassionately before commiting the betrayal? The problem is, such pains and warning signs are rarely taken seriously, or are met with the same anger as a betrayal, preemptively shutting down any discussion or exploration until a transgression is already committed. It’s not that every need must be gratified or every frustration solved – the management of sexual urges still are the sole responsibility of the one who bears them. Every human must take responsibility for their behavior, but that doesn’t mean that a person can’t ask for help. If sexual wishes and fantasies aren’t discussed and taken into consideration, it is playing with fire. A good marriage allows for realistic discussions about temptation and desire without judgment or shaming.
3
Fun Leydike Feser Iz Der Lyarem Greser
Our Gemara on Amud aleph records a declaration about the second Temple, as compared to the Temple, based on a verse in Chaggai (2:9) :
גָּד֣וֹל יִֽהְיֶ֡ה כְּבוֹד֩ הַבַּ֨יִת הַזֶּ֤ה הָאַֽחֲרוֹן֙ מִן־הָ֣רִאשׁ֔וֹן אָמַ֖ר ה׳
The glory of this latter House shall be greater than that of the former one, said GOD of Hosts
The Chasam Sofer (Derashos page 328) notes that since the second Bais Hamikdash did not have the dwelling of the Shekhina, the physical construct needed to be bigger. However, the first Temple was closer to a spiritual manifestation and therefore needed less physical presence.
This a consistent spiritual archetype, that the more spiritual something is, often it is less physically imposing. This is due to the inverse relationship between physical and spiritual; they do not easily co-exist. The Gemara Pesachim (50a) describes how the spiritual world and the physical world are often exactly the opposite: What is big here is small up there, and what is big up there is small down here. There is a saying from the Gemara (Bava Metzia 85b), “One coin in a pitcher cries out ‘rattle, rattle.” (Bava Metzia 85b) meaning to say, by comparison, a container filled with coins at the top will not make any rattling noise. So a person with a full brain makes less noise than an empty-brained person. There is a similar saying in Yiddish, “Fun leydike feser iz der lyarem greser. So too, sometimes the people that have the least to offer assert themselves the most.
It’s a fascinating and pervasive archetype. Mount Sinai the smallest of mountains, was chosen to be the place where Heaven meets Earth, and the Torah was given (Megillah 29a). There too, in reaction to the noisy clamoring of all the other mountains who vied to be selected for the honor of the Torah, the Gemara (ibid) says, “The one who makes the arrogant claims is actually the one with the blemishes.” Additionally, Moshe who should require a great oratory to give over the nuanced and inspiring teachings of the divine Torah, not coincidentally suffered from a speech impediment. Or all the matriarchs, whose critical divine destiny was to bear children who would be the progenitors of the Jewish people, suffered from infertility. That cannot be a coincidence. Rather, it is this idea that the spiritual can only come when the physical recedes and makes room for it. A person who could not naturally speak is ironically the only proper conduit for divine speech,because his physical efforts of speech would not interfere. Similarly, only a woman who could not have children naturally could be the proper receptacle for offspring that were divinely determined.
4
Getting Boxed into Marriage
Our Gemaraq on amud aleph discusses financial responsibilities when someone with a bordering property builds a fence that will benefit the other person as well, since the back of the fence will also protect the other property:
הַמַּקִּיף אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ מִשָּׁלֹשׁ רוּחוֹתָיו, וְגָדַר אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה וְאֶת הַשְּׁלִישִׁית – אֵין מְחַיְּיבִין אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אִם עָמַד וְגָדַר אֶת הָרְבִיעִית – מְגַלְגְּלִין עָלָיו אֶת הַכֹּל.
With regard to one who surrounds another on three sides, that is, he owns parcels of land on three sides of the other person’s field, and he built a partition on the first, the second, and the third sides, the court does not obligate the neighbor who owns the inner field to contribute to the construction of the partition if he does not wish to do so. Rabbi Yosei says: If he arose and built a partition on the fourth side of the field, the court imposes upon the owner of the inner field the responsibility to pay his share for all of the partitions.
The Gemara (Megillah 7a) hears a number of prooftexts for the scriptural source that indicates Megillas Esther is of divine origin, written under the influence of the holy spirit. The Amora Shmuel offers a proof as well:
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אִי הֲוַאי הָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מִלְּתָא דַּעֲדִיפָא מִכּוּלְּהוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״קִיְּמוּ וְקִבְּלוּ״ — קִיְּמוּ לְמַעְלָה מַה שֶּׁקִּיבְּלוּ לְמַטָּה.
Shmuel said: Had I been there among the tanna’im, I would have stated a matter that is superior to them all, as it is stated: “They confirmed, and took upon themselves” (Esther 9:27), which was interpreted to mean: They confirmed above in heaven what they took upon themselves below on earth. How did the author of Megillas Esther know that the matter was confirmed in heaven? Clearly, it is only through divine inspiration that this could have been known, ergo the Book of Esther was written with Ruach Hakodesh. Tosafos (Megillah ibid) asks, Shmuel’s derasha could also be refuted, because those verses come to teach as they were interpreted in Gemara Shabbos (88a):
״וַיִּתְיַצְּבוּ בְּתַחְתִּית הָהָר״, אָמַר רַב אַבְדִּימִי בַּר חָמָא בַּר חַסָּא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּפָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת הָהָר כְּגִיגִית, וְאָמַר לָהֶם: אִם אַתֶּם מְקַבְּלִים הַתּוֹרָה מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — שָׁם תְּהֵא קְבוּרַתְכֶם. אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: מִכָּאן מוֹדָעָא רַבָּה לְאוֹרָיְיתָא. אָמַר רָבָא: אַף עַל פִּי כֵן הֲדוּר קַבְּלוּהָ בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, דִּכְתִיב: ״קִיְּמוּ וְקִבְּלוּ הַיְּהוּדִים״ — קִיְּימוּ מַה שֶּׁקִּיבְּלוּ כְּבָר.
The Gemara cites additional homiletic interpretations on the topic of the revelation at Sinai. The Torah says, “And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet God; and they stood at the lowermost part of the mount” (Exodus 19:17). Rabbi Avdimi bar Ḥama bar Ḥasa said: the Jewish people actually stood beneath the mountain, and the verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, overturned the mountain above the Jews like a tub, and said to them: If you accept the Torah, excellent, and if not, there will be your burial. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: From here there is a substantial caveat to the obligation to fulfill the Torah. The Jewish people can claim that they were coerced into accepting the Torah, and it is therefore not binding. Rava said: Even so, they again accepted it willingly in the time of Ahasuerus, as it is written: “The Jews ordained, and took upon them, and upon their seed, and upon all such as joined themselves unto them” (Esther 9:27), and he taught: The Jews ordained what they had already taken upon themselves through coercion at Sinai.
These verses are reserved to teach such a significant matter, that the Jews, in their gratitude and wonder at the miracles of Purim, ultimately confirmed their original acceptance of the Torah which they could have claimed was forced upon them. If so, this should certainly refute Shmuel’s derivation!
The Gra (Maor Hagadol, Megillas Esther) uses the principle in our gemara about making the final wall, and how that signifies acceptance and buy-in of the original three walls, as a way to answer Tosafos’ question. Due to the great miracle and celebratory attitude, the Jewish people instituted a new ritual and holiday. This was equivalent to adding the fourth wall, which then nullifies any prior claims or objections. By making the holiday of Purim, the Jews were accepting the entire Torah. Once they did that, the heavenly response was to sanction it as well, thus Shmuel’s derasha and the Gemara Shabbos’ derasha are the one in the same.
The idea that we were originally compelled to accept the Torah against our will, “for our own good”, but later came to realize its benefits, is a significant spiritual archetype, and should be understood. The most basic institution of life and society is parenting. It can be fairly said, that every parent must initially coerce, even force a child to learn or to behave in certain beneficial ways that child will only appreciate as an adult. Additionally, the Midrash metaphorically compares the giving of the Torah to a wedding between God and the Jewish people (see for example, Sifri Devarim 345.) Whether we dated litvish style, or had more of an arranged marriage, many of us rightfully feel that we chose our partners when we were “young and dumb.” It is not uncommon to have feelings that societal and internal pressures coerced a person to choose a marriage partner before he or she was ready. There are times where this leads to tragic and unfair entrapments, but it also can be said, the sad alternative to not marrying young and dumb may be becoming old and lonely. There are many who would say, years later, they feel “״קִיְּמוּ וְקִבְּלוּ הַיְּהוּדִים״ — קִיְּימוּ מַה שֶּׁקִּיבְּלוּ כְּבָר. We now come to fully accept what we did originally with less self-awareness.
5
The Imagined Achievement Becomes a Substitute for Actual Achievement
Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses what legal assumptions can be made when a borrower claims to have paid back a loan, but the lender refuses.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַקּוֹבֵעַ זְמַן לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״פְּרַעְתִּיךָ בְּתוֹךְ זְמַנִּי״ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן; וּלְוַאי שֶׁיִּפְרַע בִּזְמַנּוֹ. אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: עֲבִיד אִינִישׁ דְּפָרַע בְּגוֹ זִימְנֵיהּ – זִימְנִין דְּמִתְרְמוּ לֵיהּ זוּזֵי, אָמַר: אֵיזִיל אֶיפְרְעֵיהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִיטְרְדַן,
Reish Lakish says: If a lender set a time for another to repay the loan that he had extended to him and when the debt came due the borrower said to the lender: I already repaid you within the time, he is not deemed credible, as people do not ordinarily repay their debts before they are due. The Gemara rhetorically comments: If only the borrower should repay his debt on time! Abaye and Rava disagree with Reish Lakish, as they both say: A person is apt to repay his debt within its time, i.e., before it is due. This is because sometimes he happens to have money and the borrower says to himself: I will go and repay my debt so that he will not trouble me later by constantly demanding the money.
It is notable that Reish Lakish, or the editors of the gemara added the rhetorical comment, “If only the borrower should repay his debt on time!” The tendency for people to aggrandize their intentions when their actual actions fall short is unfortunately endemic to human nature, and even more in regard to money, when temptation is always high. Our sages have noted that the righteous say little and do much, while the wicked say a lot but do not follow through on even a little (Bava Metzia 87a).
Psychologically speaking, when a person is overly affirmative about their intentions, it may be a reaction formation and betray ambivalence or conflict over it. We find Gemaras where an overenthusiastic agreement is taken to actually signal misgivings and dissent, having halachic implications for determining binding and full intent in financial transactions (Bava Metzia 22a, “klach etzel yafos”). In addition, by engaging in a verbal fantasy about what the person promises to do, it discharges some of the psychic energy and motivation to do the work. The imagined achievement becomes a substitute for actual achievement. When I was a child, my father Z”L used to say to me, “Don’t commit to a mitzvah too loudly, as the Satan will overhear and try to stop you.” My father was being cute and psychologically deep at the same time. He meant to say, the more you talk about it, the less you will tend to do it. He would explain: “Don’t allow yourself the satisfaction of talking about it too much until after you achieve it, or you’ll get distracted in the day dreams of having accomplished it, when in actuality, as of yet, you did not.”