Internal and External Battles and More Bava Basra 83-86

No Refunds

Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses various forms of overcharging and undercharging, and thresholds that would invalidate the sale. The Chofetz Chaim in Laws of Rechilus (9) discusses conditions under which it would be permitted to alert a purchaser who might have been taken advantage of by an unscrupulous merchant. One of the key criteria is that the disparaging information should serve a constructive and crete purpose. Therefore, it would never be permitted to tell somebody after a purchase that he was misled or duped if it is below the threshold of invalidating the sale, or for some other reason, not enforceable in terms of seeking financial redress. In such a case, telling him just causes ill feelings with no benefit or purpose. Actually, one should do the opposite and is supposed to even stretch the truth to induce good feelings after somebody has already purchased an object. The famous example that is also used metaphorically comes from Gemara Kesuvos (17a).

Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel argue about how to honor and compliment a bride. The conundrum is a conflict between the value of honesty versus protecting people’s feelings and promoting a happy marriage:

תנו רבנן: כיצד מרקדין לפני הכלה? בית שמאי אומרים:

The Sages taught: How does one dance before the bride, i.e., what does one recite while dancing at her wedding? Beis Shammai say:

כלה כמות שהיא. ובית הלל אומרים: ״כלה נאה וחסודה״. אמרו להן בית שמאי לבית הלל: הרי שהיתה חיגרת או סומא, אומרים לה: ״כלה נאה וחסודה״? והתורה אמרה: ״מדבר שקר תרחק״! אמרו להם בית הלל לבית שמאי: לדבריכם, מי שלקח מקח רע מן השוק, ישבחנו בעיניו, או יגננו בעיניו? הוי אומר: ישבחנו בעיניו. מכאן אמרו חכמים: לעולם תהא דעתו של אדם מעורבת עם הבריות.

One recites praise of the bride as she is, emphasizing her good qualities. And Beis Hillel say: One recites: A fair and attractive bride. Beis Shammai said to Beis Hillel: In a case where the bride was lame or blind, does one say with regard to her: A fair and attractive bride? But the Torah states: “Keep you from a false matter” (Exodus 23:7).

Beis Hillel said to Beis Shammai: According to your statement, with regard to one who acquired an inferior acquisition from the market, should another praise it and enhance its value in his eyes or condemn it and diminish its value in his eyes? You must say that he should praise it and enhance its value in his eyes and refrain from causing him anguish. In this case too, once the groom has married his bride, one praises her as being fair and attractive.

From here the Sages said: A person’s disposition should always be gracious with others, and treat everyone courteously.

Beis Hillel’s argument seems to be that it is a given that it would be under the category of hurtful speech to denigrate something that another person purchased. Beis Hillel then draws a parallel between that, and praising a person’s choice of spouse.

The question is, why is one more obvious than the other? If it is clear that disparaging a purchased object is forbidden because it causes distress, of course it should apply to a choice of spouse. And, if this is not considered forbidden speech, perhaps because there is some rationale to think the person would still want to know that he was misled, then it offers an equal rationale for providing blunt feedback regarding the person’s spouse.

Additionally, why use this proof when it is a well known dictum, מותר לו לאדם לשנות בדבר השלום, It is permitted for a person to depart from the truth in a matter that will preserve peace, (Yevamos.65b). If so, why does Beis Hillel need to bolster their argument and compare it to the case of object acquisition?

The answer is, a person may believe that he is giving “constructive criticism and feedback.” After all, perhaps it is more comparable to the situation described by the Chofetz Chaim, that one can inform a person if he was misled if it is not too late for the purchaser to seek legal rectification. This then is what Bais Hillel is arguing: Do NOT think that one can take their spouse back to his or her in-laws for a “full refund”. Yes, technically there is recourse, as spouses can correct themselves, and in the worst case, divorce is possible. However, it is far closer to a non-refundable purchase than a refundable one, because the pain and distress rejection causes should never be taken lightly. Furthermore, while subjectively a person might feel their spouse is defective, the so-called defect might be a reflection of your defect, or even be utterly your defect.

If I don’t get along with my computer or my refrigerator, I do not have to “work on my middos” to learn how to deal with it. I can just junk it and buy a new one. However, defects attributed to your spouse may be indicators of what you need to work on, and not blame others or run away.

(This is loosely adapted from the Ben Yohayada on Kesuvos.)

See Evil Through Rose Colored Glasses

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses that during the day, the Sun appears white, while in the morning and evening it has a reddish hue. What are the suggested causes?

In the morning it becomes red as it passes over the site of the roses of the Garden of Eden, whose reflections give the light a red hue. In the evening the Sun turns red because it passes over the entrance of Gehenna, whose fires redden the light. And there are those who say the opposite in explaining why the sun is red in the morning and the evening, i.e., in the morning it passes over the entrance of Gehenna, while in the evening it passes over the site of the roses of the Garden of Eden.

What is the significance of the dispute about the order? What difference does it make if the morning tint is from the Garden of Eden and the evening from Gehenom, or the reverse?

I believe the polar aspect of Day and Night, Heaven and Hell, while still manifesting the same color, alludes to the other major polarity in the world: Good and Evil. Even though they are opposites, they represent an ultimate unity, hence the same color. We need to have the choice for evil in order for our good choices to be moral. By definition, something not chosen cannot be moral as it is an unyielding fact, not an evaluation and decision. Facts cannot be evil or good.

What about the order? What is the idea behind whether the morning red comes from Heaven or Hell, and the same question regarding the evening red? This might be alluding to another Gemara (Succah 52a), that describes a paradoxical difference between how the righteous report their experience of the evil inclination pre-redemption and post redemption:

Rabbi Yehuda taught: In the future, at the end of days, God will bring the evil inclination and slaughter it in the presence of the righteous and in the presence of the wicked. For the righteous the evil inclination appears to them as a high mountain, and for the wicked it appears to them as a mere strand of hair. These weep and those weep. The righteous weep and say: How were we able to overcome such a high mountain? And the wicked weep and say: How were we unable to overcome this strand of hair?

This insightful Gemara speaks of the paradox of human nature and desire; it can appear overwhelming and impossible to control, and at other times, a mere nothing. The righteous who struggled successfully to overcome their animal instincts came to understand how truly difficult it was, expressing amazement at their ability to have overcome it. The wicked, who did not fight to resist their urges and lusts, see at the end of days how insignificant their needs and compulsions were in comparison to what was at stake. They cannot believe how small the evil inclination really was.

The two opinions about the source of red are not in disagreement. As is often seen from a mystical perspective, there are no disputes, just different aspects and sides of the coin. The righteous, who grappled and overcame evil in this world had the red tint of Heaven at sunrise, while the evil, who did not contend with their evil inclination were overcome by the taint of Gehenom red at sunrise, only seeing the Heavenly tint, the truth, at the end of days.

Internal and External Battles

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph continues discussing rules of acquisitions. An animal that can be acquired by pulling it into an area that is in his possession, but not by merely pulling it into an area that is not under his ownership. Panim Yafos (Matos) uses this Halacha to explain an anomalous feature of the spoils of war from the Biblical battle with Midyan (Bamidbar 31). In other Biblical wars, the soldiers were allowed to keep the booty, unless decreed for utter destruction. Yet here, the Jews are instructed to apportion the spoils to everyone, not just the soldiers.

Panim Yafos says that since the Jews did not acquire any land from Midian, and we learned in our Gemara that cattle cannot be acquired via drawing it into land that is unowned, the soldiers did not gain possession of the livestock. This is why the spoils of the battle of Midian were apportioned to all of the Jews.

There are a number of other distinct features of this battle as described in Bamidbar 31:

The warriors were a select group. Only 1,000 soldiers were chosen from each tribe.
Land was not acquired.
The spoils were not just for the soldiers but apportioned to the Jewish people.
Laws of purity and Kashrus purging were discussed subsequent to the acquisition of these spoils.

The language the Torah uses to describe the actual battle is unusual (Bamidbar 25:17):

צרור את־המדינים והכיתם אותם

“Antagonize the Midianites and defeat them.”

Rashi notes the verb form of the Hebrew word “antagonize” is present tense, “Tzuh-Ror”, with a kamatz, like “Zuh-Chor”, remember the Shabbos (Shemos 2:8).

Ohr Hachaim (Bamidbar 25:17) explains the unique quality of Midian is that they were beyond a physical threat but also ideological. The manner in which they sexually seduced the Jews into idolatrous practices rooted the sin deeply. The removal of their brand of evil requires an ongoing battle even in the present. This is why only select troops went to battle, and the language is present tense. This war was not only or principally a military battle, and therefore only those who would not allow themselves to be seduced physically or ideologically could participate. Ohr Hachaim says this is why an exception was made to the rule of not destroying fruit bearing trees in battle. Here, everything attached to the land, including the land, had to be utterly rejected. The land is symbolic for the deeply rooted attitudes and values of the Midianites.

We can also use this idea to understand why the laws of purging vessels and purity was discussed subsequent to this battle, as once again there was a need to root out an internal rot, instigated by the Midianites sexual and idolatrous provocations.

Getting Away with Murder

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the principle of Kim Ley Bederabbah Mineh. If one violates two prohibitions simultaneously, he is only liable for the more severe penalty of the two, but not both. For example:

If one stole a wallet on shabbos but did not lift the purse but instead dragged it on the ground, exiting the private domain and going into a public domain, he is exempt from financial penalty. The prohibition of performing labor on Shabbos and the prohibition of theft are violated simultaneously the moment he drags the purse out of the owner’s property into the public domain. Therefore, he receives only the greater punishment, death, for carrying on Shabbos.

Panim Yafos (Ha’azenu) uses this principle to explain a verse from Devarim (32:43), which we also recite in the Shabbos liturgy:

הרנינו גוים עמו כי דם־עבדיו יקום ונקם ישיב לצריו וכפר אדמתו עמו

O nations, acclaim God’s people! For He’ll avenge the blood of His servants, wreak vengeance on His foes can be read as “forcing restitution”), and cleanse His people in the land (can be read as, “cleansed by way of the land”).

According to Panim Yafos, only Jewish people receive the courtesy of Kim Ley Bederabbah Mineh, not the Gentiles. Therefore, at the End Times, the Nations who murdered the Jews and plundered their possessions will be made to pay with financial damages and physical punishments. This is why the verse says both “He’ll avenge the blood of His servants”, and “Wreak vengeance on His foes by forcing restitution”. On the other hand, regarding the Jewish people at the End Times, not only does the ordinary rule of Kim Ley Bederabbah Mineh apply, but they will receive even the lesser of the two punishments. This is what the verse means when it states, “His nation will be cleansed by way of the land.” God vented his anger on the Land so as not to destroy the people, as we learned in Eichah Rabbah (4).

While we are discussing this verse, Chasam Sofer (Balak 23) parses it differently:

O nations, acclaim God’s people! For He’ll avenge the blood of His servants, by wreaking vengeance through His foes, bringing punishment upon themselves, sparing the Jewish people from having their land contaminated by bloodshed.

Chasam Sofer is suggesting that God engineers it that evil should turn on itself through infighting, sparing the Jewish people the need to go to war. This is reminiscent of what is quoted in the name of Golda Meir: “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children,” she said. “But we can never forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.”

May God bless Israel that it no longer needs to fight, and its enemies self-destruct by force of their own evil and moral rot.