Managing Unacceptable Thoughts by Accepting Them and More Bava Basra 48-50

Forced and Reinforced

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph continues a discussion about circumstances where a person is bullied to make a sale, but still is considered valid, due to the tendency of people to make peace with a situation once they are in it. Such as, even if a person was physically threatened to sell a property, after he accepts the money, he is agreeable enough. The Gemara attempts to prove this concept from a teaching about how one can be forced to fulfill a sacrifice pledge:

With regard to one who pledges to bring a burnt-offering, the verse states: “If his offering be a burnt-offering of the herd, he shall offer it a male without blemish; he shall bring it to the door of the Tent of Meeting, according to his will, before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:3). The seemingly superfluous phrase “he shall offer it” teaches that they can coerce him to bring the offering (as it emphasizes that it must ultimately be offered). One might have thought that it can be offered entirely against his will, by taking it from his possession and sacrificing it. Therefore, the verse states: “According to his will” (Leviticus 1:3). How can these texts be reconciled? They coerce him with various punishments until he says: I want to bring the offering. This seems to prove that consent resulting from coercion is considered to be valid consent. Perhaps this principle can apply to acquisition, as a source for Rav Huna’s ruling.

The Gemara explains that this does not necessarily prove that in all instances this is true and that resigned acquiescence equals consent. The Gemara explains that the case of the sacrifice might be different due to the following distinction:

The case of sacrifice is different, since he is receiving atonement, he will ultimately acquiesce if he is forced into it.

The Gemara brings another proof: The mishna (Arakhin 21a) teaches: A Get (divorcement bill) must be written and given with the husband’s full and voluntary intent. Yet, In a case where the Bais Din rules that he must divorce his wife, even if he initially refuses, the court is empowered to coerce him (eben with lashes and other penalties) until he says: “Ok, ok already. I want to divorce my wife.”

The Gemara rejects this proof as well: But perhaps there it is different, because it is a mitzvah to listen to the directives of the Sages. The assumption is that when he is required by the court to divorce his wife, his real desire is to perform the mitzvah of listening to the Sages, and therefore he actually wants to divorce her. So once he is pressured to do so, when push comes to shove, he agrees. This does not apply to the case of a transaction performed under duress.

The Gemara ends up ruling that though each case cited is different, in situations where the coerced person receives a benefit (material or emotional), we say he agrees in the end:

Rather, Rav Huna’s ruling does not have a source in a mishna or baraisa, but is based on logical reasoning: By means of his being coerced, the seller then willingly decides to sell the field and transfers it.

From a psychological perspective, this principle is understandable. Anything that requires consent, if the action is done and a monetary or status benefit is received, it is enough to create begrudging acceptance.

It is more difficult to understand this in regard to a mitzvah that requires more than just technical agreement, but also kavannah. Kavannah translates as intention, but it is much more than the literal word. It is about being in a proper state of mind, talking to God, or asking forgiveness, such as when offering a sacrifice. This is a voluntary act to show devotion and restore connection. It is counterintuitive that it can be done begrudgingly or compulsively.

The answer is that the Gemara here is not referring to the deeper metaphysical implications, but rather legal ones. A person who made a pledge “owes” God no differently than owing another person, therefore in terms of the legal obligation follow through on his pledge, he can be coerced, and if he receives something (in this case, forgiveness), then it is enough to create intent.

That is all fine on that level, but we still must contend with the spiritual challenge of performing mitzvos out of duty and compulsion, instead of devotion and love. If we are honest, we cannot say this never happens. The ritual of prayer involves concrete formulaic texts, legislated times and processes. Each time we are called upon to fulfill the technical obligation, even when we say we have sufficient consent for it to be valid, nevertheless, if not fully in the mood, we are in danger of resentfully going through the motions of prayers to fulfill the ritual, even though our minds and hearts are elsewhere.

The prophet Yeshaiyahu (1:11-15) speaks of God’s exasperation and weariness from insincere offerings:

לָמָּה־לִּ֤י רֹב־זִבְחֵיכֶם֙ יֹאמַ֣ר ה׳ שָׂבַ֛עְתִּי עֹל֥וֹת אֵילִ֖ים וְחֵ֣לֶב מְרִיאִ֑ים וְדַ֨ם פָּרִ֧ים וּכְבָשִׂ֛ים וְעַתּוּדִ֖ים לֹ֥א חָפָֽצְתִּי׃

“What need have I of all your sacrifices?”

Says GOD.

“I am sated with burnt offerings of rams,

And suet of fatlings,

And blood of bulls;

And I have no delight

In lambs and he-goats.

כִּ֣י תָבֹ֔אוּ לֵֽרָא֖וֹת פָּנָ֑י מִֽי־בִקֵּ֥שׁ זֹ֛את מִיֶּדְכֶ֖ם רְמֹ֥ס חֲצֵרָֽי׃

That you come to appear before Me—

Who asked that of you?

Trample My courts

לֹ֣א תוֹסִ֗יפוּ הָבִיא֙ מִנְחַת־שָׁ֔וְא קְטֹ֧רֶת תּוֹעֵבָ֛ה הִ֖יא לִ֑י חֹ֤דֶשׁ וְשַׁבָּת֙ קְרֹ֣א מִקְרָ֔א לֹא־אוּכַ֥ל אָ֖וֶן וַֽעֲצָרָֽה׃

no more;

Bringing oblations is futile,

Incense is offensive to Me.

New moon and sabbath,

Proclaiming of solemnities,

Assemblies with iniquity

I cannot abide.

חׇדְשֵׁיכֶ֤ם וּמֽוֹעֲדֵיכֶם֙ שָֽׂנְאָ֣ה נַפְשִׁ֔י הָי֥וּ עָלַ֖י לָטֹ֑רַח נִלְאֵ֖יתִי נְשֹֽׂא׃

Your new moons and fixed seasons

Fill Me with loathing;

They are become a burden to Me,

I cannot endure them.

וּבְפָרִשְׂכֶ֣ם כַּפֵּיכֶ֗ם אַעְלִ֤ים עֵינַי֙ מִכֶּ֔ם גַּ֛ם כִּֽי־תַרְבּ֥וּ תְפִלָּ֖ה אֵינֶ֣נִּי שֹׁמֵ֑עַ יְדֵיכֶ֖ם דָּמִ֥ים מָלֵֽאוּ׃

And when you lift up your hands,

I will turn My eyes away from you;

Though you pray at length,

I will not listen.

Your hands are stained with crime.

But alas, what are we to do, when we feel obligated to pray, but also don’t really want to? It’s a problem, but it’s a relationship problem that won’t be solved on the spot. It’s as if a couple is having difficulty with intimacy and they see it strictly as a problem of the moment. Emotions cannot be forced, so if there is fear, anxiety or resentment, it may not be possible to get in the mood. The real work is far upstream on the timeline. The couple needed to work on their relationship days before. As one Chosson Teacher was known to say, “Foreplay starts with taking out the garbage.” So too, being ready to stand before God in prayer, and feeling it fully, is a product of cultivating awareness and connection to God throughout the day.

But what do you do meanwhile, when you still want to be a “good Jew” and fulfill the prayer obligation? Minyan is now, the zman Tefillah is now, not later. Thinking about this as a Litvak, I have found respect for certain Rebbes who seemed to ignore halachic zmanei tefillah. Perhaps they assessed that they were not yet ready or in the mood, and considered themselves to be effectively anusim, without a choice and thus temporarily exempt. Such practices for most part are not good to be adopted by the masses, as its good intentions could lead to general antinomianism, which as a Litvak, makes me sympathetic to those who rejected Chassidus as dangerous for that reason.

Once again, what is the average citizen to do? Here are some suggestions aside from the obvious, such as study prayer and cultivate a general attitude of mindfulness of God:

Respect and commit to certain external standards, such as not talking, not leaving Shul early or arriving early, or wearing a specific dignified article of clothing (See Shulchan Aruch OC 98:4.) Do not rationalize that these externalities fulfill your duty, nor are they a sign of piety. But routine is important as we shall discuss in bullet point 3, (see Shulchan Aruch 90:19.)
Take an actual minute to pause and reflect before starting to say any prayer. (See Shulchan Aruch OC:93:1 and 98:1.)
Mental Behaviors, such as focus, require years of practice. Start small but keep a routine. For example, make up your mind that for the first paragraph of certain prayers, you will say slower and with full presence. Set benchmarks and gradually increase the goal.

Prayer is one of the most human and civilized practices that one can do because it involves a deliberate submission to an entity greater than us, to whom we are accountable. This self aware reflection positions a person to have a degree of humility and acknowledgment of the other, and it reduces narcissism and self-pity. Of course, anything can be distorted and prayer itself can turn into a narcissistic encounter, see Shulchan Aruch OH 98:2-4)

Managing Unacceptable Thoughts by Accepting Them

Our Gemara on Amud Beis describes a legal process of rejecting a pending inheritance or acquisition:

With regard to an inheritance that comes to a person from another place, i.e., an inheritance one will receive in the future, a person can make a condition about it from the outset that he will not inherit it, since one can waive his future rights to property that is not currently his.

Sod Yesharim (First Night of Pesach 46) discusses this legality in a metaphysical realm. One cannot control thoughts that might come to him, yet he can choose to dwell on them or he can shift focus. Furthermore, he says if one starts the day asking God to help him have proper thoughts and avoid evil thoughts, this matters spiritually, even if later he has an inappropriate thought or state of mind. The reason is that, at least he is declaring in advance that he does not wish to “acquire it”, similar to the legal ruling of our Gemara. Sod Yesharim then references a remarkable Aggadah (Avoda Zara 20a-b), which I believe reflects a sophisticated psychological approach to thoughts deemed unwanted and unacceptable:

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraisa: There was an incident involving Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who was on a step on the Temple mount, and he saw a certain gentile woman who was exceptionally beautiful and said: “How great are Your works, O Lord!” (Psalms 104:24). And Rabbi Akiva too, when he saw the wife of the wicked Turnus Rufus he spat, laughed, and cried. He spat, as she was created from a putrid drop; he laughed, as he foresaw that she was destined to convert and he would marry her; he cried, as this beauty would ultimately be consumed by dirt.

And how would Rav explain the incident involving Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who praised the beauty of a gentile? The Gemara answers: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was giving thanks to God for creating such beautiful people rather than praising the gentile herself. As the Master said: One who sees beautiful or otherwise outstanding creatures recites: Blessed be He, Who has created such in His world.

But is it permitted to gaze upon a woman? The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. The verse states: “And you shall keep yourself from every evil thing” (Deuteronomy 23:10); this teaches that a person should not gaze upon a beautiful woman, even if she is unmarried; and a person should not gaze upon a married woman, even if she is ugly;

and a person should not gaze upon the colored garments of a woman; and a person should not gaze at a male donkey, at a female donkey, at a pig, at a sow, or at fowl, when they are mating; and even if one were full of eyes like the Angel of Death and saw from every direction, it is not permitted to look. The Gemara answers: Rabban Gamliel did not intentionally look at the woman; rather, he was walking around a corner and he saw her unexpectedly as they each turned.

The paradox of unwanted thoughts is that by trying not to think them, we are automatically reinforcing them. Thoughts are electrical impulses in the nervous system. If one directs energy, even angry or impatient energy toward NOT thinking of them, it also directs energy to that neural pattern, reinforcing it as well. Consider this thought experiment: What is the best way to overcome an irrational fear? Is it to think, “I MUST NOT be afraid. It is foolish to be afraid”, or is it to accept that there is fear, and fearful events, and to gently redirect thought and focus elsewhere? The latter is a superior method as the key is to gently redirect thoughts instead of going about it impatiently or with shame and self-contempt. This is because all that energy reinforces the neural network of fear, by focusing on it.

Notice how Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamilel and Rabbi Akiva acknowledged to themselves the attractiveness of the woman they encountered. Yes, as the Gemara says, they did not seek the encounter nor did they dwell on it. At the same time, they accepted the reality of the thought and the truth of it, then they let go and moved on, not through denial but acceptance of the full range of natural thoughts and feelings.

Fear and True Consent

Our Gemara on this daf continued to discuss the legal implications of a psychological phenomenon that a woman is more likely to dodge the truth and fib out of a wish to please her husband, and perhaps out of fear of his reaction if she did object. This is based on a mishna (Gittin 55b):

If one first purchased from the husband the rights to use a field belonging to his wife, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the wife, so that if the husband were to predecease or divorce her, the purchaser would then own it fully, his purchase is void. The woman can claim that she did not wish to quarrel with her husband and to object to the transaction, but that in truth she did not agree to the sale. By contrast, if he first acquired the field from the wife, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the husband, his purchase stands. This is because since she agreed first, it seemed to be a genuine act and not out of fear of reprisal.

While in some ways, female and male patterns of behavior have changed in modern times, it is important to respect that there are also patterns of behavior that remain typically and statistically feminine or masculine for many people. These patterns need to be respected and not ignored. Men and women have different tendencies and emotional defenses.

Often, when men are frustrated, they turn to aggression. When women are frustrated, they may turn to more passive forms of aggression. This is not always true, but it is a pattern of masculine and feminine behavior. Thus, if a woman feels angry or trapped, she is less likely to respond with aggression and more likely to take covert action, such as lying.

The idea that women under pressure are more prone to evade the truth is not a criticism. It is an observation that the sages had, most likely coming from compassionately taking into account the fact that they are more likely to feel physically overwhelmed and threatened, and tend to react less aggressively than men do in a similar situation. This has to, in some way, affect how one behaves. It is just as much the man who contributes to the pattern as the woman, but nevertheless, it is a pattern that is important to recognize in a realistic manner.

In fact, it is described within the Torah both in regard to Sarah outright lying out of fear (Bereishis 18:15), and Rivka engaging in subterfuge and manipulation of Yitschok in pursuit of obtaining a blessing for Yaakov (see the beginning of Bereishis 27). Rivka also hid the real reason that Yaakov had to run away (Esau’s murderous rage) by making it about Shidduchim (End of Bereishis chapter 27 and the beginning of 28). It is notable that there is not much commentary from the sages on their behavior, even though typically when a patriarch or matriarch is described by the Torah as sinning, it is mitigated with contextual explanations and justifications, such as by Reuven or Dovid Hamelech (see Shabbos 55b-56a). Yet, when it comes to Sarah’s or Rivka’s behavior, we are mostly met with silence. I believe the reason is that it does not require justification; it is simply the way between men and women.

There are practical relational applications to this principle. As the person in the relationship who naturally tends to more aggression, it is incumbent upon the man to check and double-check if his wife truly agrees to something or is just feeling intimidated. Rabbi Shlomo Hoffman (Sichos al Shidduchim V’Shlom Bayis, pp. 147-148) tells over that one Erev Yom Kippur, Rav Isaac Sher did not let him daven at the Yeshiva because he said, “You did not get permission from your wife.” Rav Hoffman objected, “But I did ask her, and she said yes.” Rabbi Sher said, “That’s not mechilla! Any good wife would say yes under those circumstances! You need to ask her with real options, such as, “Should I go daven at yeshiva, or maybe I’ll daven vasikin and then I’ll watch the children while you go daven.” Rabbi Sher did not let me daven at the Yeshiva until I traveled back home and obtained “real permission.”