Possessions or Possessed, and Rationalize or Rational-Lies? Bava Basra 37-40

Possessions or Possessed?

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the legal and mercantile determination of Ayin Yaffa, which we can translate as “generous attitude and terms of sale”. This is expressed in the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says:

One who sells, sells generously, and he is presumed to have included in the sale even items that were not explicitly specified. For example, if one sold land and retained ownership of a pit or a cistern. In that case, Rabbi Akiva ruled that he does not retain any land, not even a path to access the pit or cistern, as he sold generously, including all of the land in the sale.

Be’er Mayyim Chaim (Bereishis 33:19) notes that the scripture makes mention of the 100 Kesita that Yaakov paid to purchase the land near Shechem. This is similar to the full payment that Avraham gave for the Machpela cave (Bereishis 23:19). Be’er Mayyim Chaim explains that because a righteous person understands that each possession is a divine connection to God’s will (as we saw in a prior blogpost, Psychology of the Daf, Bava Basra 34), therefore, the righteous person endeavors to pay the fullest price so that the prior owner has absolute generosity with no qualms, releasing his emotional and spiritual attachment to the object. This is even more important if the prior owner was an idolator, as there may be contaminants that linger, and if there is still some prior claim of ownership, it will allow that prior owner’s spiritual power (good or evil) to have some impact.

There is something humble and wholesome about this mystical idea that we are in a relationship with our possessions. Nothing is taken for granted. Selling an object requires a ritual as much as chalitzah and divorce does. (In fact, the Zohar in the beginning of Parashas Chukas, actually makes a comparison between kinyan sudar (a method to acquire ownership), Levirate Marriage, Boaz’s actions to assume the rights of the closest relative in order to marry of Rus and redeem the fields that were part of Abimelech’s estate, and finally, transmigration of the soul and reincarnation. In other words, to the mystical mindset, everything is connected from the most inanimate object to the human soul.

Rationalize or Rational-Lies?

Our Gemara on Amud Beis weighs the effectiveness of an objection raised by an owner, claiming that somebody is squatting on his property, however, the claim was said in a circumstance or situation where it was not likely to reach the ears of the alleged squatter. This potentially is a problem because on the one hand, it doesn’t serve the squatter warning so he might not have maintained or secured properly his contract of sale, which might allow him to make an excuse and say, “After all these years and hearing no complaints, I wasn’t worried anymore, and so I lost track of my papers.” On the other hand, it still shows that the prior owner was not passive and objected to the alleged squatting, giving validity to his claim:

Rav rules: A protest that is lodged not in his presence is a valid protest. The Hebrew phrase is “Mecha’a Shelo Befanav”.

In other words, sometimes the objection may feel futile, as the occupier is not listening, but objecting to the occupation is still important for the person’s credibility and to show he has not relinquished the right to make a claim.

There is a metaphysical idea within this legal ruling. Someone asked Rav Yitschok Mi-Skver: Of what use or significance is it that many people discuss their righteous and ideal aspirations when their ability is far below that? The Rebbe explained, when a person is unable to live up to his ideals, it is if the evil inclination is a squatter occupying the territory of his mind and heart. After all, our sages have taught (Sotah 3a): “A person only sins because he is possessed by a deranged spirit.” Therefore, the Rebbe said, we must raise our objections against our hearts and minds being occupied by the evil inclination. Even if right now that part of our heart and mind is not able to listen, the objection is for our credibility and self definition. ( מפי ספרים וסופרים, ג, עמ’ ד )

It is important when a person finds himself acting immoral or sinning, that he not rationalize it with excuses. There is a fine line between being brazen and acting like you don’t care, versus refusing to rationalize. One can admit that he is falling short of something right now, doing something wrong, and unable to work on it yet. He cannot be glib and merely accept it, nor should he try to explain it away or minimize it.

Don’t Overplay the “God Card”

Our Gemara at the end of amud aleph into amud beis makes a rule regarding a situation when negative and critical speech, l’shon hara, is permitted:

כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּמִתְאַמְרָא בְּאַפֵּי תְּלָתָא, לֵית בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם לִישָּׁנָא בִּישָׁא

Rabba bar Rav Huna says: Any matter that is said in the presence of three people is not subject to the prohibition of malicious speech, as it is already public knowledge.

The exact interpretation of this line is subject to dispute amongst poskim, and to understand halacha le-maase, one should refer to Be’er Mayim Chaim on Chafetz Chaim, Part One, The Prohibition Against Lashon Hara, Principle 2 1:1:1. Many of the peshatim involve a variation on the theme that since the statement is public or stated publicly, it therefore is not some kind of back room gossip. In that case, passing it along to others can be seen as not with an intention to spread hatred, but to share a fact that some may need to know or is inevitable that it will be known.

Using this idea, Be’er Mayyim Chaim (Bereishis 31:1) explains how Yaakov could have accepted rumors and grumblings that he heard about Lavan’s sons:

וַיִּשְׁמַ֗ע אֶת־דִּבְרֵ֤י בְנֵֽי־לָבָן֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר לָקַ֣ח יַעֲקֹ֔ב אֵ֖ת כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאָבִ֑ינוּ וּמֵאֲשֶׁ֣ר לְאָבִ֔ינוּ עָשָׂ֕ה אֵ֥ת כׇּל־הַכָּבֹ֖ד הַזֶּֽה׃

Now he heard the things that Laban’s sons were saying: “Jacob has taken all that was our father’s, and from that which was our father’s he has built up all this wealth.”

Be’er Mayyim Chaim understands that since the verse does not record an actual dialogue, which is the usual the Biblical style, then Yaakov must have heard it second hand. According to this principle, Yaakov was not listening to idle gossip, as similar to the owner publicly objecting to the property-squatter in our Gemara, the intent is that the words should reach the person for a specific constructive purpose. Lavan’s sons correctly or incorrectly, had a claim against Yaakov and wanted him to know that. Therefore, those that spread the word, and Yaakov’s attention to it, did not constitute gossip.

I will add an observation. When Yaakov reacts to this intelligence and resolves that it is time to go, and even God tells him to, it is notable how and what he shares with Rachel and Leah (bid 2-13

וַיַּ֥רְא יַעֲקֹ֖ב אֶת־פְּנֵ֣י לָבָ֑ן וְהִנֵּ֥ה אֵינֶ֛נּוּ עִמּ֖וֹ כִּתְמ֥וֹל שִׁלְשֽׁוֹם׃

Jacob also saw that Laban’s manner toward him was not as it had been in the past.

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר ה אֶֽל־יַעֲקֹ֔ב שׁ֛וּב אֶל־אֶ֥רֶץ אֲבוֹתֶ֖יךָ וּלְמוֹלַדְתֶּ֑ךָ וְאֶֽהְיֶ֖ה עִמָּֽךְ׃

Then Hashem said to Jacob, “Return to your ancestors’ land—where you were born—and I will be with you.”

וַיִּשְׁלַ֣ח יַעֲקֹ֔ב וַיִּקְרָ֖א לְרָחֵ֣ל וּלְלֵאָ֑ה הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה אֶל־צֹאנֽוֹ׃

Jacob had Rachel and Leah called to the field, where his flock was,

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר לָהֶ֗ן רֹאֶ֤ה אָנֹכִי֙ אֶת־פְּנֵ֣י אֲבִיכֶ֔ן כִּֽי־אֵינֶ֥נּוּ אֵלַ֖י כִּתְמֹ֣ל שִׁלְשֹׁ֑ם וֵֽאלֹקְי אָבִ֔י הָיָ֖ה עִמָּדִֽי׃

and said to them, “I see that your father’s manner toward me is not as it has been in the past. But the God of my father’s [house] has been with me.

Yaakov proceeds to tell them that why he wants to leave:

He doesn’t feel comfortable with the “theatening looks” Lavan is giving him.
God told him it is time to go.

It is notable that Yaakov does not mention their brothers. I believe that since Yaakov did not witness that information first hand, he felt it was not right to mention it, as it was an unnecessary additional point that was not even 100% verified. In addition, it is remarkable that though God tells Yaakov to go, Yaakov presents to his wives the order and process of his thinking. Indeed, first he heard the rumors in the name of Lavan’s sons, then he noticed Lavan’s attitude, and finally the prophecy. There may be truth that we can only perceive what we are ready to perceive. Yaakov went through a process of realization and awareness before he could see the truth about his situation; this might even blunt his ability to receive a prophecy. (For an example of how having a certain incorrect belief can even affect the prophecy, see Tosafos Yevamos 62a, “Dikesiv”.) This teaches a lesson in perception and cognitive bias.

Additionally, perhaps Yaakov did not want to pull the “religion card”. He wanted Rachel and Leah to know the circumstances why he thought it was the right time to leave, and not merely ask them to take it on faith.

The Clothes Make the Man

Our Gemara on amud refers to the principle of stam kinyan lekesiva omed:

A symbolic act of acquisition indicates one’s intention to do everything possible to finalize the transaction as soon as possible without waiting for the actual transfer of the item. Therefore, it is assumed that the parties would desire that a document be written, and no explicit authorization is necessary.

When the Gemara uses the term kinyan, it often refers to kinyan sudar, which is usually accomplished by exchanging a small object of clothing. This is epitomized in Megilas Rus (4:7) whereby Boaz used this symbolic act of confirmation to assume the rights of the closest relative in order to marry Rus and redeem the fields that were part of Abimelech’s estate. According to Likkutei Halachos, money represents the feminine quality such as emotion and desire which is in a less formed impractical state, while the physical act of acquisition via kinyan sudar represents an enactment and concretization of the feminine perceptions, feelings and instincts. This is why that symbolic acts leads to a contract, which is the concretization of words into physical space.

The kinyan sudar, which is first introduced to us in Megillas Rus (ibid) as a removal and transfer of an article of clothing, na’alo, which some translate as shoe, literally means enclosure, and so can be clothing or a vessel. The use of an enclosure or shoe to marry Rus, and even its presence in the chaliztah ceremony (Devarim 25:9) is not lost on the Zohar. The enclosure is the woman who helps the man find a physical clothing or space to animate the emotions that heretofore were unmaterialized potential. As we discussed in a prior blog post, the Zohar in the beginning of Parashas Chukas makes a comparison between kinyan sudar, Levirate Marriage, and finally transmigration and reincarnation. They are one in the same, as they represent transfers from spiritual to physical – every form of possession. Selling an object requires a ritual as much as chalitzah and divorce. In other words, to the mystical mindset, everything is connected from the most inanimate object to the human soul, and they are brought to life by human actions and God’s spiritual flow.