Seeing Ourselves Reflected in Others and More Bava Basra 97-100

Pressed Grapes

Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses processes of wine production and sedimentation. According to some traditions, it was actually wine that was the forbidden fruit of theTree of Knowledge. Bereishis Rabbah (19:5) tells us that Chava squeezed a grape bunch and gave Adam to drink from it.

Note that the Midrash does not say, “gave him to eat from the grapes”, instead it says “squeezed the grapes and gave him to drink wine”. This shatters the idea that eating from the Tree of Knowledge was an impulsive act. It takes patience and planning to make wine. This Midrash also implies a symmetry between Adam and Noach, both were the origination point of humankind’s family tree, and both transgressed by drinking wine (Bereishis 9:20).

The Shalah (Toldos_Adam, Beis Dovid) reads even more depth to this Midrash with a beautiful metaphor. He says grapes are both inferior and superior to wine. They are inferior for the obvious reason that it does not have the quality of wine, a redolent and intoxicating drink. However it is superior to wine in that it has no sediments. Even so, the sediment is indeed inside those very grapes, though not manifest. But, ff one succeeds in producing and refining the wine, the product is pure and free of dregs. So too, prior to having the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam was both superior and inferior to his post-Eden life. In the Garden of Eden, Evil existed in potential, unexpressed, much as the impurities were inherent inside the grapes. However, Adam’s post-Tree of Knowledge existence allowed for moral choice, which created the distinction between good and evil. Just as squeezed grapes produce wine, Adam’s knowledge of Good and Evil thrust upon him the task of bringing Good out into the world.

Why Do We Hate that Which We Used to Love?

Our Gemara on Amud Alephs comments on the relational consequences of arrogance:

One who is haughty is not accepted even by the members of his household, as it is stated: “The haughty man abides not” (Habakkuk 2:5). What does the phrase “abides [yinveh] not” mean? It means that even in his abode [naveh], he is not accepted.

Pesach Einayim wonders: If so, why do we see women who are attracted to a man specifically because he projects a certain self-assuredness and only later, she begins to loathe this quality. (See Sotah 47b that discusses an era of decline, when people married based on external appearance.) Pesach Einayim offers a mystical explanation, but I will discuss the psychological dynamics of being attracted to someone and eventually hate them for the same quality. For example, people might say:

“I used to love his silence. It felt so confident, and he really was there. Now, his passive silence drives me crazy… I wish he would just say something!”

“I found her quiet nature and lack of airs enchanting, but now her lack of assertiveness exasperates me.”

“She was so caring….He was so generous. Now, S/he does chessed for everyone except me.”

This dynamic might come from what Freud called, “The Repetition Compulsion.” He described it as, “a pattern whereby people endlessly repeat patterns of behavior which were difficult or distressing in earlier life.” Otto Fenichel expanded on the idea, as “Repetitions of traumatic events for the purpose of achieving a belated mastery.” This is why couples often find in their partners aspects of their primary relationships, both because it is a familiar pattern but even more so, to try to correct a painful emotional gap. For example if one had a parent who was emotionally distant, he or she might be drawn to someone with similar traits, but at times, shows the ability to tune in. This can be even more gratifying if it feels as if his or her attention is coming from romantic attachment. It is an irresistible drug to discover that finally I am good to be loved. The relationship promises to correct a deep pain, and unconsciously is a time-travel solution to lost parental love.

The problems begin if the perceived promise of restoration was not fulfilled and more the result of projection and wishful thinking, as well as the spouse’s wish to live up to an expectation. However, this is not all bad news. Most situations are not black and white. The spouse’s potential ability to meet this unmet need might be negotiable, if each spouse takes interest in trying to see their differentness with respect instead of annoyance. Demanding or pestering a spouse to change doesn’t work well, but having honest discussions about how to meet each other’s needs, even if they are different, allow for learning from each other and cross influence. This is known as Complementarity, the way in which couples embody different and sometimes opposite strengths.

There is a reason why the institution of a two parent family has been the consistent method to successfully raise humans across millenia and cultures, (though diabolical elements of modern society want to undermine this.) It models healthy relationships when two persons, with opposite and different views who nevertheless discuss, reflect and integrate the different sensitivities,. The child observes and absorbs a sense that different and conflicting ideas can be held and worked through, without resorting to fear or bullying. This healthy dynamic also develops a balanced relationship with aspects of self. The human personality is an uneasy marriage between competing drives and instincts. A healthy personality has the ability to integrate conflicting urges and thoughts by developing an internal dialogue that also is free of fear or bullying. Two spouses who continuously engage and challenge each other respectfully are the epitome of the cooperation necessary for civilization. This teaches children how to incorporate the wisdom of others and even parts of themselves into a curious, open, empathic and creative personality.

Seeing Ourselves Reflected in Others

Our Gemara on Amud aleph discusses contradictory verses regarding where the Cherubs on the Holy Ark faced, acting as a bellwether of God’s pleasure or disappointment with the Jewish nation:

How were the cherubs standing? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about this. One says: Their faces were turned one toward the other. And one says: Their faces were turned toward the House, i.e., the Sanctuary. The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that their faces were turned one toward the other, isn’t it written: “And their faces were toward the House” (II Chronicles 3:13)? How does he explain the meaning of this verse? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as their faces miraculously changed directions in reflection of the Jewish people’s relationship to God. Here, when it states that the cherubs faced each other, it was when the Jewish people do the will of God. There, the verse that describes that the cherubs faced the Sanctuary and not toward each other, was when the Jewish people do not do the will of God.

The Ritva (Yoma 54b) famously asks: The Gemara (ibid) teaches that when the gentiles captured the Temple Mount and invaded the Holy of Holies, they saw the naked Cherubs in an intimate embrace, and mocked the Jews for having this seemingly obscene artifact in the holiest of places. But if the Cherubs turn away from each other when God is displeased, which surely must have been the case during the destruction of the Temple, why were they in an embrace?

The Ritva gives a simple explanation. At that moment, God’s anger was expressed by the humiliation of the Jewish people being debased, so the Cherubs assumed a position that manifested that reality. Peri Tzadik, (Rosh Chodesh Adar 5:1) offers a deeper psychological explanation. The Jews were in denial that God would really punish them and that they would be militarily defeated, therefore they did not repent. However, the moment the Gentiles invaded and the Jews saw it was for real, they then began to repent. Therefore God was pleased at that moment, despite repentance no longer adequate to reverse the divine decree.

Another explanation that occurs to me is that it mirrors the archetype of a divorcing couple, who after the decision was made to end the marriage and there was nothing left to fight over, ironically may have a moment of nostalgic closeness. So too, God’s compassion and love was aroused at the darkest of times.

A final thought to answer this contradiction is that since the ability of the Cherubs to be animated was clearly a miracle, perhaps it was a vision. If so, the viewer might really be seeing themselves reflected in the position of the Cherubs. If a Jew looked at them, he saw God’s dissatisfaction. If a Gentile looked at them, he saw something indecent because of his own lewd nature. The ultimate message may be that when we see flaws in others, this may be a reflection of our own deficiencies.

100

King Sized Desires

Our Gemara on Amud Beis describes the right of a king to appropriate passageways through private property:

The Mishna teaches: A king’s thoroughfare has no maximum measure. The Gemara explains: This is because the halakha is that a king may breach (poretz) the fence of an individual in order to create a thoroughfare for himself, and none may protest his actions.

The Hebrew word for this domain expansion is “poretz”, which is also used to connote any form of spreading out. For example, the verse (Bereishis 28:14) states:

Your descendants shall be as the dust of the earth; you shall spread (paratzta) the out to the west and to the east, to the north and to the south. All the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you and your descendants.

This royal quality to expand is a dimension of the human spirit, as relative to the situation, every human can be royalty. A human is royal and privileged in comparison to a beast, and the Chosen People can be a “Kingdom of Priests and a holy nation” (Shemos 19:6) in comparison to other nations.

Sefat Emes, (Genesis, Vayetzei 4.7 and Devarim Re’eh 2:3) also sees this as a description of the human soul’s ability to tap into the infinite. When a person allows for awareness of God to enter, he opens his soul for abundance and expansion that is limitless. The human experience of physical desire is a reflection of the metaphysical yearning for attachment and wholeness via Unio Mystica, to return to the source.

He says, this is the deeper meaning of the verse (Devarim 12:20):

When Hashem enlarges your territory, as promised, and you say, “I shall eat some meat,” for your soul has the urge to eat meat, you may eat meat whenever you wish.

The verse literally means soul, as it is hinting at the desire for expansion and connection that comes from arousal of the soul’s yearning.