The Definition And Process Of Rationalization and More Bava Basra 51-54

Being in the Zone

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph records a discussion where one sage mentions that the other was not within our “techum” so he was not able to join the discussion. The word “techum” in Hebrew, translates to the word boundary.

Rashbam interprets this literally, explaining that in those times they would establish the Beis Midrash (study hall) on the border of the city, allowing others from nearby cities who are within the halachic techum or within the ability to make an Eiruv (which is the area one is permitted to travel on Shabbos and Yom Tov beyond the borders of the settlement, and the extension the Sages allowed one to make prior to the Shabbos or festival.) However, Rabbenu Gershom seems to understand the statement as metaphoric, as he eschews Rashbam’s lengthy explanation and offers a pithy statement, “Within our boundaries inside the Beis Midrash.”

According to Rabbenu Gershom’s interpretation, we may wonder why did the sages choose to describe the experience in such a manner? Why not just say, “In the Beis Midrash”? There is an implication that he is not referring only to a physical space, but an emotional, social and spiritual zone.

Gemara Berachos (8a) teaches:

והיינו דאמר רבי חייא בר אמי משמיה דעולא: מיום שחרב בית המקדש אין לו להקדוש ברוך הוא בעולמו אלא ארבע אמות של הלכה בלבד.

And this concept, that halakha is the most sublime pursuit, is expressed in that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: Since the day the Temple, where the Divine Presence rested in this world, was destroyed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has only one place in His world where he reveals His presence exclusively; only the four cubits where the study of halakha is undertaken.

Be’er Mayyim Chaim (Devarim 21:18) understands these four cubits to be metaphorical. Just as our sages rule that each person’s four cubits are considered his territory for acquisition (Bava Metzia 10a), so too if a person is mindfully directed toward Torah and God, he is bringing the Beis Midrash and Shekhina into his four cubits. As in any relationship, true presence is much more than physical, it is a state of mind. We can physically leave the Beis Midrash and go about our personal and professional dealings through the day, and still be inside the “techum” of the Beis Midrash.

The Psychological Definition And Process Of Process Of Rationalization

Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses circumstances where a person who is doing a noble deed such as tending to an orphan’s assets may be even more trustworthy. This is due to feeling high from the sense of worthiness, and not wanting to stoop low and discredit the personal sense of achievement.

Tosafos here (“Detarcha”) points out that Gemara (Gittin 35a) makes the opposite conclusion. A caretaker may rationalize small cheating, thinking she is entitled to compensation.

This shows the fickle nature of human rationalization. We craft narratives in our head; we are the main character in the story. We can be the noble person, taking care of orphans and therefore must behave with great integrity, or feel resentful and entitled to extra compensation which we illegally misappropriate.

What exactly is the psychological definition and process of Rationalization? According to researcher Jay Van Bavel (“The Social Function Of Rationalization: An Identity Perspective”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences · April 2020):

Rationalization occurs when a person has performed an action and then concocts the beliefs and desires that would have made it rational.
Then, people often adjust their own beliefs and desires to match the concocted ones. In effect, a post-hoc explanation to justify what was done, often with a more airbrushed version of motives and intentions.
Therefore, rationalization often turns the process of reasoning upside down. Instead of letting our values and beliefs dictate our behavior, our behaviors may dictate our beliefs and values!

Van Bavel also makes a powerful observation. Like many mental and psychological processes, they serve a vital function and instinct. They can be misdirected and misused, but the actual impulse to explain our behavior is adaptive. He explains:

Our behavior is influenced by many psychological processes that are (1) unconscious, (2) non-rational, and yet (3) biological adaptive. For instance, our behavior is influenced by instincts, habits, and conformity to social norms. Rationalization, then, may be a mechanism for extracting valuable information from these adaptive choices and then allowing it to influence the network of beliefs and desires that support reasoning. According to this view, rationalization is not merely designed to infer the underlying causes of our behavior for the sake of explanation (Bem 1967). It is not, for instance, designed merely to discover our unconscious reasons: hidden beliefs and desires. Rather, it constructs new beliefs and desires where none had existed, to extract information from the non-rational processes that influence our behavior.

So rationalizing is the function of submitting our instinctive, impulsive or socially influenced behavior to (partially) conscious review. We then determine if it is good, and extract or develop a belief that fits and encourages it. When we were younger, we ate our vegetables because Mom made us do so. Now, as an adult, with the habit and even the urge to eat vegetables out of a vestigial need to please Mom, we can look back and construct beliefs, such as, “vegetables are healthful.” The danger is that our need to justify also allows us to fool ourselves and make false reasons and beliefs.

The caretaker in our Gemara and Mishna Gittin reflects both aspects of this human process. The person who finds herself “selflessly” caring for these orphans, perhaps initially due to social pressure, has an internal dilemma to explain this behavior. She could decide that she is a kind person with integrity, adopt that belief, and it can promote honesty and morality. But if a more victim-like mentality is articulated internally, it will promote a belief of entitlement and rationalize cheating.

It is Darkest Before the Dawn

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the principle that a grantor of a gift has a more generous attitude and disposition (Ayin Yaffa) than one who sells the same parcel of land. This leads to assuming certain rights and/or extras are transferred in the gift of property, while in a sale, a more precise and legalistic attitude is presumed.

The Shalah (Torah_Shebiksav, Bamidbar, Nasso, Beha’alotcha, Torah Ohr, Beha’alotcha) references this principle, and asks:

We are taught in Gemara (Berachos 5a)

תניא, רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אומר: שלש מתנות טובות נתן הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל, וכולן לא נתנן אלא על ידי יסורין, אלו הן: תורה וארץ ישראל והעולם הבא.

Additionally, it was taught in a baraita with regard to affliction: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Israel three precious gifts, all of which were given only by means of suffering, which purified Israel so that they may merit to receive them. These gifts are: Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and the World-to-Come.

These valuable experiences are described as a gift. Asks the Shalah, if a gift-giver gives with a generous attitude, why does God give these gifts only through suffering and tribulations. Really, why not give it with no strings attached?

The Shalah answers that tribulations and suffering is sometimes required in order to allow a person to receive the gift. The Jews could not receive the Torah nor enter the Land of Israel without going through a certain process that developed in them the necessary personal character and national identity. And, the same can be said about the third gift, the World to Come. The spiritual attainment that the soul must achieve in order to receive this benefit, has to be earned through a process of refinement. A parent cannot “give“ their child self-esteem, but rather must allow him or her to go through experiences that help him or her evolve self-esteem. So too, God cannot give us certain forms of spiritual attainment and readiness; rather we must grow into it.

The experiences we go through in life can teach us, mold us, and elevate us. Often, prior to a breakthrough in our personal circumstances, a spiritual, and/or emotional ordeal must precede it. It is a small comfort and still true. This is how the world works.

The Full Picture of Monotheism

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discussed one of the ways to acquire ownerless property is to show proprietorship. For example, the great Amora, Rav acquired a garden, which had been ownerless property, by drawing an image. Rashbam says he drew pictures of animals and birds.

The fact that the Gemara (and Rashbam) casually mentions making a drawing of these figures is used as proof that this is not a violation of the prohibition (Shemos 20:4) against making an image. The prohibition of making an image applies even if it is not made with idolatrous intent. Various distinctions are made, such as the prohibition only extends to a human figure or other heavenly figures that are customarily worshiped. The Mordechai answers (Avodah Zara 840), since it is flat and not three-dimensional, it is not a violation. This second answer is what allows some to take and print photographs. (There are those who follow Rav Karo and will not even allow photos, see Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 141:4.)

The Mordechai relates this to a question if it is permitted to have decorative pictures of animals and objects that are found in siddurim and machzorim. He says, technically it is permitted but cautions that it is still a contemptible practice. Pictures distract from concentration, and this is brought down in halacha, see Shulchan Aruch OH 90:4.

It is amazing to see how sensibilities change over time. Most modern publishers of Siddurim and Judaica would consider pictures an enhancement and inspiration for prayer. And, for us, maybe so.

Rav Yosef Engel (Lekach Tov, Klall 8) famously discusses examples where there is a Torah prohibition whose primary function is to prevent a further violation, similar to a seyyag derabanan a rabbinic enactment, such as saying Shema before midnight (Mishna Berachos 1:1) or ceasing from eating chametz (see Mishna 1:4) on the eve of Pesach earlier than the Torah mandated time. Yet, there also is a Torah prohibition banning consumption of chametz an hour later on Erev Pesach, when the Paschal sacrifice is offered. Some might say that this too is a Torah mandated seyyag. Other famous candidates for Torah seyyagim include Temurah (see Vayikra 27:10), or that even less than the requisite shiur (minimum prohibited amount) is still Biblically forbidden (Yoma 73b), or possibly our case, where an even non-idolatrous images are forbidden.

However, I would like to offer a different reason why a non-idolatrous image is forbidden, and relate it, at least in concept, to the Mordechai’s disdain for illustrations in siddurim. Everything is on a continuum. Is Judaism’s insistence on monotheism and banning images merely a kind of technical point, or does it make deeper emotional and developmental demands? I believe the ultimate development and advancement of the human psyche lies in relating well to a non-physical invisible God. This is a recognition of the reality of the non-physical, and Man apprehending that spiritual attainment and immortality is at odds with attachment to the physical. Even mere illustrations, with pure non-idolatrous intent, albeit inspiring, can also be distracting. If Man wants to encounter God, he cannot only divest from physical lusts and distractions, but other aspects of physicality and simplicity in order to more fully absorb the uncanny otherness of God. If I am right, and this is a core Torah value, it has implications. Even if it is a judgment call as to what level of spiritual standard one should strive for, like other forms of spiritual attainment such as abstention from pleasures, it should be acknowledged as an aspirational goal.

This gives us even more reason to avoid media, if we did not have enough reasons already. The diversion of our minds away from internal images or thoughts that stem from inside, and the replacement of them with other ideas, images and thought processes may be the ultimate harm, as it can destroy the refinement necessary to develop more consistent mindfulness and ability to stick with abstract thought. This may also be the deeper reason for our tradition’s emphasis on constant, in-depth study of Torah, in order to cultivate a refined mental state that allows for access to spiritual realms and channels.