The Messiah is not Late; He is Right on Time and More Bava Basra 132-134

132

Attachment, Consensus and Aggression

The Rashbam, at the beginning of Amud Aleph, discusses aspects of the kesuba (Jewish marriage contract) that make it different from other debts. It has limitations on lien enforcement and variations in collection power, partly reflecting a reality observed by the Rabbis in social patterns. Recognizing that women—due to lower earning potential and other economic disadvantages—might experience vulnerability after marriage, the Rabbis ensured a financial obligation to protect them in case of divorce or widowhood (Kesuvos 56b). However, they balanced this with the sociological reality that excessive financial obligations could discourage men, particularly those with fewer resources, from entering marriage (Kesuvos 36b). As a result, the strength of the kesuba’s lien and collection power fluctuates based on context. 

To illustrate the feminine perspective on marriage, the Gemara (Kiddushin 41a) uses a Babylonian aphorism cited by Rashi (Kesuvos 75a and our Rashbam says something similar here): “It is better to live as a duo than to live as a single.” When the Sages use folk aphorisms like this, they often aim to communicate a nuanced insight. The choice of an aphorism here suggests the Sages weren’t only presenting a legal statement; they were also highlighting an enduring psychological reality. Much like saying “a stitch in time saves nine” underscores the wisdom of preventative action, the proverb here acknowledges the instinctual human drive for connection and belonging, particularly in the feminine psyche. 

Using this proverb subtly conveys that a woman may often value togetherness over the specifics of a given relationship. She may prioritize attachment security over having every need or preference perfectly met, reflecting a truth about the feminine character. Importantly, this is not meant to stereotype individual men or women; it addresses broad archetypal traits rather than the particular dynamics of any individual marriage. Just as men are generally taller than women, yet any given woman might be taller than her husband, this archetypal insight does not override individual variation. However, these general trends in masculine and feminine drives can guide us in understanding how men and women often relate differently.

The masculine character, which generally exhibits a drive toward action and assertion, does not typically prioritize attachment needs as highly. This contrast helps explain why many women feel comforted when their husbands simply listen to their thoughts and feelings, while men often experience an instinct to “fix” the issue being shared. This drive toward action can make men prone to defensiveness or quick problem-solving when they would actually help more by offering empathy. For a woman, feeling heard and valued often creates the connection she seeks, while for a man, the need to fix may stem from his instinct to protect and assert control, which can lead to a breakdown in communication.

The proverb’s emphasis on connection also sheds light on how the feminine personality might often seek consensus and collaboration. The value placed on attachment security may make a woman more inclined to prioritize harmony in relationships, and to make concessions when she feels emotionally safe and bonded. For a man, empathy and non-assertiveness may feel uncomfortable, especially during conflict, where his instincts might lean toward asserting control or defending his stance. In contrast, a woman’s instinct may be to maintain connection, even if that means sacrificing personal preferences.

Ultimately, an understanding of these archetypal differences can enhance mutual empathy, allowing each partner to see how both attachment and assertion serve as instinctual sources of emotional security. Awareness of these tendencies helps both parties navigate conflicts with a focus on mutual safety and respect, enabling them to collaborate more effectively in meeting each other’s needs.

133

The Messiah is not Late; He is Right on Time

Our gemara on Amud Beis records a dialogue between Rav Illish and Rav. Rav made a mistaken ruling which Rav corrected. Rav Ilish was embarrassed and so To comfort him, Rav read the following verse about him: “I, the Lord, will hasten it in its time” (Isaiah 60:22), as if to say: It was due to Divine Providence that I was here to correct you before your mistaken ruling was implemented

This verse is classically interpreted by our sages as God’s assurance that He would bring redemption, even if the Jews not fully merit it (Sanhedrin 98a):

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The son of David will come only in a generation that is entirely innocent, in which case they will be deserving of redemption, or in a generation that is entirely guilty, in which case there will be no alternative to redemption. He may come in a generation that is entirely innocent, as it is written: “And your people also shall be all righteous; they shall inherit the land forever” (Isaiah 60:21). He may come in a generation that is entirely guilty, as it is written: “And He saw that there was no man, and was astonished that there was no intercessor; therefore His arm brought salvation to Him, and His righteousness, it sustained Him” (Isaiah 59:16). And it is written: “For My own sake, for My own sake will I do it; for how should it be profaned? And My glory I will not give it to another” (Isaiah 48:11).

Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction in a verse addressing God’s commitment to redeem the Jewish people. In the verse: “I the Lord in its time I will hasten it” (Isaiah 60:22), it is written: “In its time,” indicating that there is a designated time for the redemption, and it is written: “I will hasten it,” indicating that there is no set time for the redemption. Rabbi Alexandri explains: If they merit redemption through repentance and good deeds I will hasten the coming of the Messiah. If they do not merit redemption, the coming of the Messiah will be in its designated time.

Rav Tzaddok (Tzidkas HaTzaddik 50) understands this does not mean the Messiah will come no matter what even if we do not deserve it, but rather as follows: If we achieve some particular extra merit, Mashiach will come early before it’s time. If we do not, at the right time God will engineer events that will inspire us to repent so that we deserve it (see Blogpost Psychology of the Daf, Bava Basra 117.) This is an interesting idea, because it is not so much that Mashiach is “taking too long“ or, “very late in coming“. Rather, unfortunately, we have not merited for it to come early. But, it will always come on time.

Additionally, while the Gemara Sanhedrin applies this verse to collective redemption, our Gemara applies it to individual redemption. Rav Tzaddok Hacohen considers this significant and equates the two.  Just as the Messiah will either come before its time via extraordinary merit, so too for individual suffering, a person may merit pre-empting hardship, as the cure might come before the illness. However, if not, God waits for the prayer and the change and will still offer personal and collective redemption at its appropriate time. 

134

Fill ‘er Up with Premium

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph details the vast array of wisdom, Torah knowledge, and even scientific expertise mastered by a Torah scholar like Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, the least among Hillel the Elder’s eighty students:

The Sages said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that he did not neglect Bible and Mishna, Talmud, halachos and aggados, minutiae of the Torah and minutiae of the scribes, hermeneutical principles for a fortiori inferences, verbal analogies, calendrical calculations, gematrios, and folktales like parables of launderers and foxes. He did not neglect esoteric matters either, such as conversations with demons, palm trees, and angels, spanning all topics of great and small matters. He fulfilled the verse, “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance [yesh] and that I may fill [ama-ley] their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21), as Rabban Yoḥanan was indeed filled with Torah and wisdom.

The Yismach Moshe (Mishpatim 23) connects these “treasuries” to the inheritance of the righteous as noted in Mishna Oktzin (3:12):

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the world to come, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will make each righteous person inherit 310 worlds, for it is written: “That I may cause those that love me to inherit yesh [substance], and that I may fill [ama-ley] their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21), where “yesh” has the gematria value of 310.

(Perhaps this also gives new meaning to the verse in Tehillim 135:17, “There is no Yesh-Ruach in their mouths.”)

This Hebrew term for “fill” (ama-ley) implies a complete filling—no space left unoccupied. Here the Yismach Moshe raises an interesting question: How is it possible that each person receives completely full treasure houses, suggesting everyone receives the same amount? This seems counterintuitive and inconsistent with the notion of diverse spiritual achievements. In Kesuvos 75a, we read:

 “Rabbi Ḥanina said: Each and every one is burned from embarrassment at the size of the canopy of the other, and says: Woe for this embarrassment, woe for this disgrace, that I did not merit a canopy as large as his.”

This teaches that even among the sages, distinctions in spiritual stature are felt. According to Yismach Moshe, each person may indeed receive the same 310 treasure houses, but the contents within each storage house vary in quantity or density according to the deeds and achievements of the individual.

Another layer of insight here lies in the nature of the embarrassment described on 75a: “Each and everyone is burned from the embarrassment at the size of the canopy of the others.” This circular description—where each sage is embarrassed by the strengths of another—implies an unusual kind of mutual humility. It suggests that even the most accomplished sages found something in their colleagues that surpassed their own achievements. Each sage, humbled by another’s unique wisdom or piety, reveals a powerful image of the sages not merely existing in hierarchical tiers, but interlocked in a web of shared respect and self-reflection.

Thus, these texts present a picture of how divine inheritance is individualized in its fullness. Each righteous person may receive an equal number of treasure houses, yet the “filling” of these houses reflects the essence and unique contributions of each soul.