What Milk in Meat Teaches About Peer Influence And More Chulin 108-109

Chulin 108 — “What Milk in Meat Teaches About Peer Influence”

Our Gemara on this daf discusses the halachic dynamics of a drop of milk that falls on a piece of meat, which is in a pot with other pieces of meat. Some of the considerations include: if the pot is stirred right away, then the entire volume can be counted to nullify the small amount of milk. On the other hand, if the milk sits for a bit of time on the piece of meat, and this piece alone does not have enough volume to nullify it, now the entire piece, not just a drop of milk, becomes a prohibited substance. This is known as chaticha naase neveilah, literally the entire piece becomes as if it was not kosher meat. Why is this? The Torah prohibits the cooking of meat and milk together; though each one separately is permitted, the new entity of them being cooked together becomes the prohibited substance. In such a case, we now have an piece of non-kosher meat in a pot with other pieces of meat. Now we need the volume of all the pieces of meat to be more than that one piece in order to nullify it. Otherwise, the entire pot will become unkosher. Another consideration is, there is an opinion that when you have two like substances (min b’mino), nullification does not occur. That is, since essentially all the pieces of meat are the same, there is no contrast to overwhelm and make the flavor of the unkosher piece of meat insignificant. The flavor is blended together and it is not eliminated (see Ran, Nedarim 52a).

Ba’aley mussar see this discussion as a metaphor for human relationships and influence. A small amount of negative influence can impact an entire group unless it is quickly nullified. Additionally, once the negative attitude takes root, the entire person changes, and now it is more difficult to nullify the negative influence.

One of the concerns of parents who are in kiruv or shlichus is: will my children be affected by their less religious peers instead of the reverse? Of course, this is also a concern for many parents within traditional communities, if they fear their child is gravitating toward less desired elements and social groups.

The research regarding the modes of peer influence and the factors that make children more or less susceptible offers insight into what parents can do to mitigate this risk. Müller, C. & Minger, M. (2013, “Which children and adolescents are most susceptible to peer influence? A systematic review”) conducted a review of 66 longitudinal studies examining what factors make children and adolescents more or less susceptible to negative peer influence on antisocial behavior (aggression, delinquency, substance use).

Here are some of the relevant findings:

• The early to middle phases of adolescence (roughly ages 11-16) are described as the period of greatest susceptibility to peer influence.
• Knowing socially adept alternative behaviors, such as saying “no” confidently, or deflecting cleverly, reduces individual susceptibility to peer pressure. This is a skill that could be strategically taught through role play and is critical for countering unfavorable peer influence.
• The child’s sense of connection to the school, that is identification with the school and the values associated with it.
• And of course, there are obvious correlations between a positive parent-child relationship and more willingness to abide by the family’s norms.
• Interestingly, there was no correlation between positive peer influences, and negative peer influences. Meaning to say, children can have peers on both extremes and maintain relationships with them with no statistical increase in peer influence. This is meaningful, because it indicates that it is more effective to encourage and maintain additional relationships with peers who have positive behavior instead of trying to limit, restrict, or forbid the relationships with the peers who have negative behavior.

Using the halachic metaphor, min b’mino, two like substances are harder to nullify than two different substances. In a psychological sense, it may be much harder to counter the effect of peers that are perceived as similar. This may be a key element in why many kiruv and shluchim families succeed – the surrounding peers and families are seen as so different, that the influence is less impactful. Psychologically, this makes sense. A child might feel less pressure to conform in order to achieve status or approval from their peers if they are perceived as having a different set of expectations and requirements.

Chulin 109 — “The Bark Tastes the Same as the Bite – The Permitted in the Forbidden”

Our Gemara on Amud Beis famously discusses that every forbidden item in the Torah has an analogue that is permitted. For example, a certain fish that tasted like pork, or fats from a wild animal which is permitted, though similar in taste to cattle fats that are prohibited.

What is the theological significance of this? Be’er Mayim Chaim (Bereishis 2:16 & 3:6) sees this in a straightforward manner. It would be too much temptation and an unreasonable expectation for people to resist desires if there was not a permitted form. In fact, he takes this so far, that he asks why were Adam and Chava punished for eating from the Tree of Knowledge? Since there was no permitted similar fruit, how could they be expected to resist? He answers cleverly that they were only forbidden to eat the fruit –  but not any other part of the tree. And the Tree of Knowledge retained the original blueprint of creation, in that the bark had the same taste as the fruit. Therefore, they could have eaten from the bark and experienced the same taste, so they did not have an excuse. (The other trees were also supposed to follow that plan, but they disobeyed. See Rashi Bereishis 1:12.)

Be’er Mayim Chaim also emphasizes the importance of not overestimating one’s piety. He says, while technically abstention and not indulging is a good thing, it also can be the tool of the yetzer hara. A person may reach a point where he feels despair in receiving no pleasure from the world, and he then will commit all kinds of sins. Yet, he  could have enjoyed himself with moderation.

Returning to the metaphor, what does it mean that these trees were supposed to have bark that tasted like the fruit? And how could the trees disobey God? I believe this Midrash is an allegory for the problem of entropy and material existence. Many things in the world do not operate on an ideal, because if they were not subject to any type of decay and degradation, that is imperfection, they would not be subject to change. Something that is not subject to change does not really exist outside of God, independently and autonomously. In effect, the purpose of creation would be thwarted. We may not like that there is sin in the world or poverty or birth defects, but the very fact that our neurons and wiring can go wrong is exactly what gives us the freedom for it to go right. Without it, we do not have freedom. This is symbolically represented in the trees “disobeying” God. The bark is the foundation, and the fruit is the product. Ultimately, the foundation must “disobey”, that is to have free choice and be autonomous and subject to chaos, in order for it to produce the “fruit,” the purpose of creation, which is the voluntarily choosing to obey God.

If so, it makes perfect sense that the tree of knowledge, which represents an unattainable perfection in this material world, would have the bark taste the same as the fruit.