Psychology of the Daf Maseches Eruvin

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman "Habit Is Stronger Than Reason" Source: George Santayana.

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman "Love Recognizes No Barriers" Source Maya Angelou

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman "If We Desire Respect For The Law, We First Must Make More Respectable" Source: Louis Brandeis

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman “For fast-acting relief, try slowing down.” source: Lily Tomlin

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”:

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

Psychology and the Daf Yomi For Mareh Mekomos check out my blog, “Faith Without Fear”: https://nefesh.org/blogs/SimchaFeuerman

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below Half-Baked Arguments וּפְרוּסָה מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן שָׁאוּל אָמַר רַבִּי: מִשּׁוּם אֵיבָה. The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yehoshua's position itself: And with regard to a broken loaf of bread, what is the reason that it may not be used for an eiruv? Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The reason is due to potential enmity between neighbors. To avoid a situation where one person says to the other: You contributed a mere slice of bread, while I donated an entire loaf, the Sages instituted that each person should provide a whole loaf. Rashi משום איבה - שבאין לידי מחלוקת שאומר אני נותן שלימה ואתה פרוסה: Rabbenu Chananel ופרוסה מ"ט לא משום איבה דאמר אמאי מייתינא אנא שלימה והאי פרוסה Slight difference in language between Rashi and Rabbenu Chananel: Rashi says there is potential for discord: The one who brought a whole loaf will complain to the one who brought the partial loaf, “I brought a whole loaf and you bring a broken piece?” Rabbenu Chananel describes a situation that is not a direct confrontation, but rather the person who brought a whole loaf says to the other contributors, “Why did I bring a whole loaf and this OTHER guy brought only a broken piece?” In effect, Rashi is describing an argument between two people while Rabbenu Chananel is describing l'shon hora and backstabbing. Rashi's idea of the problem is also echoed in Sanhedrin 110a (במדבר טז, כה) ויקם משה וילך אל דתן ואבירם אמר ר"ל מכאן שאין מחזיקין במחלוקת דאמר רב כל המחזיק במחלוקת עובר בלאו שנאמר (במדבר יז, ה) ולא יהיה כקרח וכעדתו With regard to the verse: “And Moses arose and went to Dathan and Abiram” (Numbers 16:25), Reish Lakish says: From here we derive that one may not perpetuate a dispute, as Rav says: Anyone who perpetuates a dispute violates a prohibition, as it is stated: “And he will not be like Korah and his assembly, as the Lord spoke by the hand of Moses to him” (Numbers 17:5). Even the aggrieved party must seek to end the dispute. Dathan and Abiram accused Moses and by right should have initiated the reconciliation. Nevertheless, Moses was not insistent on this; he went to them. This Gemara implies a separate prohibition to cause quarrel. Most commentaries understand this to be an asmakhta, a rabbinic inference, and not a true commandment (see Torah Temima Deuteronomy 6:7 and 21:23) However, Ramban in his commentary on Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvos (Siyum 3) counts לא יהיה כקרח as an explicit negative prohibition. Because actually the simple reading of the verse is prohibition against doubting leadership or perhaps rebelling against the divinely mandated privilege of the priesthood. Perhaps we can say the machlokes Rabbenu Chananel and Rashi depends on if one considers causing discord to be a Biblical prohibition or not. Rashi will hold like Ramban, that Causing discord and strife is a Biblical negative prohibition, therefore this is the primary concern of our Gemara that allowing incomplete loaves would lead to strife. While Rabbenu Chananel holds there is no biblical provision, and therefore interprets this as a problem using incomplete loaves would lead to forbidden speech l'shon hora.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below The Sins of the Fathers אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב (בְּרֵיהּ) דְּבַת יַעֲקֹב Rashi: בריה דבת יעקב - אביו לא היה הגון לפיכך לא הזכירו: Rashi tells us that this Amora was called “Yaakov Son of the Daughter of Yaakov” because his father was not fitting to mention. We cannot know what crimes his father committed but it is inspiring to see that a major Amora can come from less than suitable yichus and still rise up the ranks based on merit. Also this Amora is rarely quoted. One other instance is a somewhat ambiguous statement in Shabbos 149b וְאָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בְּרֵיהּ דְּבַת יַעֲקֹב: כָּל שֶׁחֲבֵירוֹ נֶעֱנָשׁ עַל יָדוֹ — אֵין מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ בִּמְחִיצָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. And Rabbi Ya'akov, son of the daughter of Ya'akov, said: Anyone who causes another to be punished on his account, they do not bring him within the partition of the Holy One, Blessed be. Various commentaries discuss what Kinds of situations this dictum applies to, such as is it just if you curse or wish a punishment, or even if inadvertently the person is punished for doing wrong toward you. (See Tosafos Bava Basra 22a, Dibur Hamaschil “Ana”). In any case, I wonder if having a father who was evil sensitized him, in some way, to this issue. As the relationship may have been difficult and Rav Yaakov needed to watch that he would not incite his father lest his father suffer on account of this. Or, perhaps the sages of the Gemara deemed Rav Yaakov to be the right messenger to give over this message as he fulfilled its dictates in the highest sense.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below The Importance of a Secret This Gemara tells over several teachings in the names of the סבי דפומבדיתא Who are the סבי דפומבדיתא, the Elders of Pumbeditha? סנהדרין י״ז, ב סבי דפומבדיתא רב יהודה ורב עינא The phrase: The Elders of Pumbedita, is referring to Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina The Gemara Chagigah 13a tells us an interesting story about the סבי דפומבדיתא רב יוסף הוה גמיר מעשה המרכבה סבי דפומבדיתא הוו תנו במעשה בראשית אמרו ליה ליגמור לן מר מעשה מרכבה אמר להו אגמרון לי מעשה בראשית בתר דאגמרון אמרו ליה ליגמרון מר במעשה מרכבה אמר להו תנינא בהו (שיר השירים ד, יא) דבש וחלב תחת לשונך דברים המתוקין מדבש וחלב יהו תחת לשונך The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef would study the Design of the Divine Chariot and was familiar with the subject, whereas the Elders of Pumbedita would study the act of Creation. They said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master teach us the Design of the Divine Chariot. He said to them: You teach me the act of Creation. After they taught him that subject, they said to him: Let the Master teach us the Design of the Divine Chariot. He said to them: We learned with regard to them the secrets of the Torah: “Honey and milk are under your tongue” (Song of Songs 4:11), meaning that matters that are sweeter than honey and milk should remain under your tongue. In other words, one should not speak of such matters, and anyone who is familiar with them may not reveal them to others. Why did he say no, why were the Rav Yehuda and Rav Eynah not worthy? Torah Temimah (Shir Hashirim 4:11) asks this: תחת לשונך. אמרו ליה סבי דפומבדיתא לרב יוסף, לגמר לן מר במעשה מרכבה, א"ל, תנינא בהו דבש וחלב תחת לשונך, דברים המתוקים מדבש וחלב יהיו תחת לשונך קמבלכאורה צ"ע הא במשנה חגיגה י"א ב' קיי"ל דליחיד חכם ומבין מדעתו מותר ללמד במעשה מרכבה, ובסנהדרין י"ז ב' מבואר דסבי דפומבדיתא הם רב יהודה ורב עינא, והם הלא היו חכמים ראויים לזה, וא"כ למה לא רצה ללמדם, וצ"ל שבקשו ללמד להם ביחד, וזה אסור אפילו לחכמים. . He answers that they wanted to be taught together, and that was forbidden. The question we must ask then is why did they insist on studying it together ? The answer may be that since it was so complex and fraught with danger, they did not want to do it alone. The importance of recognizing that there are portions of the Torah that is secret. Even more important is to recognize that like the proverbial submerged part of the iceberg versus the tip, the secret portion of the Torah is far greater. This is evidenced by the following declaration in Gemara Succah 28a דבר גדול מעשה מרכבה דבר קטן הויות דאביי ורבא לקיים מה שנאמר (משלי ח, כא) להנחיל אוהבי יש ואוצרותיהם אמלא וכי מאחר שקטן שבכולן כך גדול שבכולן על אחת כמה וכמה אמרו עליו על יונתן בן עוזיאל בשעה שיושב ועוסק בתורה כל עוף שפורח עליו מיד נשרף: The Gemara elaborates: A great matter is referring to the secrets of the Design of the Divine Chariot, the conduct of the transcendent universe. A small matter is, for example, halakhot that were ultimately formulated in the framework of the disputes of Abaye and Rava. He did not neglect any of these disciplines so as to fulfill that which is stated: “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance and that I may fill their treasuries” (Proverbs 8:21), as Rabban Yoḥanan was filled with the disciplines of Torah and wisdom. And if the youngest of them was so prolific, the greatest of them was all the more so prolific. The Gemara relates that the Sages said of Yonatan ben Uzziel, the greatest of Hillel's students, that when he sat and was engaged in Torah study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that any bird that flew over him was immediately incinerated. Abaye and Rava were the most popular Amoraim mentioned in Shas, with more than 150 analysis and discussions, yet, they were a small matter compared to the esoteric Torah. Granted the Ritva ibid explains that it is still important to study all the basics and therefore in a certain sense הויות דאביי ורבא are more important as in more fundamental, the idea the Gemara is stressing is that there is a large “dark matter” of the Torah Universe that is largely unseen. Why do I stress the secret parts of the Torah? To make Torah more exciting and interesting, so that we are energized to keep digging and keep trying to understand. Respect the depth of the Torah so you will feel curiosity, wonder and awe!

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below It's What is Brought that Counts This section of the Gemara discusses a scenario where the ladder or wall giving access was built out of wood from an Asheira Tree. Since an Asheira tree is idolatrous, It is forbidden to derive benefit from the wood. There are many times in the Gemara where this form of idolatry is mentioned. Let us take a closer look to understand the Asheira phenomenon and what was the nature of its prohibition : The first instance of Asheira Tree mentioned is in Devarim 16:21 לֹֽא־תִטַּ֥ע לְךָ֛ אֲשֵׁרָ֖ה כָּל־עֵ֑ץ אֵ֗צֶל מִזְבַּ֛ח יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּעֲשֶׂה־לָּֽךְ׃ JPS Translation: Thou shalt not plant thee an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee. Ramban explains: יזהיר הכתוב שלא יטע אילן אצל מזבח ה' לנוי ויחשוב שהוא כבוד והדר למזבח השם ואסר אותו בעבור שהוא מנהג עובדי עבודה זרה לטעת אילנות בפתחי בתי עבודה זרה שלהם because it was the custom of idolaters to plant trees by the entrances of their houses of idolatry.... So according to Ramban, The tree itself was not necessarily worshiped. Rather it was some customary enhancement to the adulterous place, and therefore the Torah forbade it out of its resemblance and similarity to idolatry. Seforno Ibid expands on this idea with a deeper message: לא תטע לך אשרה, in this verse the Torah lists three items whose common denominator is that they appeal to the senses, are desirable, but at the same time are all spiritually negative, harmful. The first one is האשרה, something beautiful and decorative for buildings, but at the same time something ugly from the vantage point of holiness as it is usually a conduit leading to idolatrous practices. Seeing that this is so, we are commanded whenever faced with such choices to give preference to that which leads to spiritual righteousness at the expense of physical perfection or beauty. By the same token, we are to prefer spiritual qualities possessed by someone chosen as a judge to external features, impressive though they may be. The second item is המצבה, even though such a kind of altar was welcomed by G'd as an outlet for someone who wanted to bring an offering to G'd, this was before the Torah had been given. Consider, for example, Exodus 24,4 where the Torah welcomed 12 such monuments erected by Moses, where these monuments symbolised the fact that the person offering a sacrifice considered himself as constantly in the presence of the divine. (compare Psalms 16,8 שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד, “I feel myself constantly in the presence of the Lord.”) The Jewish people had not been able to maintain this spiritual level after they had committed the sin of the golden calf. Even when such a מצבה is dedicated to heaven it had become hateful in the eyes of the Lord, i.e. G'd had expressed His distaste in Exodus 33,3, after having provisionally “forgiven” the people by appointing an angel to lead them to the Holy Land, but refusing to lead their ascent by His presence being among them. We encounter a similar concept described as the difference between an old man whose beard proclaims his respectability, as opposed to the old man whose beard is disheveled, i.e. reveals traces of a youth which was spent irresponsibly. We look for people whose exterior testifies to their blameless interior, character. [This metaphor is used by the Chazzan in his private introductory prayer on Yom Hakippurim. Ed.] The third item, also reminding us of the rejection of an externally basically beautiful animal as a sacrifice, is a series of blemishes, some quite minor, not affecting the value of the animal in question in the market place at all. Such a blemish in an animal worth 1000 dollars disqualifies it as an offering, whereas another similar animal worth one single dollar, but without such a blemish, is given preference over the far more expensive animal, which is rejected. The Torah gives us three examples to teach us basically the same lesson. What is true of the blemished animal for presentation on the altar, is equally true for the venerable old scholar who is afflicted with some character fault. We are to look further in order to find a less impressive individual not afflicted with such character fault.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below Stairway to Heaven This Gemara mentions a סולם המצרי, literally an Egyptian Ladder, which according to the Talmud's definition is a small ladder which has less than four rungs. What is this Egyptian ladder? Were the Egyptians midgets? The term comes up in only one other place in the Talmud, and that is in Mishna Bava Basra 3:6 סֻלָּם הַמִּצְרִי אֵין לוֹ חֲזָקָה, וְלַצּוֹרִי יֶשׁ לוֹ חֲזָקָה An Egyptian ladder cannot give title through possession but a Tyrian ladder can. The Egyptian ladder may possibly come from the ancient Egyptian belief that the triangle was sacred and domain of the gods, therefore one should not pass beneath a ladder. This is probably the origin for the common superstition of not walking underneath a ladder. Therefore, it would make sense that Egyptians would only use small ladders to avoid causing people to walk underneath them. (https://www.ancientpages.com/2015/08/26/walking-ladder-superstition-can-traced-ancient-egypt/) In any case, the term is rather strange. Toldos Yaakov Yosef (Parashas Tzav) notes this and reads a mystical message into this mundane term: עוד י"ל ונבאר תחלה משנה בפ"ג דב"ב סולם המצרי אין לו חזקה ולצורי יש לו חזקה וכו' ומפרש בש"ס היכי דמי סולם המצרי אמרי דבי ר' ינאי כל שאין לו ארבעה חווקים ופי' רש"י שליבות ולהבין דברי חכמי' וחידותם בדרך מוסר נ"ל דזכרנו ביאר מאמר כל מקום שנ' נצים נצבים זהו דתן ואבירם וכו' יעו"ש. והעולה משם כי האדם נברא בחומר וצורה והם ב' הפכים כשזה קם זה נופל והוא ענין הסולם מוצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה ופי' בעו"א שהוא ענין עוה"ז שתהי' הכנה וסולם לעלות למעלה שיזכה לעוה"ב יעו"ש. ובאמת שיש ב' מיני סולם א' שעולה בו למעלה והוא שייכא לאנשי הצורה והב' סולם היורד בו למטה והוא של אנשי החומר ההולכים בעצת יצה"ר וסולם זה הוא מצרי ר"ל מיצר הרע משא"כ סולם הא' שהוא לעלות בו ליוצר ובורא הכל אותיות דדין כאותיות לצור"י ומפרש בש"ס כל שאין בו ד' שליבות והוא דאי' בדברי חז"ל בזכות ד' דברים נגאלו אבותינו ממצרים שלא שינו את שמם ולא שינו את לשונם ולא הי' בהם לשון הרע ולא היו פרוצין בעריות וכו' יעו"ש. Adding to this in Parashas Shoftim He notes: ובזה יובן סולם המצרי אין לו חזקה שאף אם הי' רשע כל הימים ומוחזק ברשעו ולבסוף נתחרט ועשה תשובה מקבלין אותו א"כ לזה אין חזקה שישאר ח"ו בקליפה אבל לצורי יש לו חזקה במאמר חז"ל כיון שעברו רוב שנותיו ולא חטא שוב לא יחט' וכמ"ש רגלי חסידיו ישמור וק"ל. In this beautiful piece Toldos Yaakov Yosef notes that a ladder is used to ascend and descend and thus represents spiritual potential to elevate or sink lower. Thus the “Egyptian” ladder, which represents the yezter (phonetically similar to the Hebrew word for Egypt - Mitzrayim) which has less than four key rungs, is temporary and beings you down. But a permanent ladder, consisting of four key rungs brings you upward spiritually. What are the four rungs? As was taught in the midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 32): Israel were redeemed from Egypt on account of four things; because they did not change their names, they did not change their language, they did not go tale-bearing, and none of them was found to have been sexually immoral.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below Lomdus vs. Reality רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר כִּי דַּיָּינֵי דְקֵיסָרִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן דְקֵיסָרִי, דְּאָמְרִי: עִיגּוּלָא מִגּוֹ רִיבּוּעָא — רִיבְעָא, רִיבּוּעָא מִגּוֹ עִיגּוּלָא — פַּלְגָא. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan spoke in accordance with the opinion of the judges of Caesarea, and some say in accordance with the opinion of the Sages of Caesarea, who say: A circle that is circumscribed within a square is smaller than it by one quarter; with regard to a square that is circumscribed within a circle, the difference between them is equal to half the square. According to this explanation, Rabbi Yoḥanan calculated as follows: Since a square of four by four handbreadths has a perimeter of sixteen handbreadths, the circumference of the circle that encompasses it must be fifty percent larger, or twenty-four handbreadths. How could the sages of Cesearea made such an obvious mathematical blunder that one can readily see With their own eyes? It is clear that the diagonal of a square is not double the side . Tosafos explains that the sages of Cesearea are referring to the area, not the perimeter, and that in this case the calculation is relatively accurate. Just as in our mathematics the perimeter of a circle is two times pi, while the area is two times pi squared. In biblical and Talmudic math they did not use pi which is 3.14..,. Instead they just approximated as three. However, what that does mean is that according to Tosafos, Rabbi Yochanan did make a mathematical error in following the teachings blindly without checking the calculations in real life. Because had Rabbi Yochanan stepped out of his studies and actually drew a circle and a square he would've seen immediately that he misheard or misinterpreted the sages of Cesearea. Had Tosafos not said this we would not be allowed to say this. This is fascinating because it speaks of a certain kind of scholarly mode. Sometimes, you could be so involved in the details and the lomdus that you miss out on real life implications and practicalities. This reminds me a bit of how certain rabbinical authorities have dealt with real life problems trying to use lomdus. For example, during the early years of growing awareness of sex abuse within the community, perpetrators were able to escape major consequences by dint of the fact that the rabbonim in various batei din were following there lomdishe kup and not real life. Below are at least four lomdishe errors that contributed to cover ups, which today, after having paid a heavy price, the thinking has re-oriented itself. We cannot trust the testimony of a young child. The person admits that he's sorry and repented, therefore we must accept him and it is considered l'shon hora to bring it up anymore nor tell his future employer. It wasn't actual penetration so it is a “mild” crime, halakhically speaking. It is mesira to give information to the secular authorities that might lead to this person‘s arrest and incarceration. Now all of these halakhos are technically true but in a practical sense inapplicable due to the realities of the situation, such as: Many perpetrators need treatment and repentance alone will not change their behavior. In fact, some perpetrators may not even be able to control their urges no matter how sincerely they want to or try to. Certainly, those are committed sexual acts with minors should never work with minors again. Even though technically one cannot trust the testimony of minors, the potential severe and communal dangers call for extra legal actions and considerations. Consider the following metaphor: if a young trial “testified“ that someone threw cyanide into a factory production of baby formula, no Rabbi or Beis Din would rule that the testimony is in admissible in a practical sense because the danger is too great to ignore. The amount of trauma suffered has little to do with the extent of actual violation of Jewish law, therefore the analogy about non-penetration is irrelevant. It is kind of like saying that since we hold in lomdus that the majority nullifies the minority I can drink from the cup of someone who just had Covid as long as I add a majority of fresh liquid. Clearly, the medical realities do not care much about the halakha. In fact, this kind of application of Lomdus to real world situations, probably explains some of the magical thinking that is employed in regard to coronavirus. it is worthwhile to keep in mind Rav Kook's words in Shemonah Kevatzim 1:463, (translation mine): “The folk who live according to their instincts, and are not learned, are actually superior in many respects to the learned folk. In particular, their instinctive common sense decency and morality was not corrupted by the intricate, wearying and too-clever burdens of scholarship

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below An Empty Vessel Makes a Loud Noise סְתָם גּוֹי, אִי אִיתָא דְּאוֹגַר — מִיפְעָא פָּעֵי. The Gemara answers: This is not so, as a typical gentile, if he had rented out his domain, he would chatter about it, and everyone would know. If he has not talked about it, everyone will assume that he did not rent out his domain. This is an unusual statement, made about 3 times in shas. How is this principle used amongst other meforshim and commentaries? שם משמואל חנוכה נ׳ והנה בחג הסוכות אחר שישראל יוצאין זכאין ונרצין מימי ר"ה ויוהכ"פ צריכין לתקן גם עולם העשי' ע"כ נמסר לישראל הרבה מצות מעשיות סוכה ולולב וקרבנות כ"כ מרובין עד שבשבעים פרים שהם מקריבים מתקנין נמי בצד מה את שבעים שרי האומות: ולפי האמור יובן שבשמ"ע שרומז לימות המשיח כדאיתא בספה"ק אין אז מצות מעשיות, לא סוכה ולא לולב ולא קרבנות מרובין אלא פר אחד איל אחד וגו', והוא מעין מ"ש בענין מצות בטילות לעת"ל, וע"כ בכל יום מימי הסוכות שמתקרבין לשמ"ע, והימים מתעלים והולכים, ובכל יום נכנסין בו חסדים מקיפין ופנימים יותר ויותר כידוע בכוונות, ע"כ הפרים שהם כנגד האומות מתמעטים והולכים לעומת שעולם העשי' מתקרב בכל יום יותר להפנימית והוא רמז שבפנימית אין נזקקים כ"כ למצות מעשיות: ולפי האמור יש לפרש דברי זוה"ק הנ"ל דאנן לא יהבינן אלא בחדוותא ובטוב ליבא לתקן את עולם העשי' אחר שיצאנו שמחים וזכאין בדין, וידוע דאומה"ע הם חיצונים ואין בהם ענין פנימי כלל וכבש"ס עירכין סתם גוי מיפעא פעי, ובמה שמתקנים את עולם העשי' נמשך גם להם ברכה, אבל אנן אינן מתכוונין להם אלא מחמת חדוות הלב ורעותא דליבא לתקן את עולם העשי', וזה אתהפיך להם גומרין מלהטן שהרי הם אינם נמשכים רק אחר החיצוניות והחיצוניות הרי מתקרב להפנימית ומשום הכי מתמעט יום אחר יום טובא דלהון: Shem Mishmuel is saying that the secular non-Jewish spirit represents externality without depth. This is why the Gemara states that a gentile cannot keep secrets in the same manner as the Jew. The externality is also represented by the dramatic activities of Succos, the inordinate numbers of sacrifices (70 Bulls) and all the other mitzvos represent an external repair of the world following the high holidays, that is the 70 nations of the world. However the final day, Shemini Azereth, has a single bull sacrifice, and no “noise“ with any other rituals. No Lulav, no esrog, no Succah. This is because it represents the quiet internalization and space of the inner world of the Jew, and why Shemini Azereth is a special yom Tov just for the intimate relationship of the Jews and G-d. This is reminiscent of the Talmudic adage (Bava Metzia 85b): אמר עולא היינו דאמרי אינשי אסתירא בלגינא קיש קיש קריא Ulla said: This explains the adage that people say: A small coin in an empty barrel calls: Kish, kish, i.e., it rattles loudly, whereas a coin in a barrel full of coins is not heard. It is important to meditate on the power of external and dramatic actions, but it must be complemented by deep contemplative inner work. We also can consider the way this relates to other intimate relationships such as husband and wife. At times, we need activities, grand gestures, celebrations etc, but at other times, we can have quiet intimacy with nothing going on but two people seeing each other, in heart and mind.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below וְאַיְבוּת בַּר אִיהִי סָבַר: מְקוֹם פִּיתָּא גָּרֵים. וּשְׁמוּאֵל לְטַעְמֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: מָקוֹם לִינָה גָּרֵים. And Ivut bar Ihi holds that the place where a person eats his bread determines his place of residence. Therefore, he did not consider the synagogue a residence, as the attendant would eat elsewhere, and Ivut bar Ihi thought that Shmuel had permitted him to set up a side post for his alleyway even though he lived there by himself. In fact, however, this was not the case, as Shmuel followed his regular line of reasoning, as he said: The place where a person sleeps determines his place of residence. Since the attendant would sleep in the synagogue, it was considered a residence. Consequently, the alleyway contained two houses and courtyards, and could be made permitted for carrying by means of a side post or a cross beam. I must say, I was really stumped to find anything psychological on this Daf, so bear with me if I am stretching things a bit. The name “iyvut bar ihiy” is rare in the Gemara. He is not called Rav, though he seems to have a degree of standing amongst the great Amoraim such as Shmuel. What we do know is that is there are two other Amoraim, who also are sons of iyhi, and also rarely mentioned. One such instance is an interesting story in Kesuvos 61a, which also has bearing to a superb Rambam and Kesef Mishne: אבוה בר איהי ומנימין בר איהי חד ספי מכל מינא ומינא וחד ספי מחד מינא מר משתעי אליהו בהדיה ומר לא משתעי אליהו בהדיה It is related about two Sages, Avuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihi, that one of them was accustomed to give his waiter from every type of food that he ate, while the other one would give him only one of the types of food that he ate. The Gemara says: Elijah spoke with this Sage, but Elijah did not speak with that Sage, since he did not act with piety and caused his waiter to suffer. It is also interesting to note that at least one of these bar iyhi were circumspect regarding compassion and food. Could this possibly be related to the opinion of iyvus bar iyhi in our Gemara that holds makom pisa gorem, the place where he eats determines residence for Eiruv purposes ? No, you might think that this courtesy applies to a Jewish attendant. However, Rambam as understood by Kesef Mishne, uses this Gemara as a source for his humanistic approach and how to treat slaves: Laws of Servants 9:8 It is permissible to work a heathen slave relentlessly. Even though it is lawful, the quality of benevolence and the paths of wisdom demand of a human being to be merciful and striving for justice. One should not press his heavy yoke on his slave and torment him, but should give him to eat and drink of everything. The sages of old were in the habit of sharing with the slave every dish they ate, and they fed the cattle as well as the slaves before they themselves sat down to eat.— — Nor should a master disgrace his servant by hand or by words; the biblical law surrendered them to servitude, but not to disgrace (Niddah 47a). He should not madly scream at his servant, but speak to him gently and listen to his complaints.— — Cruelty is frequently to be found only among heathen who worship idols. The progeny of our father Abraham, however, the people of Israel upon whom God bestowed the goodness of the Torah, commanding them to keep the laws of goodness, are merciful toward all creatures. So too, in speaking of the divine attributes, which he has commanded us to imitate, the psalmist says: "His mercy is over all his works" (Psalm 145:9). Whoever is merciful will receive mercy, as it is written: "He will be merciful and compassionate to you and multiply you" (Deuteronomy 13:18). ומ״ש חכמים הראשונים היו נותנים לעבד מכל תבשיל ותבשיל וכו'. בירושלמי פרק החובל אהא דאמר רבי יוחנן הקוטע יד עבד חבירו רבו נוטל נזקו וצערו ריפוי שבתו ובשתו והא רבי יוחנן אכיל קופר ויהיב לעבדיה שתי חמר ויהיב לעבדיה וקרי אנפשיה הלא בבטן עושני עשהו אמרי תמן במדת הדין ברם הכא במדת רחמים ובגמרא דידן פרק אע״פ (כתובות דף ס״א) אבוה בר איהי ומנימין בר איהי חד ספי מכל מינא ומינא וחד ספי מחד מינא מר אשתעי אליהו בהדיה ומר לא משתעי אליהו בהדיה הנהו תרי חסידי וכו' מר מקדים ספי ומר מאחר ספי דקדים ספי משתעי אליהו בהדיה דמאחר ספי לא משתעי אליהו בהדיה ובס״פ הניזקין (גיטין דף ס״ב) אסור לאדם שיטעום כלום עד שיתן מאכל לבהמתו שנאמר ונתתי עשב בשדך לבהמתך והדר ואכלת ושבעת: I must say, when I read this piece carefully, I think to myself, “One day, after 120 years, I hope they will say that I treated my family members as well as Rambam says I should treat a slave.“

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below דניאל ב:מט וְדָנִיֵּאל֙ בְּעָ֣א מִן־מַלְכָּ֔א וּמַנִּ֗י עַ֤ל עֲבִֽידְתָּא֙ דִּ֚י מְדִינַ֣ת בָּבֶ֔ל לְשַׁדְרַ֥ךְ מֵישַׁ֖ךְ וַעֲבֵ֣ד נְג֑וֹ וְדָנִיֵּ֖אל בִּתְרַ֥ע מַלְכָּֽא׃ (פ) At Daniel's request, the king appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to administer the province of Babylon; while Daniel himself was at the king's court. The Gemara quotes this verse about Daniel. As many people are unfamiliar with the stories in Tanach, Especially those in the obtuse and difficult Aramaic of the book of Daniel, I thought it would be good to share the context of this verse. Additionally, there is a wonderful Alshich on this story. The story goes as follows: Daniel and his three friends, Chananya, Mishael and Azariah (whose Royally assigned Persian names were Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) Were part of the Jews taken captive by the Persians after the fall of Jerusalem. They were assigned to the royal entourage because of their general high standing in intellect and culture, despite being from a captive nation. Daniel and his three friends commit to keep kosher, despite the unfriendly and challenging conditions. The royal guardian who is in charge of looking over the youth expressed his concern to Daniel that if they do not eat proper and nutritious food, they will not thrive, and he will be blamed and executed for not managing to take care of them. Daniel asks him to conduct a test to see if they remain healthy despite eating limited fare. Miraculously, they are even healthier than the other youth who are eating the unkosher food, and so the guardian accedes and allows them to keep their kosher diet. Similar to Joseph in the house of Pharaoh, King Nebuchadnezzar has a troubling dream about a giant statue made from the best metals and material at the head and gradually changing over to finally having clay feet at the bottom. (This is a source of the idiom, “having clay feet“ referring to someone whom, despite appearances, has a critical vulnerability.) no one is able to interpret the dream except for Daniel and he is appointed to a high position. Here is where the Alshich adds a compelling lesson. Daniel during his meteoric rise in success, did not forget his friends who stood by him earlier, and therefore in gratitude arranged for them to also have positions of authority as well. It seems to me, we can also learn An additional point. It is not accidental that the story resembles the story of Joseph and Pharoah. Here we have the opposite of what the chief wine steward did. He did not remember Joseph once he was promoted. In contradistinction, Daniel did remember his three friends. Often, we have love ones who assisted by us through difficult times, Be it a spouse or a sibling. There can be reasons why later we don't feel much loyalty or gratitude, perhaps a product of other difficulties and disappointments that we endured. However, we see the importance of gratitude and hakaras Hatov. אלשיך שם ודניאל בעא וכו'. ראה דניאל כי גאה גאה בעיני המלך וינשאהו מעל כל השרים והן כל חבריו יבושו כי לא נעשה עמהם דבר וירא כי אשר גדלו המלך הלא הוא על כי רזא דנא גלי ליה ויאכילוהו מפרי דרכו על כן אמר בלבו הלא אחזת מרעי התענו באשר התעניתי והמה היו לי מעיר לעזור ברחמי למבעי מן קדם אלה שמיא על רזא דנא וזכות כלנו עמדה לנו למגלא רזא דנא כאשר כתבנו למעלה כי כן לבו עמהם ע"כ אמר צדיק כי טוב הוא כי גם הם יאכלו מפרי דרכם ופרי מעלליהם יאכלו ועל נן בעא מן מלכא ומני וכו'. ולבל יאמר אומר למה זה הרחיקה משער המלך ולא בקש יפקידם המלך פקידים בחצר המלך כמוהו על כן אמר ודניאל בתרע מלכא כי כל פרי גודל מעלתו אשר גדלו המלך הלא היתה אשר היה בשער המלך ומי זה יערב אל לבו יקשה לשאול ינתן לזולתו ככל אשר ניתן לו כי זה מיעוט דרך ארץ ומה גם אם לאחד היה מקום ישתרר שם ולא לשנים על כן בחר להם עבודת המלך. או יאמר על מה עשה ככה והלא טוב להם יהיו שקטים על שמריהם וארחתם ארחת תמיד מאת המלך מעתה כי יקנאו בו חיל עם ומדינה הצרים אותם ויתנו לבם להשכחא להון כל עילה מצד מלכותא נמצאת תרב גדולתם לגרמת נזקם על כן אמר כי לא היה פחד כי הלא דניאל בתרע מלכא ומי זה האיש יערב אל לבו לדבר עליהם סרה ולא דעת ולא תבונה לאמר הלא אח להה בבית המלך וגם אם ידברו עליהם יש לאל ידו בתרע מלכא לעמוד על נפשם כי לא קצרה ידו מפדות ויש בו כח להציל וזהו ודניאל בתרע מלכא:

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below וְלִיפְלְגִי בִּמְסִיפָס לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי! כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּרָא עָדִיף. The Gemara asks: If they disagreed in both cases, let them disagree in the baraita about a mesifas, and thereby inform you of the strength of Beit Shammai. They are stringent and require a separate contribution to the eiruv for each and every group, even in the case of a mesifas. The Gemara answers: It is preferable for the tanna to teach us the strength of a permissive ruling. If a tanna can formulate a dispute in a manner that emphasizes the strength of the more lenient position, he will do so. What is this concept כח דהתירא עדיף? So Rashi in Beitzah 2b explains : דהתירא עדיף ליה - טוב לו להשמיענו כח דברי המתיר שהוא סומך על שמועתו ואינו ירא להתיר אבל כח האוסרין אינה ראיה שהכל יכולין להחמיר ואפילו בדבר המותר: Tosafos ibid quotes Rashi but adds a significant term: וכ"ת כח דהתירא עדיף. פי' הקונט' לכך כח דהתירא עדיף כשאדם מתיר סומך על שמועתו וצריך להביא ראיה לדבריו אבל איסורא אדם יכול להחמיר עליו בלא טעם: Tosafos is stressing that anyone can be machmir and raise questions with little expertise. This is an important point and often is the source of religious bullying where good or reasonable ideas are halted when someone asks, “Did you ask a Daas Torah?” I am not saying that one should not consult with rabbinic authority, and yet there are times where action must be taken and the rabbinic authority is reluctant to publicly go on record as permitting it. One such example is the founding of the Bais Yaakov School by Sarah Schneirer in 1918. While the sentimental story is that she founded the school with rabbinic blessing, as a matter of historical fact from her own diaries a different picture emerges. She started the school without rabbinic approval, and could not obtain approval only after her school opened and somehow she broke through a cultural and religious barrier. See Finkelman, Dr. Yoel. "What Do We Know About The Establishment of Beit Ya'akov?". http://www.atid.org/resources/survey/column5.asp

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן תַּדַּאי אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב. וַאֲפִילּוּ לָזֶה בְּיַיִן וְלָזֶה בְּיַיִן? It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Taddai says: In both this case, of wine and wine, and that case, of wine and oil, they must establish an eiruv. The Gemara expresses wonder: Did he say this even if the partnership is with this one in wine and also with the other one in wine? Why should these partnerships not be sufficient to consider the items merged? אָמַר רַבָּה: זֶה בָּא בִּלְגִינוֹ וְשָׁפַךְ, וָזֶה בָּא בִּלְגִינוֹ וְשָׁפַךְ — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּהָוֵי עֵירוּב. Rabba said: If they partnered in the following manner, such that this one came with his wine-filled jug and poured its contents into a barrel, and the other one came with his jug and poured his wine into that same barrel, everyone agrees that it is a valid eiruv, even if they did not act specifically for that purpose. כִּי פְּלִיגִי כְּגוֹן שֶׁלָּקְחוּ חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן תַּדַּאי סָבַר: אֵין בְּרֵירָה, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ בְּרֵירָה. Where they disagree is in the case where they bought a barrel of wine in partnership. Rabbi Eliezer ben Taddai holds: There is no principle of retroactive clarification, i.e., there is no halakhic assumption that the undetermined halakhic status of items can be retroactively clarified. Consequently, after the wine is consumed, it is not possible to clarify retroactively which portion of the wine belonged to each person. Therefore, they cannot each be said to own a particular part of the wine, which renders it unfit for an eiruv. But the Rabbis hold that there is retroactive clarification, and therefore they may rely on this partnership to establish an eiruv. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן תַּדַּאי וְרַבָּנַן בְּסוֹמְכִין עַל שִׁיתּוּף בִּמְקוֹם עֵירוּב קָמִיפַּלְגִי. Rav Yosef said that this dispute should be understood differently, as Rabbi Eliezer ben Taddai and the Rabbis disagree about whether one may rely on a merging of an alleyway instead of an eiruv, i.e., whether the merging of an alleyway to permit carrying in the alleyway, exempts the courtyards that open into the alleyway from having to establish an eiruv for the purpose of carrying from one courtyard to the other. This Tanna, Rabbi Eliezer ben Tadai is relatively rare. One of the few other instances he is quoted comes from a three way machlokes in how to interpret the Shira that the Jews sang at Yam Suf (Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael 15:1): ויאמרו לאמר, ר' נחמיה אומר שרת רוח הקדש על ישראל ואמרו שירה כבני אדם שהן קוראין את שמע. ר' עקיבא אומר רוח הקדש שרת על ישראל ואמרו שירה כבני אדם שהן קוראין את ההלל. ר' אליעזר בן תדאי אומר משה היה פותח בדברים תחלה וישראל עונין אחריו וגומרין עמו. משה היה פותח ואומר אשירה לה' וישראל עונין אחריו וגומרין עמו אשירה לה' כי גאה גאה משה היה פותח ואומר עזי וזמרת יה וישראל עונין אחריו וגומרין עמו עזי וזמרת יה ויהי לי לישועה, משה היה פותח ואומר ה' איש מלחמה וישראל עונין אחריו וגומרין עמו ה' איש מלחמה ה' שמו: (Exodus, Ibid.) "And they said, saying": R. Nechemiah says: The Holy Spirit reposed upon them and they intoned song as one reciting the Shema (i.e., one, beginning, and the other continuing). R. Akiva says: As men reciting the Hallel. R. Eliezer b. Tadai says; Moses would begin with his words, and Israel would respond (with theirs). Moses would begin: "I shall sing to the L-rd," and Israel would end with him and respond: "I shall sing to the L-rd for He is high on high. Horse and its rider He cast into the sea." Moses would say (2) "The strength and vengeance of the L-rd" and Israel would end with him and respond "The strength and vengeance of the L-rd has been salivation to me." Moses would begin (3) "The L-rd is a man of war," and they would end with him: "The L-rd is a man of war; the L-rd is His name." I would like to suggest that Rabbi Eliezer ben Tadai is leshitaso consistent. In this Midrash we have three opinions about how the Az Yashir was sung. Rav Nechemia said Moshe began, and then another one continued, and another continued. Rabbi Akiva said the Jews recited it in unison like Hallel. Rabbi Eliezer ben Tadai says Moshe would start a verse, but the Jews would then repeat the beginning of the verse and continue to the end. While I cannot figure out the significance of this three way machlokes, it is interesting to note that Rabbi Eliezer ben Tadai opinion that the Jewish people's words mixed with Moshe's, but Moshe's words did not miix with the Jewish people -- That is the Jews said the full verse while Moshe said only part. Somehow this is parallel to Shituf not working for chatzer vs. it working.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below אוֹ דִּלְמָא: יוֹרֵשׁ כַּרְעֵיהּ דַּאֲבוּהּ הוּא? Or perhaps an heir is like his father's foot, i.e., he is considered an extension of his father and substitutes for him in all regards, which means that just as his father could have renounced his rights, so can he. Yismach Moshe Pinchas 10 יפקוד ה' וגו' איש על העדה וגו' (במדבר כז טז). במדרש (במ"ר פכ"א י"ד) מה ראה לבקש הדבר הזה אחר סדר נחלות, אלא כיון שראה משה שבנות צלפחד יורשות הן, אמר אם הבנות יורשות הן, בדין הוא שירשו בני את גדולתי, עד כאן. והוא תמוה, ועיין בידי משה. והנ"ל בזה דהוא איתא ברמב"ם (הלכות מלכים) לענין מינוי המלך, ובהלכות בית הבחירה לענין מינוי כהן גדול, דבנו קודם לכל אדם, והוא שממלא מקומו בחכמה וביראה. היה ממלא מקומו ביראה, אף על פי שאינו ממלא מקומו בחכמה, מעמידין אותו. היה ממלא מקומו בחכמה, ואינו ממלא מקומו ביראה, אין מעמידין אותו, שמי שאין בו יראת שמים אף על פי שהוא חכם גדול, אין ממנין אותו לשום מינוי מן המינוים שבישראל, עד כאן דבריו ומקורו מכתובות (דף ק"ג ע"ב) בהא דציוה (שמעון בני) חכם. והנה יש להבין מה דכתב מתחילה אלא אם כן ממלא מקומו בחכמה וביראה, כיון דרק ביראה תליא מילתא כמ"ש אחר כך, ועל כרחך צריך לומר דמכל מקום אם יש בן אחד שממלא מקומו בשניהם, ואחד רק ביראה, דממנין זה שממלא בשניהם, והבן. ונקדים מה שנסתפקתי בענין עליית לספר תורה בתלמיד חכם הראוי למנותו, ומה דפשיטא ליה. והיוצא מזה דמעלות בתורה נגלה ונראה, אבל מעלת בצדקות אינו מתגלה כל כך, וכל דרך איש ישר בעיניו. ונקדים עוד מה שטרחו ליישב קושית העקרים אמאי דמשני (ברכות ל"ג ע"ב) אין לגבי משה מילתא זוטרתא היא, דאיך העשיר יאמר לעני מה זה אלף זהובים. והתירוץ נ"ל לפי האמת הפשוט כיון דמשה עניו מאד היה (במדבר יב ג), והוא באמת היה ירא מאד, והיה חושב אם אני הגרוע והקטן מהכל ירא מהשי"ת, ודאי דהפחות שבפחותים קטן מאד הדבר אצלו, דהוא היה סובר דמילתא זוטרתא הוא לכולי עלמא, וזה פשוט. והנה זה יתכן בענין צדקות, היה חושב שכל איש יותר צדיק ממנו, אבל בתורה זה נגלה לו דאין בניו דומים לו ודאי, ובפרט לפי המבואר במדרש (במ"ר פכ"א י"ב) דלא עסקו בתורה כל כך. והנה נ"ל הטעם דהבנים יורשים ולא הבנות, דהא מבואר במי ששקד על מחקרי וטעמי תורה, דלא נתנה התורה הקדושה דבריה לשיעורים, רק על הרוב וסתמא דמילתא, וכיון שנכתב, שוב אין להוסיף ואין לגרוע ואין לשנות בשום אופן. והנה ידוע (ב"ב קט"ז ע"א) דמי שמניח בן ממלא מקומו, נכתב בו שכיבה ולא מיתה. והטעם כיון דממלא מקומו, הוי כאלו הוא הוא בעצמו וברא כרעיה דאבוה (עירובין ע' ע"ב), לכך קם גם כן במקומו על כל אשר יש לו. מה שאין כן הבנות אף דבצדקות יכולים גם הנשים למלא מקום, והאמהות והנביאות יוכיחו, מכל מקום מסתמא היא לאו בת תורה, וכל המלמד את בתו תורה וכו' (סוטה כ' ע"א), לכך בן עדיף דיתכן למלא בשניהם, אבל במקום דליכא בן, הם יורשין דמכל מקום יכולין למלא מקום בצדקות, ולפי ההוי אמינא דאין הבנות יורשין כלל, הוי אמינא דביראה לחוד לא מהני כלל, ועל פי זה מבואר המדרש הנ"ל, ודוק. The Yismach Moshe comments on a Midrash (במ"ר פכ"א י"ד) Which relates that Moshe, upon hearing that the daughters of Zelaphechad will eligible to inherit their father, consider the possibility that perhaps one of his sons should inherit his position of leadership over Yehoshua. The Yismach Moshe explains the Midrash as follows: although Moshe knew that Yehoshua was Superior in his knowledge of Torah, there is a rule that a king's child inherit the throne if he is equal preferably in wisdom of Torah and fear of G-d, but even if he only has fear of G-d and not so much wisdom of Torah, he still can qualify. Moshe therefore thought that since daughters can inherit even though they tend to be less learned, he realized that the qualification could be based on fear of G-d alone. He therefore considered that perhaps his sons would still be in the running despite yehoshua's superiority. (Interestingly, Yismach Moshe Acknowledges that women could also be learned it in Torah, it is just more rare.) In any case, We see that although in Torah thought leadership can be inherited to some extent, it is not a guarantee or slam dunk, it must be earned. And if the Heir is not qualified, He is passed over for a superior candidate.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ — לְהָבִיא בְּנֵי אָדָם הַדּוֹמִין לִבְהֵמָה. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: מְקַבְּלִין קׇרְבָּנוֹת מִפּוֹשְׁעֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ בִּתְשׁוּבָה. חוּץ מִן הַמּוּמָר, וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ יַיִן, וְהַמְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּתוֹת בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא. “Of the cattle” is expounded as follows: To include people who are similar to animals in their disdain for the proper behavior of man, i.e., that the wicked too may offer sacrifices. From here the Sages stated: We accept voluntary sacrifices from Jewish transgressors, in order to enable them to repent, apart from the apostate, one who pours wine libations as part of idol worship, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public, from whom we do not accept sacrifices without their complete repentance. ישמח משה בראשית י:ז ועל פי זה יתבאר המדרש זכה, דהיינו שהוציא מה שבכחו אל הפועל והגיע לשלמות התכלית בבחירתו, אומרים לו אתה קדמת לכל מעשה בראשית דייקא, שהוא חשוב יותר אף ממלאכי רום, לא זכה שלא הוציא מה שבכחו לפועל ונשאר נעדר השלמות, אומרים לו יתוש קדמך, דהיינו שהגרוע שבנבראים חשוב יותר ממנו, כי לכל הדברים יש להם שלמות, והוא אין לו שלימות, והבן. ובזה נפתחו שערי בינה להבין אומרו יתעלה נעשה אדם, דהא דרשו רז"ל ביבמות (ס"א ע"א), ובכריתות (וא"ו ע"ב), ובב"מ (קי"ד ע"ב) אתם קרוים אדם (יחזקאל לד לא), ואין העכו"ם קרוים אדם, עיין שם. והטעם מבואר דבנעדרי השלמות אין יתרון על שאר הבעלי חיים, כמו שמבואר בדברי העקרים שהבאתי לעיל. ועיין בחולין (ה' ע"א) שדרשו רז"ל מן הבהמה (ויקרא א ב), להביא בני אדם שדומין לבהמה, מכאן אמרו רז"ל (עירובין ס"ט ע"ב) מקבלין קרבנות מפושעי ישראל וכו', עיין שם. וכבר קיימו וקבלו החכמים ע"ה דכל מחוסר השלמות ומשולל ממנו, הוא בהמה בצורת אדם ולא אדם, כמ"ש (קהלת ג יח) ולראות שהם בהמה המה להם. והנה סוף מעשה במחשבה תחלה בעיקר כונת בריאתו להגיעו לשלמותו בבחירתו להוציא מכח אל הפועל השגת שלמותו שבראו ית' בטבע יצירתו, ואם כן איך יאמר ית' אעשה אדם, הרי באמת לא יהיה בגדר אדם בעת בריאתו כל זמן שלא הוציא כחו לפועל השלמות כמ"ש לעיל בשם העיקרים. לכך לא נאמר כי טוב ביצירתו, וגם לא יהיה בגדר אדם על ידי פעולת הקב"ה לבדו, רק בצירוף פעולת עצמו שהוא בחירתו, דאף שנקרא שמו אדם תיכף בעת בריאתו, אין זה ענין לגדר האדם האמתי, כי הוא רק קריאת איש בלבד כמו ראובן שמעון. לזה אמר נעשה אדם (בראשית א כו), ר"ל אני והוא האדם עצמו על ידי שנינו יהיה אדם, על ידי הקב"ה בבריאתו ובתתו כח הכנתו, ועל ידי האדם עצמו בהוציא הכח ההוא לפועל שלמותו בבחירתו ורצונו, כנ"ל נכון וברור. ועל פי זה נראה לי לפרש מה שאמר דוד נעים זמירות ישראל (תהלים יז ד) לפעולת אדם בדבר שפתיך אני שמרתי אורחות פריץ. ר"ל לפעולת אדם, היינו הצטרפות לפעול אדם, בדבר שפתיך שאמרת נעשה אדם מבואר אני, ר"ל כי אני אני הוא המצטרף להעשיה בבחירתי, לכך שמרתי אורחות פריץ, והבן. ובזה אני מפרש מה שאמרו רז"ל אהא דכתיב (תהלים לו ז) אדם ובהמה תושיע ה', אלו בני אדם שהן ערומים בדעת ומשימין עצמן כבהמה (חולין ה' ע"ב). הכוונה אלו בני אדם שהן ערומים בדעת, לכך ביצירתן לבד אין כאן שלמות, כי אם נמצא בכח עד שיוציאו אותו הכח אל הפועל, ועושין עצמן דייקא בבחירתן כבהמה שיש לה שלמותה בתולדה, ואין נעדר ממנה בשום פעם, לאלו תושיע ה' להשלים את עצמם, כי הבא לטהר מסייעין לו (שבת ק"ד ע"א), וכדכתיב (תהלים לז לב) צופה רשע לצדיק וגו', ואמרו רז"ל (סוכה נ"ב ע"ב) בכל יום יצרו של אדם מתגבר עליו, ואלמלא הקב"ה עוזרו לא היה יכול לו, והיינו דכתיב (תהלים לז לג) ד' לא יעזבנו בידו. ועל פי זה נ"ל מה שאמר השי"ת לירמיה הנביא (ט"ו י"ט) ואם תוציא יקר מזולל כפי תהיה. כי ידוע מדברי רז"ל (ר"ה ל"ב ע"א) דהכל במאמר עשה. והנה מי שמביא האדם לשלמות שיוציא הכחניות שבו לפועל, הוא שיתוף להקב"ה בבריאת האדם הזה כפי מה שנתבאר מדברינו, דהלא השי"ת הוא סבת התחלה בבריאתו ובנתינת הכחיות, וזה המביאו לשלמות הוא סבת גמרו שיהיה אדם. וזהו אם תוציא יקר, היינו הכח החשוב אשר בטבע יצירתו של אדם, מזולל מן האדם אשר הוא נעדר השלמות בבחירתו, ואתה תחזיר אותו בתשובה ובאופן שיוציא הכחניות שבו לפועל על ידך, כפי תהיה, שאני בדבורי ובמאמרי סבת התחלה לו להיותו אדם, ואתה סבת גמרו, והבן. The Yismach Moshe Makes the following observation about the concept that only a Jewish person, who is dedicated to Torah and mitzvos is considered Superior to an animal. There is a rabbinic tradition that Man was created last in order to teach him that even a lowly flea comes before him. Logically, how do we understand this? Because in one sense and animal is perfect. That is the animal performs its function as it is, as it was designed. On the other hand, a human is incomplete without volitionally elevating his 0or her actions through Free Will and choice to obey G-d, and thereby Elevate the world. This is why someone who does not follow the Torah, is not merely a beast but in ways worse than a beast. Furthermore, this can be used to understand the strange plural word construct used in Genesis, "Let us create Man”. G-d does not need any assistance, so does “Let US create” mean? However, now that we understand that G-d "needs" Man to complete creation by voluntarily choosing to behave morally, the “us” means a partnership with G-d.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below Who are צדוקים ובייתוסים and how are they different? Mishna Avos 1:3 Avos Drav Nasan 5:2Antigonus, a man of Sokho, had two students who were studying his words. They would then teach them to other students, who would then teach them to yet other students. Those students then questioned what they had learned and said: Why did our fathers say [such a thing]? Is it possible that a worker should labor all day and not receive his compensation in the evening? If our fathers had known that there was [another] world, and that the dead would be revived, they would not have said this. So they decided to separate from the way of the Torah. Two factions emerged from them: the Sadducees and the Baitusees. The Sadducees (Tzadukim) were called that because of Tzadok, and the Baitusees because of Baitus. And they would make a point of always using gold and silver things, not because they were so enamored of them, but because they said: The Pharisees have a tradition that they will deny themselves in this world. Yet in the next world they will have nothing! Rambam commentary on Mishna Avos Are Baytusim and Tzadokkim the same? Are they interchangeable? Interestingly, the Mishna as quoted in the Gemara Rosh Hashana 22a, refers to Baytusim, but in the text of the Mishna it says Minim, Which is a generic term for various heretical sects (See Rambam Pirush Hamishna Chulin 1:2) מתני׳ אם אינן מכירין אותו משלחין עמו אחר להעידו בראשונה היו מקבלין עדות החדש מכל אדם משקלקלו הבייתוסים התקינו שלא יהו מקבלין אלא מן המכירין: Tosafos Yom Tov (Rosh Hashana 2:2) notes this and explains that the different names have to do with historically who actually did what, but it does not seem to attribute different philosophies: Mishna Menachos (10:3) Tosafos Yom Tov ibid also says they are interchangeable: But Tiferes Yisrael ibid says they each had a different philosophy : אין קצירת העומר במוצאי יום טוב ר"ל במוצאי ט"ו ניסן. רק במוצאי שבת הראשון שאחר יום א' של פסח. להכי כך שואל ומשיבין לו. כדי לפרסם שהכל מודים בדבר ושלא מדעתו לבד עושה וצדוקים ובייתוסים היו ב' כתות לאפיקורסים שבישראל שהכחישו בתורה שבעל פה. כל אחת באופן אחר [ועי' במאור עינים בפי"ג מאמרי בינה]. והם היו אומרים דהא דכתיב בעומר ממחרת השבת יניפנו הכהן. היינו יום א' בשבוע. שהוא מחרתו של שבת בראשית. אבל אנו קבלנו ממשרע"ה דהיינו ממחרת יוט"ר של פסח: Regardless of their origin, it is important to understand they did not survive. And the reason is of a great significance to us. One of the functions of so many of the rabbinic enactments in the era immediately pre-and then post destruction of the temple was to find ways to maintain consistency and meaning for the Jewish people once there no longer was a center of worship. Many of the enactments are designed to create either a sense of individual worship, or uniformity, such as the various rituals for prayer as well as the investment of power in local. rabbinical Authority. Other type of a enactments such as muktzeh which were expanded upon and other gedarim allowed for bringing holiness into every day life such as washing hands similar to the priests before eating, which also elevated eating into an almost sacrificial table. Ultimately, the rabbis won with their idea of Judaism persisting and the other secys were relegated to the dustbin of history. What is their status as Jews? This is relevant to their philosophical heirs such as reform or possibly conservative Jews, depending on if they keep mitzvos and believe in the Oral Torah. Rambam in Hilchos Mamerim 3:3, after describing all kinds of vigilante actions that can be taken against heretics, states the following: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאִישׁ שֶׁכָּפַר בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה בְּמַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ וּבִדְבָרִים שֶׁנִּרְאוּ לוֹ. וְהָלַךְ אַחַר דַּעְתּוֹ הַקַּלָּה וְאַחַר שְׁרִירוּת לִבּוֹ וְכוֹפֵר בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה תְּחִלָּה כְּצָדוֹק וּבַיְתּוֹס וְכֵן כָּל הַתּוֹעִים אַחֲרָיו. אֲבָל בְּנֵי הַתּוֹעִים הָאֵלֶּה וּבְנֵי בְּנֵיהֶם שֶׁהִדִּיחוּ אוֹתָם אֲבוֹתָם וְנוֹלְדוּ בֵּין הַקָּרָאִים וְגִדְּלוּ אוֹתָם עַל דַּעְתָּם. הֲרֵי הוּא כְּתִינוֹק שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה בֵּינֵיהֶם וְגִדְּלוּהוּ וְאֵינוֹ זָרִיז לֶאֱחֹז בְּדַרְכֵי הַמִּצְוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא כְּאָנוּס וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁמַע אַחַר כָּךְ [שֶׁהוּא יְהוּדִי וְרָאָה הַיְהוּדִים וְדָתָם הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאָנוּס שֶׁהֲרֵי גִּדְּלוּהוּ עַל טָעוּתָם] כָּךְ אֵלּוּ שֶׁאָמַרְנוּ הָאוֹחֲזִים בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתָם הַקָּרָאִים שֶׁטָּעוּ. לְפִיכָךְ רָאוּי לְהַחְזִירָן בִּתְשׁוּבָה וּלְמָשְׁכָם בְּדִבְרֵי שָׁלוֹם עַד שֶׁיַּחְזְרוּ לְאֵיתָן הַתּוֹרָה:

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת כִּי פָּגְעִי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי — רַב חִסְדָּא מִרַתְעָן שִׂיפְווֹתֵיהּ מִמַּתְנְיָיתָא דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת מִרְתַע כּוּלֵּיהּ גּוּפֵיהּ מִפִּלְפּוּלֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. The Gemara relates that when Rav Ḥisda and Rav Sheshet would meet each other, Rav Ḥisda's lips would tremble from the teachings of Rav Sheshet. Rav Sheshet's fluency and expertise were such that Rav Ḥisda would be filled with awe in his presence. For his part, Rav Sheshet's entire body would shake from Rav Ḥisda's sharpness, i.e., from his brilliant, analytical mind. Rav Sheshes was blind so his main method of study was obviously oral and through review. This is why Rav Chisda was so afraid of his expertise in beraisos and mishnayos. More interesting lessons can be found in the Pesach Enayim's peshat on Bava Kama 30a ת"ר חסידים הראשונים היו מצניעים קוצותיהם וזכוכיותיהם בתוך שדותיהן ומעמיקים להן ג' טפחים כדי שלא יעכב המחרישה The Sages taught: The early pious people would conceal their thorns and their pieces of glass in their fields, and would dig to the depth of at least three handbreadths in order to bury them, so that they would not obstruct the plow. רב ששת שדי להו בנורא רבא שדי להו בדגלת The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet would toss his thorns into fire, so they would not cause damage to others. Rava would toss them into the Tigris [Diglat] River. Pesach Eynayim ibid: ת"ר חסידים הראשונים היו מצניעים קוצותיהם וזכוכיותיהם וכו'. אפשר לרמוז במאמר זה דרך רמז כי הן האדם זמנין דבטל מהתורה לפום צערא בבא אליו דואג היש משכיל על כן יאמרו תורתו של דוא"ג אינו אלא מן השפה ולחוץ כי לבו בל עמו ויהי הצע"ר לסגו"ר לבו. ועוד נודע דאם יש באדם מעלות המדות ומושב"ח ועומ"ד את עולותי"ו ואת שלמי"ו יזוח לבו עליו. וידוע כי שדה כינוי לתלמוד כמו שפירשו רז"ל בכמה מקומות שדרשו שדה על התלמוד. ואפשר שזהו הרמז חסידים הראשונים היו מצניעין קוצותיהם פירוש צעריהם ודאגות שהם כקוצין. וגם זכוכיותיהם פירוש שבחיהם שמאירים ומזהירים כזכוכית לבנה אשר שתים הנה חבילי טרדי"ן לבלבל דעתו מעבודת ה'. ברם הני חסידי קמאי היו מצניעין מחשבותם אלו בתוך שדותיהם שהיו עוסקים בתלמוד הנקרא שדה בכל כחם. ומעמיקים להם ג' טפחים כנגד הרהור ומחשבה הפחותה מהרהור ורעותא דלבא הקלה מהכל המה בצדקתם עבדו להן זרזי"ם להעמיק ולפנות מחשבות אלו מצער או שבח כדי שלא יעכב המחרישה כלומר שמחשבה בצער או בשבח מועלת ומעכבת המחרישה פירוש עומק העיון בשדה אשר ברכו ה' הוא התלמוד והם מצניעין אותם כדי שלא יעכב המחרישה עיון הקדוש שדרכו לחרוש בשדה התלמוד: רב ששת שדי להו בנורא. כלומר שיש תקון לאשר בנקל לא יוכל לפנות לבו ממחשבות אלו בעצה אחת והיא לשנות אופן תלמודו שאם עיקר למודו שהוא רגיל בו הוא למהדר אתלמודיה בלי פלפול בבא אליו מחשבות אלו יכנס בפלפול עמוק וממילא בטלי להו המחשבות. ואם הרגלו הוא יום יום בעומק העיון ופלפל"א אריכתא. זה יעצור המחשבה בלמוד אגדה המושכת הלב כמים ויתבטלו המחשבות אשר בשנותו את טעמו לסדר לימוד חדש חדת היא ליה נותן לבו בדבר החדש ומתבטלין המחשבות. ואפשר שזה רמז רב ששת שדי להו בנורא דרב ששת היה סגי נהור ורוב לימודו למהדר תלמודיה והיה סיני וכמ"ש רב חסדא מרתע כוליה גופיה ממתניתיה דרב ששת ורב ששת מרתע כוליה גופיה מפלפוליה דרב חסדא וכיון דרב ששת היה סיני והרגלו לחזור משנתו להכי שדי להו למחשבות אלו בנורא כלומר בעיון עמוק נמשל לאש כמ"ש נהירנא כי הוו נפקי זקוקים דנורא מפומיה דרבי וכן רב ששת עייל נפשיה בעיון עמוק לבטל מחשבות חיצוניות וזה רמז באומרו רב ששת שדי להו בנורא. כל קבל דנא רבא שהיה רוב עסקו בפלפול וכמ"ש הויות דאביי ורבא ואמרו פ"ב דבתרא בישרא שמינא בי רבא ע"ש ובפירש"י שדי להו בדגלת רמז לאגדה הנמשלת לנהר מים המרחבת לבו של אדם שלא כהרגלו למען יתבטלו המחשבות The Pesach Enayim is saying that the Gemara in Bava Kama is a metaphor referring to distractions that come up when trying to study. The thorns were disturbing and depressing thoughts, while the pieces of glass were arrogant thoughts. The first line of the device is try to bury them deep within the "field of Talmud study". However, is that effort was not successful, Rav Sheshes proposed that one simply burn the “thorns”, representing changing the mode of study in order to be more easily motivated and not distracted. Thus, Rav Sheshes, Who was blind and necessarily did much of his learning through repetition and memorization, when he could not concentrate, would go deep into analysis because that would be a change in mode of study and therefore be motivating by its newness and Novelty. On the other hand, Pesach Enayim Recommends for someone whose normal mode of study is deep analysis, that he changes mode to something lighter such as studying Aggadah. This is represented by what Rava says about throwing the Thorns into the river. The river represents Broad and wavy and engaging aggadah. As I've mentioned in other discussions about the Daf, it is important to recognize that the rabbis were realistic about human limitations and if a person is having difficulty studying and concentrating, it is perfectly reasonable to change topics and mode of study. Being overly perfectionistic and exacting is a poor strategy at times.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below תָּהֵי בַּהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. Rabbi Elazar wondered at Rabbi Yoḥanan's ruling that the Sages had acted well when they rented the gentile's property on Shabbat and then they renounced their rights to that one, so that at least it would be permitted to use the courtyard. Tosafos Kesuvos 2b וכל אמורא היה תופס לשונו כמו מגדף בה ר' אבהו (סנהדרין ג:) תהי בה ר' יוחנן (ב"ק קיב:) לייט עלה אביי (ברכות כט.): And each amoro had his expression for introducing his thoughts. For example: R' Abohu castigated (Sanhedrin 3b).See Artscroll there who translates מגדף as an expression of surprise. See the notes there where he explains מגדף as castigating. This explanation seems to be how Tosfos here understands this word. R' Yochanan pondered (Bovo Kamo 112b).In Bava Kamo 66a and Airuvin 76a Artscroll translates this word as ‘examined'. Tosfos seems to equate this word with castigating and condemning as is evident from the fact that Tosfos is proving that the amoroim used different introductions to express the same idea. Obviously, Tosfos holds that these words are interchangeable. Abaye condemned (B'rochos 29a). If each Amora chooses a particular phraseology, what is the personal lesson or significance in this phrase “Tahiy Bah”? תהי בה ר"א - בהא מילתא דאמרן לעיל ששכרו מן הנכרי ואח"כ ביטלו ותהי לשון מריח כמו בת תיהא דמסכת ע"ז (דף סו:) כלומר מעיין ומחשב לדעת טעמו של דבר: According to Rashi “Tahi” means to metaphorically sniff and and carefully evaluate the issue as one may check wine for quality and stability. Ra'avad Sefer Yetzira 1:11 ואפשר שלפי מיעוט התבוננות הנבראים במעשים אשר בתהו ההוא קראם תהו מלשון תוהא ומשתומם מלשון התלמוד תהי בה פלוני ואפשר שנקרא תהו ע"ש שחזרו לתהו או לדבר אחר ועוד נבאר במקומו בעז"ה According to Raavad it seems to mean more like confusion and disorganization about the issue, which is supported by Shita Mekubetezes Bava Kama 76b תהי בה רבי אלעזר. פירוש תהי מקשה ולישנא דאתמוהי הוא. גאון ז"ל. And Shita Mekubetezes Nedarim 9b כשהן תוהין. לשון פחד כשהן מתפחדים על עבירות שבידם. ומשמע כמו עושה לבן תווהין תווהין. פירוש. כשהן תוהין נוזרים. כלומר מתחרטים מעונותיהן אז נוזרים. וחברו בתוהא על הראשונות. וקצת נראה מהכא שאין משמעותו ממש לשון חרטה כמו שפירש בעל הערוך מדקא מייתי אחר כך ומתחרטים. על כן יש לומר משמעותו הישר לשון תמהון כלומר שמצטערין מעונותיהן שעשו לשון תהי בה ר' אלעזר שהוא לשון תמה. I believe that These two different interpretations, Rashi and the Shita, represent two different ways to approach learning something new. In order to learn something new, one has to let go of old assumptions. There are two ways to do so: One is through logic, and the other is through emotions: Rashi's idea is about being open and curious. A logical and rational approach that carefully analyzes and tests all assumptions. The Shita's approach represents something emotional and visceral, the idea of becoming confused, surprised and amazed at this new information. Rashi's concept fits University of Wisconsin-Madison's description of an Analytic Learner: Analytic Learners Analytic Learners are primarily interested in acquiring new and accurate facts that lead to their understanding of concepts and processes. They learn by thinking through their experiences, judging the accuracy of what they encounter, and examining details. They integrate their observations into what they already know. They think through ideas and enjoy formulating theories, models and plans. They want to know what the experts think and judge new learning by how theoretically sound it is. They seek continuity and certainty. They tackle problems with logic and analysis. Educators need to give them facts to deepen understanding. The Analytic Learner's favorite question is “What?” The Shita's concept fits University of Wisconsin-Madison's description of a Dynamic Learner: Dynamic Learners Dynamic Learners are primarily interested in self-directed discovery. They learn from their perceptions and the results of their experiences. They rely heavily on their own intuition and seek hidden possibilities. They seek challenges and are risk takers. They like to connect things together and make what is already working, work better. They love putting new “spins” on things and flourish in unstructured, chaotic environments. They continually strive to grow and reach new heights. Educators need to let them teach it to themselves and others. The Dynamic Learner's favorite question is “What if?”

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַב: כֹּל שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ מְיוּשֶּׁבֶת עָלָיו אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּצָר אַל יוֹרֶה״. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּיוֹמָא דְּרָתַח לָא מְצַלֵּי, אָמַר: ״בְּצָר אַל יוֹרֶה״ כְּתִיב. מָר עוּקְבָא בְּיוֹמָא דְשׁוּתָא לָא הֲוָה נָפֵיק לְבֵי דִינָא. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Anyone whose mind is unsettled should not pray, as it is stated: When distressed, one should not issue decisions. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥanina, on a day that he was angry, would not pray, as he said that it is written: When distressed, one should not issue decisions. The Gemara similarly relates that Mar Ukva, on a day of a south wind, would not venture out to the court, for this hot and harsh wind would disturb his usual clarity of mind. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַבָּא מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ, אַל יִתְפַּלֵּל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וָאֶקְבְּצֵם אֶל הַנָּהָר הַבָּא אֶל אַחֲוָא וַנַּחֲנֶה שָׁם יָמִים שְׁלֹשָׁה וָאָבִינָה בָּעָם וְגוֹ׳״. Rabbi Elazar said: One who returns home from a journey should not pray for three days while recovering from the hardship of being on the road, as it is stated: “And I gathered them together at the river that runs to Aḥava, and we encamped there for three days, and I inspected the people” (Ezra 8:15), after which it is stated: “Then I proclaimed a fast there, at the river of Aḥava, that we might afflict ourselves before our God, to seek of Him a safe journey for us” (Ezra 8:21), which teaches that they rested three days before praying. אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, כִּי אָתֵי בְּאוֹרְחָא, לָא מְצַלֵּי תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי. שְׁמוּאֵל לָא מְצַלֵּי בְּבֵיתָא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ שִׁיכְרָא. רַב פָּפָּא לָא מְצַלֵּי בְּבֵיתָא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ הַרְסָנָא. The Gemara relates that Shmuel's father, when he would return home from his journey, would not pray for three days, as he would have to rest from his journey. Shmuel himself would not pray in a house that contained an alcoholic beverage, as the scent of the alcohol would disturb his concentration during prayer. Similarly, Rav Pappa would not pray in a house that contained small fried fish, due to their smell. Codified and described beautifully by Rambam Laws of Tefilla 4:16-17 Ritva and Rashba אמרו רבותי ז״ל שלא נאמרו דברים אלו אלא בדורת ההם שהיה לבם נכון אבל עכשיו בין כך ובין כך אין מתכוונין ומוטב שלא תתבטל התפלה: On a Practical level, we do not follow this ruling, because if we did we would never pray because we are never in the right State of Mind. Please do not give up on prayer. It takes years and years of practice to learn how to appreciate prayer in philosophy, technique and intention of the heart and mind. It is enlightening to keep in mind the adage from Michael Jordan, and apply it to prayer: “You can practice shooting 8 hours a day, but if your technique is wrong, then all you become is very good at shooting the wrong way. Get the fundamentals down and the level of everything you do will rise.” -- Michael Jordan, The Champion's Comeback: How Great Athletes Recover, Reflect and Reignite (2016) by Jim Afremow

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁתָה רְבִיעִית יַיִן — אַל יוֹרֶה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: לָא מְעַלְּיָא הָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, דְּהָא אֲנָא כֹּל כַּמָּה דְּלָא שָׁתֵינָא רְבִיעֵתָא דְּחַמְרָא — לָא צִילָא דַּעְתַּאי. However, Rav Naḥman did not give his approval to all of Rav Yehuda's rulings, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If one drank a quarter-log of wine, he may not issue a halakhic ruling, as the wine is liable to confuse his thinking. With regard to this second statement, Rav Naḥman said: This halakha is not excellent, as concerning myself, as long as I have not drunk a quarter-log of wine, my mind is not clear. It is only after drinking wine that I can issue appropriate rulings. From here we see an idea that though it is important to abstain from bacchanalia, in an appropriate context being joyful and drinking a bit as well can help gladden the heart and therefore broaden the mind. Rav Tzadok HaCohen speaks of this concept in several places: פרי צדיק פרשת נשא פרי צדיק פסח כ״ט Rambam (Shemoneh Perakim 5) speaks of the importance of sometimes relieving and refreshing to mind through artistic and aesthetic endeavors: If man has this as his ideal, he will dispense with many of his customary deeds, and refrain from a great deal of ordinary conversation. He who follows this line of conduct will not trouble himself with adorning his walls with golden ornaments, nor with decorating his garments with golden fringe, unless it be for the purpose of enlivening his soul, and thus restoring it to health, or of banishing sickness from it, so that it shall become clear and pure, and thus be in the proper condition to acquire wisdom. Therefore, our Rabbis of blessed memory say, (Shabbat 25b) "It is becoming that a sage should have a pleasant dwelling, a beautiful wife, and domestic comfort"; for one becomes weary, and one's mind dulled by continued mental concentration upon difficult problems. Thus, just as the body becomes exhausted from hard labor, and then by rest and refreshment recovers, so is it necessary for the mind to have relaxation by gazing upon pictures and other beautiful objects, that its weariness may be dispelled. Accordingly, it is related (Shabbat 30b) that when the Rabbis became exhausted from study, they were accustomed to engage in entertaining conversation (in order to refresh themselves). From this point of view, therefore, the use of pictures and embroideries for beautifying the house, the furniture, and the clothes is not to be considered immoral nor unnecessary. Know that to live according to this standard is to arrive at a very high degree of perfection, which, in consequence of the difficulty of attainment, only a few, after long and continuous perseverance on the paths of virtue, have succeeded in reaching. If there be found a man who has accomplished this that is one who exerts all the faculties of his soul, and directs them towards the sole ideal of comprehending God, using all his powers of mind and body, be they great or small, for the attainment of that which leads directly or indirectly to virtue I would place him in a rank not lower than that of the prophets. Such a man, before he does a single act or deed, considers and reflects whether or not it will bring him to that goal, and if it will, then, and then only, does he do it. Such striving does the Almighty require of us, according to the words, (Deuteronomy 6:5) "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might", that is, with all the faculties of thy soul, each faculty having as its sole ideal the love of God. The prophets, similarly, urge us on in saying, (Proverbs 3:6) "In all thy ways know Him", in commenting upon which the sages said, (Berachot 63a) "even as regards a transgression (of the ritual or ceremonial law)," meaning thereby that thou shouldst set for every action a goal, namely, the truth, even though it be, from a certain point of view, a transgression. The sages of blessed memory, too, have summed up this idea in so few words and so concisely, at the same time elucidating the whole matter with such complete thoroughness, that when one considers the brevity with which they expressed this great and mighty thought in its entirety, about which others have written whole books and yet without adequately explaining it, one truly recognizes that the Rabbis undoubtedly spoke through divine inspiration. This saying is found among their precepts (in this tractate), and is, (Pirkei Avot 2:12) "Let all thy deeds be done for the sake of God". This, then, is the thought we have been dwelling upon in the present chapter, and what we have said must be considered sufficient for the needs of this introduction.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below אָמַר רַב בְּרוֹנָא אָמַר רַב: כׇּל הַיָּשֵׁן בְּקִילְעָא שֶׁאִישׁ וְאִשְׁתּוֹ שְׁרוּיִין בָּהּ, — עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״נְשֵׁי עַמִּי תְּגָרְשׁוּן מִבֵּית תַּעֲנוּגֶיהָ״. With regard to the neglect of the commandment of procreation, Rav Beruna said that Rav said: Whoever sleeps in a chamber in which a husband and wife are resting, thus thwarting their intimacy, the verse says about him: “The women of my people you cast out from their pleasant houses” (Micah 2:9), and his punishment is detailed in that chapter. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: אֲפִילּוּ בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה. And Rav Yosef said: This applies not only to a woman who is ritually pure and permitted to her husband, but even in the case of a man whose wife is menstruating, for even then, although she is prohibited to him, they are more comfortable being alone together. רָבָא אָמַר: אִם אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה הִיא — תָּבֹא עָלָיו בְּרָכָה. וְלָא הִיא, דְּעַד הָאִידָּנָא מַאן נַטְרֵיהּ? Rava said: If his wife is menstruating, may a blessing come upon the person sleeping in the room, for he protects the couple from the possibility of sin. The Gemara rejects this: But that is not so, i.e., this argument is invalid, for who protected the husband until now? In other words, there is no need for concern in this case, and hence one must refrain from behavior that causes distress to the couple. From here we see an important principle of allowing not just physical intimacy but respecting emotional intimacy and privacy between husband and wife and not interfering. This is something that parents in law and hosts should keep in mind when inviting couples and families for Shabbos and Yamim Tovim. Chiddushei Aggados אפילו באשתו נדה כו'. דליכא ביה משום שבושין לשמש מטתו אפי' בעת שינתו דחוששין שמא הוא נעור מ"מ בושין ממנו לדבר דברים שבצנעה בינו לבינה וכ"פ רבי יהונתן ע"ש: Arukh Hashulkhan Even Haezer 25:5 אמרו חז"ל [עירובין ס"ג.] כל הישן בחדר שאיש ואשתו שרוים שם עליו הכתוב אומר "נְשֵׁי עַמִּי תְּגָרְשׁוּן מִבֵּית תַּעֲנֻגֶיהָ" (מיכה ב ט) כי הם בושין מפניו לבעול, ואפילו כשהיא נדה אין לו לישן שם דמונע אותם מלדבר דברי סתר, ולא יאמר אשמרם כדי שלא יבואו לידי עבירה, דעד האידנא מי שמרם. והפוסקים השמיטו זה ולא ידעתי למה. Arukh Hashulkhan Orach Chayyim 240:3 ואסור לישן בחדר שאיש ואשתו ישינים שם, ולא עוד אלא אפילו היא נדה מכל מקום לא יישן אחר שם (עירובין ס"ג:), כי יש לה תענוג כשהיא בחדר אחד עם בעלה ומדברת ושואלת ממנו כל מה שתרצה, אבל כשיש אחר שם היא בושה ממנו, ועליהן אמר הנביא: "נשי עמי תגרשון מבית תענוגיה Tosafos Yevamos 62b חייב אדם לפקוד את אשתו - אומר ר"ת דפקידה זו אינו תשמיש אלא כשהוא רוצה לצאת בדרך אם הוא רחוק ממנה לא יצא לדרך אא"כ ישוב אליה ויפקדנה או בתשמיש או בשאר דברים וידבר על לבה

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בֶּן נֹחַ נֶהֱרָג עַל פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, וְלֹא נִיתָּן לְהִשָּׁבוֹן. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A Noahide, i.e., a gentile who stole is executed for his crime, according to the laws applying to Noahides, even if he stole less than the value of a peruta. A Noahide is particular about his property and unwilling to waive his rights to it, even if it is of minimal value; therefore, the prohibition against stealing applies to items of any value whatsoever. And in the case of Noahides, the stolen item is not returnable, as the possibility of rectification by returning a stolen object was granted only to Jews. The principle that less than the value of a peruta is not considered money applies to Jews alone. With regard to gentiles, it has monetary value, and therefore one may rent from a gentile with this amount. Rashi: בן נח נהרג על הגזל - דהיא מז' מצות כדאמר בד' מיתות בסנהדרין (דף נו.) ואמר אזהרה שלהן זו היא מיתתן ואשמועינן ר' יוחנן דעכו"ם לא מחיל אפילו אפחות משוה פרוטה והוי גזל לדידהו: Essentially the point is that since a gentile customarily is less forgiving about even an amount of money less than a peruta coin, so for him it is considered theft. On the surface, this rabbinic pronouncement seems odd as Jews are known for their acumen in business, and in fact in the middle ages made their living off and from money lending. However, it seems that while this may be true, there was a certain ability to forgive and Overlook minor sums of money which the rabbis held were a unique cultural heritage of people of Jewish descent. As it states in Yevamos 79a: אמר שלשה סימנים יש באומה זו הרחמנים והביישנין וגומלי חסדים רחמנים David said: There are three distinguishing marks of this nation, the Jewish people. They are merciful, they are shamefaced, and they perform acts of kindness. However, Likuttei Halakhos (Choshen Mishpat Laws of Stealing 1:1) offers a mystical twist to this interpretation: The Likkutei Halakhos seems to be saying that there is a deep spiritual concept to money and a more physical material concept. The Jewish soul has an attachment to money because it represents the divine benefit, like rain, that flows from G-d. Therefore money represents a holiness, and that is a deeper understanding of the rabbinic statement that one who steals from someone is as if he is killing him by stealing his soul. However The secular concept of wealth has an attachment to money that is not based on holiness but merely on the momentary possession. The two contrasting ideas about money, wealth, and material acquisition are represented within the idea of whether or not there is a minimum limit to theft, i.e., less than a peruta. Since for the Jewish soul, money represents something holy, all holy things require a space, that is a preparation and intention to allow for his presence. That is why many positive Commandments and negative Commandments have minimum requisite amounts such as a kzayis or a peruta coin. However the Secular concept of material wealth does not come from divine flow or holiness, therefore it has no space and place, and has no minimum limit. The bottom line is a Jew Who sees in himself a direct connection with God and his beneficence, could not dismiss something as fundamental as money as not being Holy, and therefore it is subject to preparatory space and place.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר: טַטְרוֹגֵי מְטַטְרְגִי לְהוּ בְּנֵי גָדֵר לִבְנֵי חַמָּתָן, וּמַאי ״הִתִּיר״ — הִתְקִין. The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: This ruling was issued not due to their respective Shabbat limits, but rather because the residents of Geder would assault [metatreg] the residents of Ḥamtan. And what does it mean that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted the residents of Geder to descend to Ḥamtan, but not vice versa? He instituted this. In other words, this was not a halakhic ruling, but rather an ordinance instituted to protect the public welfare and prevent fighting. וּמַאי שְׁנָא שַׁבָּת, דִּשְׁכִיחָא בָּהּ שִׁכְרוּת. The Gemara asks: What is different about Shabbat that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi instituted this ordinance only for Shabbat and not for the rest of the week? The Gemara answers: Drunkenness is common on Shabbat, when people eat to their heart's content. Therefore, there is a greater chance of violent behavior. כִּי אָזְלִי לְהָתָם, נָמֵי מְטַטְרְגִי לְהוּ? כַּלְבָּא בְּלָא מָתֵיהּ, שַׁב שְׁנִין לָא נָבַח The Gemara asks: When the residents of Geder go to Ḥamtan, they will assault the residents there; of what use, then, is this ordinance? The Gemara answers, citing a popular saying: A dog that is not in its place will not bark for seven years. On its own turf, a dog barks readily, but it becomes scared in unfamiliar surroundings and remains silent. Similarly, the people of Geder are not nearly as bold when they visit Ḥamtan as they are in their own town. הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי מְטַטְרְגִי בְּנֵי חַמָּתָן לִבְנֵי גָדֵר! כּוּלֵּי הַאי לָא כָּיְיפִי לְהוּ. The Gemara asks: If so, we should be concerned about the reverse scenario, that now too, the residents of Ḥamtan, in their home territory, will take revenge and assault the residents of Geder. The Gemara answers: The people of Geder would not be submissive to such an extent. While visiting Ḥamtan, they would not initiate fights, but they would certainly fight back if they were attacked. Consequently, the people of Ḥamtan would not dare initiate hostilities with them. Therefore, there is no concern about the safety of either group. Research: Ryan Boyko, a research assistant in the Department of Psychology in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, studied 5,000 English Premier League games from 1992 to 2006, to discern any officiating bias and the influence of home crowds. The data was published in the Journal of Sports Sciences and suggested that for every additional 10,000 people attending, home team advantage increased by 0.1 goals. Additionally, his study proved what many football fans already suspect: that home teams are likely to be awarded more penalty kicks, but crucially, this is more likely with inexperienced referees. So, consideration of referee profiles should clearly be a refinement for home field advantage statistics. Sports Illustrated, in a 17 January 2011 article, reported that home crowds, rigor of travel for visiting teams, scheduling, and unique home field characteristics, were not factors in giving home teams an advantage. The journal concluded that it was favorable treatment by game officials and referees that conferred advantages on home teams. They stated that sports officials are unwittingly and psychologically influenced by home crowds and the influence is significant enough to affect the outcomes of sporting events in favor of the home team. An evolutionary psychology explanation for the home advantage effect refers to observed behavioral and physiological responses in animals when they are defending their home territory against intruders. This causes a rise in aggression and testosterone levels in the defenders. A similar effect has been observed in football with testosterone levels being significantly higher in home games than in away games. Goalkeepers, the last line of defense, have particularly strong testosterone changes when playing against a bitter rival as compared to a training season. How testosterone may influence results is unclear but may include cognitive effects such as motivation and physiological effects such as reaction time. SOURCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_advantage Some psychological implications are: Be respectful to guests, in laws, spouses who are by in-laws, newcomers to classes etc.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: הָא דְּרַבִּי יִצְחָק, גְּמָרָא אוֹ סְבָרָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי נָפְקָא לַן מִינַּהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גְּמָרָא גְּמוֹר, זְמוֹרְתָּא תְּהֵא?! Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that ruling of Rabbi Yitzḥak based on oral tradition or his own logic? Rav Yosef said to him: What practical difference does Rabbi Yitzḥak's source make to us? Abaye said to him, quoting a well-known adage: When you study Talmud is it merely a song?; Is the material you study like the lyrics of a song that you do not understand? It is proper to investigate all aspects of the statements of the Sages, regardless of the practical ramifications. Boaz on Mishna Erchin 4:1 והקשו בתוס' למה לא ערבינהו ותנינהו, השנים והערכין בנערך. ותו ק"ל למה שני בלישנא. ברישא נקט נידר ובסיפא נערך. וכ"כ ק"ל בכל דוכתא דתני חסורי מחסרא וה"ק, א"כ למה לא הגיהו המשנה. ולמה באמת הוה נקט תנא לישנא קטיעא. ואם שי"ל, שגם כאשר באמת חס"מ יש כוונה בהעניין באופן אחר, עכ"פ לא בכל דוכתא נוכל לתרץ כן. ולולא מסתפינא היה נ"ל ע"פ מ"ש תוס' שלהי מגילה [דל"ב א] על השונה בלא זימרא, וכ"כ אמרי' [ביצה כ"ד א] גמרא גמור זמורתא תהא, שהיו להן זמירות מיוחדין לכל משנה ומשנה. ולפע"ד היה זה כדי לחזק המשנה בכח הזכרון. מדהיו שונין המשניות על פה אפי' בימי רבי [כרש"י ב"מ דל"ג א]. וע"י הניגון נזכר היטב לישנא דמתני', באשר שהיה הזמר מסודר לפי המלות והבבות שבמשנה. ולכן כמה פעמים בחר התנא ג"כ במלה זאת ולפעמים באחר, הכל כפי הנאות לקול השיר המיוחד להמשנה. ומה"ט לפעמים נשנה בבא שנראית יתירה במשנה זו ואצ"ל זו, אבל היה כדי לשקול בבות המשנה כפי הבבות שבפרקי השיר. ומה"ט אף שהי' חשורי מחסרא הניחוה כך. מדמובן ממילא דאל"כ יהיה מעשה לסתור, ואם היו מבלבלים המלות יתבלבל השיר המיוחד לה ויתבלבל הזכרון, ותשתכח המשנה ח"ו, ובדבר זה יתורץ כמה קושיות ודקדוקים. ושמור זה, דאם גם ברוב פעמים מונחים פנינים יקרים בשינוי לשון התנא עכ"פ במקום שלא ידענו טעם אחר נסתפק א"ע בטעם זה, שהוא ג"כ אמיתי בעצמו: The Idea being expressed is that the Mishnayos were designed to be memorized, possibly originally orally. Therefore, Tiferes Yisrael suggests that each Mishna had its own “song”, tune or perhaps meter. He goes on to say this is why sometimes certain Mishnayos are unexplainably short or long, sometimes in missing words sometimes having extra words. This is an order that the meter and rhyme should work properly. This is not such a strange idea. There's a field of study about cultures that are primarily oral, non-literary or pre-literary. Although there are about 3,000 languages spoken today in the world, in point of fact they're only about 78 of those that have written literature (“Lore; an introduction to the science of folklore and literature”. Author: Edmonson, Munro S. Published: 1971.) In cultures that were pre-literate, many kinds of thoughts were held together by groups of sayings, Proverbs, and catchphrases and clichés. Research by Millman Party into the original Greek literature such as the Odyssey also has led him and others to conclude that it's meter and catch phrases are based on it being originally an oral tradition, sung over in a particular way and only later was written down. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hlnc.essay:ParryM.Studies_in_the_Epic_Technique_of_Oral_Verse-Making1.1930 Another perspective on the singing of Mishna comes from Chasam Sofer on Chumash Zos Haberacha 4: ולכל היד החזקה ברש"י ששבר הלוחות ידוע על ידי שבירת הלוחות בא שכחת התורה ובימי אבלו של משה נשתכחו שבעה מאות הלכות כדאיתא במס' תמורה והחזירן עתניאל בן קנז בפלפולו וענין הפלפול ובירור הלכה ידוע ליודעים והנה כמה פעמים מצינו בגמרא א"ל ומאי נפקא לך מינה א"ל גמרא גמור זמורתא תהא (ביצה דף כ"ד ע"א עיין ברש"י שם) ונלע"ד רמז נאה הנה ידוע דפלפול תורתינו הקדושה כוחו עצום מאוד ואיתא שהאר"י ז"ל הי' מפלפל בכח עד שהי' מזיע כי זיע של פלפול מסוגל לבער הקליפות (עיין בטו"ז הלכות פסח סימן ת"ס סעק"ב בשם האר"י ויעוין סימן ר"נ בשערי תשובה בשם האר"י) וידוע דלכן נקרא הפסוקי ופרשיות תהלים ושארי פסוקי שבח ושירה שאנו אומרים בין ברוך שאמר לישתבח פסוקי דזמרה לשון כריתה כמו ואת כרמך לא תזמור שמזמר עריצים ומבער כל הקליפות ומשטינים השוטטים באויר ומעכבים התפלה מלעלות מעלה מעלה והנה איתא בספר החיים מהגאון מו"ה רבן בצלאל אחיו של מהר"ל מפראג שתיבת ג'מ'ר'א' ר"ת ג'בריאל מ'יכאל ר'פאל א'וריאל שהוא מחנה השכינה הסובבת מרכבה העליונה ומי שעוסק בגמרא מסובב מהם מד' כיתות מחנה השכינה אלו (יעוין תו"מ במדבר דף ב' בד"ה מחנה ישראל) ומשמרים ומצילים אותו מכל פגע ונגע רע ועל ידי פלפול הגמרא מבער ומזמר הקליפות וזה רמז לו ג'מ'ר'א' גמור למד גמרא ועי"ז זמורתא לשון זמירה תהא כהלכה מכלל דפליגי בירור הלכה קבוע (מש"מ): His idea is a more mystical one, that the word zamor does not allude to song the simple meaning, but to pruning. And the particular investigative analysis of study of Torah has a way of pruning away the “kelipos” The contaminated shells of dross materialism that block us from access to godliness in this world

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן: מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁכִיחִי גַּבֵּי הַרְמָנָא, מַדְכְּרִי אַהֲדָדֵי — כּוּלְּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי בְּצַפְרָא דְּשַׁבְּתָא שְׁכִיחִי גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי. אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּגוֹן דִּיסְקַרְתָּא דְנַתְּזוּאִי. Rav Naḥman said to him: What is the reason for bringing this example? If you say that because large numbers of people are to be found at the residence of the governor [harmana] in order to request licenses and authorizations, and they remind each other of the reason it is permissible to establish an eiruv there, and consequently they will not arrive at mistaken conclusions with regard to other places, then every city should have the same status, as the entire Jewish people are also found together on Shabbat morning when they come to pray. Rather, Rav Naḥman said: For example, the village of Natzu'i was a private city belonging to a single individual before a large influx of residents turned it into a public city. רש״׳ שם בצפרא דשבתא שכיחי אהדדי - לשמוע דרשה They will be by each other in shabbos morning to hear the rabbi teach Hilchos shabbos So they will remind each other. But Ritva doesn't mention the Rabbis derasha, just the discussions amongst people in Torah : דשכיחי רבים גבי הרמנא דהיינו ריש גלותא ומדכרי אהדדי כלומר כי בהתאספם שם ישאו ויתנו באיסור והיתר ויזכירו איסור רשות הרבים זה לזה ושאינם מותרין בכל העיר אלא משום עירובי א״נ כלהו ישראל נמי שכיחי בצפרא דשבתא גבי הדדי ומדברים באיסור והיתר What is this activity, going to hear the derasha? The Gemara Berachos 6a tells us: אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אַגְרָא דְפִרְקָא — רִהֲטָא. Rabbi Zeira said: The reward for attending the lecture is for running. Since most individuals attending the lecture did not fully understand the material taught, the primary reward for attendance was given for their intention to hear the Torah being taught, as evidenced by their rush to arrive. I would like to say that Gemara is not really being literal, and it means that aside from the actual study of Torah a big part of it is the energy and dedication and evidence to buy running to study. But, Rashi explains something difficult to accept : אגרא דפרקא – עיקר קבול שכר הבריות הרצים לשמוע דרשה מפי חכם היא שכר המרוצה שהרי רובם אינם מבינים להעמיד גרסא ולומר שמועה מפי רבן לאחר זמן שיקבלו שכר למוד: This would seem that the only people to actually get the reward for study Torah are those who are able to retain it. Indeed, (Derech Chaim 6:6:1155) actually cites this Rashi as proof for this exact concept (1115) על פי הפסוק [ישעיה ח, כ] "לתורה ולתעודה אם לא יאמרו כדבר הזה אשר אין לו שחר". וכן כתב בספר ארחות צדיקים שער עשרים ושבעה [ובסמוך (לפני ציון 1126) יביאו], וז"ל: "וכן עתה רוב הלומדים מודים בעצמם שאין לומדים כהוגן, ויודעים שאינם לומדים כדרך הישר, כי מרב טרח הפטפוטים שהם מפטפטים הם מתבטלים לגמרי, ולא ישיגו ללמד לא תורה ולא נביאים וכתובים ולא אגדות, לא מדרשים ולא שום חכמה, מחמת רב תחבולות שלהם". ואין על לימוד זה מתן שכר, כי לימוד כזה הוא שקר, וכמו שביאר למעלה [לאחר ציון 1107], ואין מתן שכר על שקר. ואמרו חכמים [ברכות ו:] "אגרא דפרקא רהטא", ופירש רש"י שם "אגרא דפרקא - עיקר קבול שכר הבריות הרצים לשמוע דרשה מפי חכם היא שכר המרוצה, שהרי רובם אינם מבינים להעמיד גרסא ולומר שמועה מפי רבן לאחר זמן, שיקבלו שכר למוד". הרי "שכר למוד" הוא רק באופן שלאחר זמן נשאר אצל הלומד מה שלמד, אך אם לא נשאר [וכפי שביאר למעלה שכך הוא כשלומד באופן משובש], אין על זה "שכר למוד". Those are strong words but this would seem to be Rashi's and the Rebbe's opinion.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָא: אֵין לְךָ שֶׁיָּפֶה לִמְדִידָה יוֹתֵר מִשַּׁלְשְׁלָאוֹת שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל, אֲבָל מַה נַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״וּבְיָדוֹ חֶבֶל מִדָּה״. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said: You have nothing better for measuring than iron chains, as they do not stretch. But what shall we do, as the Torah states: “I lifted up my eyes again and looked, and behold a man with a measuring rope in his hand” (Zechariah 2:5), from which it is derived that measurements must be made with a rope. וָאֶשָּׂ֥א עֵינַ֛י וָאֵ֖רֶא וְהִנֵּה־אִ֑ישׁ וּבְיָד֖וֹ חֶ֥בֶל מִדָּֽה׃ I looked up, and I saw a man holding a measuring line. וָאֹמַ֕ר אָ֖נָה אַתָּ֣ה הֹלֵ֑ךְ וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלַ֗י לָמֹד֙ אֶת־יְר֣וּשָׁלִַ֔ם לִרְא֥וֹת כַּמָּֽה־רָחְבָּ֖הּ וְכַמָּ֥ה אָרְכָּֽהּ׃ “Where are you going?” I asked. “To measure Jerusalem,” he replied, “to see how long and wide it is to be.” וְהִנֵּ֗ה הַמַּלְאָ֛ךְ הַדֹּבֵ֥ר בִּ֖י יֹצֵ֑א וּמַלְאָ֣ךְ אַחֵ֔ר יֹצֵ֖א לִקְרָאתֽוֹ׃ But the angel who talked with me came forward, and another angel came forward to meet him. וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלָ֔ו רֻ֗ץ דַּבֵּ֛ר אֶל־הַנַּ֥עַר הַלָּ֖ז לֵאמֹ֑ר פְּרָזוֹת֙ תֵּשֵׁ֣ב יְרוּשָׁלִַ֔ם מֵרֹ֥ב אָדָ֛ם וּבְהֵמָ֖ה בְּתוֹכָֽהּ׃ The former said to him, “Run to that young man and tell him: “Jerusalem shall be peopled as a city without walls, so many shall be the men and cattle it contains. וַאֲנִ֤י אֶֽהְיֶה־לָּהּ֙ נְאֻם־יְהוָ֔ה ח֥וֹמַת אֵ֖שׁ סָבִ֑יב וּלְכָב֖וֹד אֶֽהְיֶ֥ה בְתוֹכָֽהּ׃ (פ) And I Myself—declares the LORD—will be a wall of fire all around it, and I will be a glory inside it. Abravanel Zecharia 2:9 ובפרק המוכר את הספינה (ב"ב עה, ב) אמרו דרש רבי חנינא בקש הקדוש ברוך הוא למוד את ירושלם במדה אמרו מלאכי השרת רבונו של עולם הרבה כרכים נתת להם לאומות העולם ולא נתת להם במדה ירושלם ששמך בתוכה וצדיקים בתוכה תתן להם במדה מיד ויאמר אליו רוץ דבר אל הנער הלז פרזות תשב ירושלם מרוב אדם וגומר ר"ל שלא היה פרזות תשב ירושלם דבר סותר לחבל המדה בפעל כי אם שראשונה עלה במחשבה לתת לה קצבה גדולה ואחר כך מפני בקשת מלאכי השרת המליצים על ישראל נחם השם על דברו וצוה שלא ימדדו: ולזה פרש"י רוץ אל הנער הלז המלאך הדובר בו היה האיש אשר בידו חבל המדה צוהו אל תצא למדוד כי נמלך הקדוש ברוך הוא בפמליא שלו שלא יהיה לה קצב ושיעור נמשך הרב לדעת המדרש: This Abravanel continues the theme we were discussing yesterday. Hashem rescinds his original intention to measure the future city of Jerusalem and now decides to throw away the measure and make it of unlimited size. This is a gesture of love without bounds. Sometimes, in a relationship we have to be willing to stop measuring and counting points, and simply give and forgive.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below מַתְנִי׳ אֵין מוֹדְדִין אֶלָּא בְּחֶבֶל שֶׁל חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה, לֹא פָּחוֹת וְלֹא יוֹתֵר. וְלֹא יִמְדּוֹד אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד לִבּוֹ. MISHNA: One may measure a Shabbat limit only with a rope fifty cubits long, no less and no more, as will be explained in the Gemara. And one may measure the limit only at the level of one's heart, i.e., whoever comes to measure the limit must hold the rope next to his chest. Rashi Ibid ולא ימדוד אלא כנגד לבו - קבעו לו חכמים מקום לשום כנגדו ראש החבל שלא יתן זה כנגד צוארו וזה כנגד רגליו והחבל מתקצר והתחומין מתמעטין And will not measure except against his heart - the sages have set a standard for the terminal points of the rope, so that one will not measure from his neck and one from his legs, causing the distance to be shorter and the domain decreases. The Gemara also explains that the length of the rope is 50 cubits, because a shorter rope will be too tight and cause the domain to be longer than is accurate, and a longer rope will hang to much and cause the domain to be shorter than is accurate. I will indulge in a bit of “chassidish-style” drash on this section of the Gemara. (There is tremendous mystical potential lying within the legalistic details of Eruvin, see Maaseh Rokeach Seder Moed Maseches Eruvin on Mishna of Karpef וה' יאיר עינינו בתורתו. וידעתי גם ידעתי שיש במסכתא זו רזין דרזין אך כבר כתבתי שאין לנו עסק בנסתרות, עד שיבא עני ורוכב על חמור ויתבערו רוח הטומאה מן הארץ ותמלא הארץ דיעה כמים לים מכסים. בבי"א.) In any case, I cannot Help but notice that in these measurements we are told, that when one measures, one can only measure by their heart. Is this phrase an accident? After all, they could have chosen to measure from any part of the body; why not the head? Why not the waist? Furthermore, the choice of 50 cubits for the length of the Rope may not be arbitrary either. 50 is a significant number in Judaism. It is the number of days from Passover to Shavuous, which corresponds to the preparatory days leading from Redemption to the acceptance of the Torah. And it also, corresponds to The 50 Gates of wisdom as described in Rosh Hashana (21b). In addition the rope is not supposed to be too tight or too lose. Is it possible that there is a deeper allegorical meaning here. That is, when one needs to set boundaries for oneself, if he or she wants to achieve it through wisdom, it needs to be made with the heart and not the head. The Mishna then is saying, literally and allegorically, "One may measure the boundaries only from the heart.”

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין תְּקוּפַת נִיסָן נוֹפֶלֶת אֶלָּא בְּאַרְבָּעָה רִבְעֵי הַיּוֹם, אוֹ בִּתְחִלַּת הַיּוֹם אוֹ בִּתְחִלַּת הַלַּיְלָה, אוֹ בַּחֲצִי הַיּוֹם אוֹ בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה. On the topic of the previous discussion with regard to calculating the directions of the world based upon the seasons, Shmuel said: The vernal equinox occurs only at the beginning of one of the four quarters of a day: Either precisely at the beginning of the day, or precisely at the beginning of the night, or at midday, or at midnight. We must ask ourselves, what is the meaning of the seasons? If you don't believe in a guiding Creator you can just say, “ok, the Earth is on a tilted axis and that makes the Seasons.” But when you believe in a Creator, such scientific truths only explain the “what”, not the “why”. What are we supposed to learn from the idea of different seasons? Furthermore, everything in the world operates in cycles: Day to Night, the Moon waxing and waning, being young and growing old, the solar year that is 365.24 days, sleep and awake. What do all of these cycles mean? Such patterns in nature indicate the importance of cycles in the physical world. One of the disservices of industrialized life is dissociation from natural cycles. We no longer follow natural days, waking at dawn and sleeping at night, instead we follow the clock. Even then we use devices to keep us distracted and awake. Is it any wonder so many people have sleep disorders, ADHD and even general anxiety? Take a child or a baby outside and let them feel and smell the fresh grass and blue sky, and they become visibly happier and calmer. Our souls and our bodies are designed to follow cycles and rhythms. Most of the Jewish holidays correspond to agricultural seasons as well as the full moon. These were natural times of happiness and revelry when there where harvests or plantings, and more light at night. You might wonder, why does it matter? Asking why this matters is as foolish as asking why love or hugs matter. It is a human process that is deeply important and non-rational. In matters because we are designed for some reason to thrive when we are in tune with it. Additionally, if you really need an intellectual explanation, I suggest that there is wisdom in accepting the cyclical nature of physical life. Unlike G-d, we live and we die. We sin and we repent. We fail and we succeed. It is important to know such truths deep in one's bones so that we can accept what is and make the most of it.

The Daf Yomi from a Psychological Perspective For Mareh Mekomos Click Below רָבָא אָמַר: ״לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִיא״ — לֹא תִּמָּצֵא בְּמִי שֶׁמַּגְבִּיהַּ דַּעְתּוֹ עָלֶיהָ כַּשָּׁמַיִם, וְלֹא תִּמָּצֵא בְּמִי שֶׁמַּרְחִיב דַּעְתּוֹ עָלֶיהָ כַּיָּם. Expounding the verse differently, Rava said: “It is not in heaven” means that Torah is not to be found in someone who raises his mind over it, like the heavens, i.e., he thinks his mind is above the Torah and he does not need a teacher; nor is it to be found in someone who expands his mind over it, like the sea, i.e., he thinks he knows everything there is to know about the topic he has learned. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״לֹא בַּשָּׁמַיִם הִיא״ — לֹא תִּמָּצֵא בְּגַסַּי רוּחַ, ״וְלֹא מֵעֵבֶר לַיָּם הִיא״ — לֹא תִּמָּצֵא לֹא בְּסַחְרָנִים וְלֹא בְּתַגָּרִים. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “It is not in heaven” means that Torah is not to be found in the haughty, those who raise their self-image as though they were in heaven. “Nor is it beyond the sea” means that it is not to be found among merchants or traders who are constantly traveling and do not have the time to study Torah properly. בן יהוידע לֹא תִּמָּצֵא בַּסַּחְרָנִים וְלֹא בַּתַּגָּרִים. י"ל סוחר ותגר מין אחד, ועוד למה לא זכר עוד שלחנים וחנוונים וכן בעלי מלאכות חייטים נגרים אורגים וצורפים וכיוצא? ונראה לי בס"ד יש תלמידי חכמים שאין לומדים תורה בעירם כדי שלא יתבלבלו או יתבטלו מלימודם בשביל צרכי הבית, אלא הולכים ללמוד תורה בעיר אחרת וכנגד אלו נקיט סַּחְרָנִים שהם המחזרין בעיירות וכמ"ש רש"י ז"ל. ועוד יש תלמידי חכמים שלומדים תורה בעירם, וכנגד אלו נקיט תַּגָּרִים שהם יושבים בעירם ומקומן. Ben Yehoyada questions the two professions chosen: 1. What is the difference between a merchant and a trader? 2. Why not mention other professions as well? He answers that there are two types of students of torah. Some feel the need to travel outside their home town, and others feel it's sufficient to study at home. This corresponds to the merchant who goes abroad and the trader who stays local. Neither in the merchant nor the trader Will be successful only the corresponding student of Torah will be successful. It occurs to me a different explanation. The question is a good question why single out these two professions, that is the trader and the merchant? Also, what really is the difference between this clause by Rabbi Yochanan and the earlier one by Rava? I would like to borrow from Ben Yehoyada's Idea about the merchant and the trader but apply it in a different way. Perhaps this is a subtle criticism of the two different types of students of Torah. That is, there are those who think The only solution is to go abroad, and others who stubbornly stay put. Either situation may be “overthinking” because by all rights, Torah is accessible anywhere as the verse promises is it is not in heaven nor is it on the other side of the sea. And this might be actually the connection between the first clause of Rabbi Yochanan's dicta and the second. Namely don't be so arrogant to assume that you're so special that you have to travel abroad to study Torah, nor don't be so arrogant to think that you're so special that you somehow can afford not to go on a quest if that is really the right thing to do for your development. We cannot underestimate the need to sometimes make personal accommodations, that is why the directives are contradictory. So, yes, sometimes the answer is to travel abroad, And sometimes the answer is to stay put. But ultimately, one must realize that the answer lies within oneself. As Yogi Bera famously said, “Wherever you go, that's where you'll be.”