Brain and Heart - Emotions in Study and Judgment (Column 467)

BSD

A few days ago, they came to the page Daf La Bibamot, where the amiable issue of "the house fell on him and his nephew's appears and it is not known which of them died first, she narrowed her shirt and did not go home."

Hayuta Deutsch sent me this excerpt with the following comment:

It's huge! A prime example (one of many but especially beautiful) of the encounter between a 'laboratory' legal halakhic world and the dramatic reality (a beautiful and tear-jerking telenovela).

During the discussion that ensued between us afterwards, I thought it appropriate to devote a column to these things.

Emotional and human dimensions in halakhic issues

When you think about this situation and get into it a little more on a mental level, it is a not-so-simple tragedy that befell this unfortunate family (each in its own way, remember). But I as an ordinary learner did not notice it at all. This is a fascinating and complex halakhic discussion, and for me there are no suffering people here, that is, human beings. All of these are figures or shadows on the halakhic-intellectual stage. Character goals for training the mind, through which at most are intended to reflect halakhic ideas. In our study we deal with murderers, thieves, butchers, liars, disasters and various unfortunates and discuss all this with wonderful equanimity. Thus children in Hyderabad can learn charged issues, even though following such an encounter in every context their parents would have been led after respect for well-being and they themselves would have been left with the language slumped in shock. But this whole parade passes peacefully by us and we do not bat an eyelid.

I do not see in these words of her animal a defiance. On the contrary, they admire the duplication between the planes of discussion (human and halakhic), but nevertheless I heard in the background a ton of criticism of the coldness of the discussion, i.e. the disregard for the difficult human dimensions of this case. The Gemara describes this case as if it were a piece of meat that had fallen into a milky sauce, and goes on to discuss the laws that apply in such a case. She completely ignores the terrible human tragedies that have happened here. This bereaved family is left without the wife (actually one of the troubles) and the brother who are both from the same family. Who stays there to support the orphans? (Oh, there really isn't, otherwise there would not have been an album here.) Heart Who will not cry and what eye will not shed at the hearing of all this ?! After all, at the ear of our soul's deaf ear.

I think the melody I heard in the words of her animal, is based in no small part on my daily experiences in the beit midrash for doctoral students at Bar Ilan (and in other female settings). Almost every time we have come to such an issue, there have been shaky references from the human and value and especially emotional aspects of such situations, and of course criticism of the Gemara and the learners' disregard for these aspects. The coldness and indifference he reflects is incomprehensible and inconceivable. We have all become accustomed to studying the issue of the father handing over his young daughter to a boiled man, a woman who has been banned for this and that, agunot without a way out, "stuck in his platform" and more Lithuanian discussions in the Talmud.

I allow myself to say from experience that these are reviews that characterize more women (and followers, which is about the same thing. See for example in columns 104 and-315).[1] Needless to say, Lithuanians like me are exempt from such feelings in BH. I would even give some advice to the directors of that telenovela: For example, they would do well if they also slaughtered the brother's second wife and stabbed her in her abdomen, who is the Hebrew mother of his daughter's cousin, who is herself a half slave and a free half murdered by Garma. Which is between the word and immersion in the mikveh with three logs of pumped water lacking a dab that look like the appearance of wine. They could learn from the best, that is, whatposition. This would have enriched the discussion and made it much more fascinating.

A similar critique in another context

These criticisms are not directed only at the Talmud and its students. In a column 89 I gave an example of a similar critique, and this time in an academic-technological context. I mean the well-known story about the blood tube at the Technion (which probably even was and was created). I'll copy things from there.

told On the initiative of Prof. Haim Hanani of the Technion, which resulted in a test on flow in the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, the students were asked to design a pipe that would carry blood from Eilat to Metula. They were asked what material to make it, what its diameter and thickness should be, at what depth in the soil to bury it and the like. The narrators of this story (and I personally have heard with my own astonished ears several people who were morally shocked by this matter. Needless to say I was really shocked by their shock) complain how the Technion's technocratic students, who of course long ago lost a human photographer (as opposed to postgraduate students They have a very developed moral sensitivity, especially when they design a tube that will lead their articles directly to the systems of the Journals), solve the exam and submit it without batting an eyelid and asking why such a blood tube is needed. Just to increase the astonishment, he says that it is said that such an examination led to the introduction of humanities studies in the Technion curriculum. Apparently someone took this review very seriously.[2]

Beyond the question of the taste and humor of the exam author that can of course be debated (although in my eyes it is quite pleasing), the critique in itself seems to me quite stupid. What is the problem with such a question ?! And that anyone imagines that the lecturer intended to plan a concentration camp and he is assisting the students in solving the problem of blood transport? The students who solved the exam were supposed to imagine that this is the situation and protest? The construction and solution of such a test does not in any way reflect immorality, nor even the level of moral sensitivity of the lecturer or of the students. By the way, even this ridiculous criticism does not reflect a high level of moral sensitivity. At most it is a declaratory tax payment, and quite silly, for petrified political correctness and unnecessary sentimentality.

Beyond the question of whether it is right and reasonable to present such a question in a test, I would like to argue that students who encountered it and solved it without a blink of an eye are very similar to halakhic scholars who go through a situation like the one I described with that frozen eyelid. It's a question of context. If the context is halakhic or scientific-technological, and it is clear to everyone that no one here intends to murder or lead blood, there is no reason in the world for their heartstrings to tremble or rejoice over it. They better leave the checks for real events. If there is someone whose strings are shaking it is fine of course. Everyone and his mental structure, and as we know no one is perfect. But to see this as a characteristic that reflects the morality of the person and in the absence of the tremor is an indication of this flawed morality at most a bad joke.

"Ice that was clever, what did he see as nonsense?"[3]

One can also recall the midrash of the legend of Korach Zatzokal who complained about Moshe Rabbeinu (Good seeker, Psalms a):

"And in the seat of Zim" is ice, which was joking about Moses and Aaron

What did ice do? The whole congregation gathered, and it was said, "Let the whole congregation be gathered together," and he began to say to them, "Tell me, 'There was a widow in my neighborhood, and there were two orphaned girls with her, and she had one field. She came to plow - Moshe said to her: "You shall not plow an ox and a donkey together." She came to sow - he told her: "Your breast will not sow hybrids." Came to reap and make a heap, he said to her: Put a collection of forgetfulness and a wig. Came to make a foundation, he said to her: Make a contribution and a first tithe and a second tithe. Justified the sentence on her and gave it to him.

What did this poor thing do? Stood and sold the field and bought two sheep to wear their gauzes and enjoy their cows. Since they were born - Aaron came and said to her: Give me the firstborn, so God said to me: "Every firstborn who is born in your flock and in your male flock - dedicate to the Lord your God." Justified the sentence on her and gave him the births. The time has come to shear and shear them - Aaron came and said to her: Give me the first of the gas that is what God said:

She said: I have no strength to stand up to this man, for I slaughter them and eat them. And when he had slain them, Aaron came and said unto her, Give me the arm, and the cheek, and the stomach. She said: Even after I slaughtered them, I did not get rid of him - they are a boycott of me! Aaron said to her: If so - it is all mine, that is what God said: "Every boycott in Israel will be yours." Natlan and went to him and left crying she with her two daughters.
That's how she got into this misery! So they do and hang on to Gd!

Really heartbreaking, isn't it? It's a bit reminiscent of the reviews I described above, though there's a difference here nonetheless. Ice's critique really has it in it. She may take things out in context and fabricate a heartbreaking story, but it is certainly true that such a story can in principle happen, and that is indeed the halakhic instruction for such a situation. That is why there is a challenge here to the morality of halakhah, and this is a serious claim. I have mentioned you many times before Israel played, The chemist from Jerusalem, who used to fabricate stories about the moral numbness of halakhah and the religious, and provokes riots. The religious breathed a sigh of relief when it became clear that such a story was not and was not created, but I always wondered why it was relevant. Indeed the halachah forbids the space of Shabbat to save the life of a gentile. Indeed, the law requires a Cohen wife to be raped by her husband. So even if it did not actually happen, it is a completely legitimate criticism.

In this sense, Shachak's and Korach's criticisms are very similar to the criticisms we saw above that deal with a hypothetical case and a very reasonable equanimity towards him. It has nothing to do with the level of morality of the people or of halakhah.

What is the problem?

Let's focus on the problems with reviews of the blood tube or telenovela on stage. This is a hypothetical case that did not really happen. Faced with such a real case, I guess we will not remain indifferent to it. The apathy is created here because of the hypothetical nature of the case that is clear to all involved, and because of the context of the discussion. The connotation in which these cases arise is intellectual-professional. A question in engineering is interpreted in its context as a computational-technological challenge, and rightly no one is bothered by the purpose of the calculation (because it is clear to everyone that there is no such thing. In fact there is, testing the student's abilities). The same is true of the telenovela on stage. It is clear to all that this is a hypothetical case designed to sharpen halakhic insights. Treating a hypothetical case as if it were really happening is a childish affair, isn't it? Children tend to treat the story as if it were a real case. Adults should understand that this is not the case. In my opinion, this is similar to questions about Talmudic cases such as Gamla Farha (Mechot XNUMX: XNUMX and Yevamot Katz XNUMX: XNUMX), or Hittin who descended in thickets (Minchot Set XNUMX: XNUMX), who wonder how such a case could happen. When paying attention to the context, it should be clear that no one is claiming that this was the case or that it could happen. These are hypothetical cases that are intended to refine halakhic principles, such as laboratory cases in scientific research (seeArticles On the Okimas).

In short, the problem with these reviews is that they assume that a person is supposed to treat a hypothetical case that comes before him as if there was a real event here. You can give an example from a movie or book that describes such situations. Note who would not cherish the Bible or the sight of such a situation. How is it different? After all, in a movie or a book we are supposed to experience such feelings and get into a situation. The answer to this is in my opinion: 1. The name of the context is artistic, meaning that the consumer (viewer or reader) should try and enter the situation and experience it. This is the essence of artistic escapism. But it does not exist in the scholarly or technological-academic context. 2. Even if it is natural that such a mental movement occurs in men (or women), it has no value. If that happens - then fine (no one is perfect, remember). But a claim from people in the name of morality that it must happen to them is a completely different claim. To see someone who does not have this as a moral defect is really nonsense in my eyes.

Real cases: the importance of disconnection

I argued that mental involvement in a hypothetical case is a childish matter at best. But beyond that, I would like to argue now that it also has a harmful dimension to it. When the above-mentioned criticisms of the doctoral students arose, I tried to instill in them again and again the importance of the emotional and mental detachment from the situation when dealing with halakhic scholarship. Not only does such emotional involvement have no value, but it is really harmful. Mental and emotional involvement can lead to erroneous halakhic (and technological) conclusions. A judge who decides the case because of his feelings is a bad judge (in fact, it does not rule at all. Just yell).

Note that here I am already talking about a human reference to a real case that comes before me, and not just a hypothetical case. If I come across a case of a brother and sister who perished together in a terrible disaster, this is a real case that took place in reality, so in such a case there must be value to sensitivity towards its human dimensions. Here there is certainly value and importance in treating this case on all levels simultaneously: the intellectual-halakhic, the intellectual-moral and the human-experiential. And yet, even in a real case, it is appropriate in the first stage to focus on the first plane and sever the other two. The arbitrator should think coldly about the case that comes before him. What the halakhah says has nothing to do with what the emotion says (and in my opinion not even what the morality says), and it is good that it does. The arbitrator should cut the law with detached composure, and thus be entitled to direct the truth of Torah. At the stage after the cold halakhic analysis, there is room to enter mentally into the situation and its moral and human dimensions, and to examine it in these perspectives as well. This means that when the initial halakhic analysis raises several possible options, one can consider the emotion and the human and moral dimensions in order to decide between them and choose the practical ruling. Emotion should not take part in logical analysis, but at most come after it. Beyond that, you can see value in actually sharing and empathizing with the suffering of the person in front of you, even if it has no halakhic implications. But all this must take place on parallel planes, and preferably also be late to the initial halakhic decision. The emotional involvement in the ruling is not desirable at all.

I will not return here in detail to another claim that I have already made many times (see for example in the column 22, And in the series of columns 311-315), That morality has nothing to do with emotion and nothing. Morality is an intellectual rather than an emotional matter. Sometimes emotion is an indicator of the moral direction (empathy), but it is a very problematic indicator, and it is important to be careful to criticize it and not to follow it. Respect him and suspect him. At the end of the day, the decision should be made in the head and not in the heart, but the head should also take into account what the heart says. My contention was that identification in the experiential sense of emotion has no value meaning. This is a human trait, and as such is a fact. But it has no value, and those who are not endowed with it should not be worried about its moral and value condition.

In light of this, I argue that even in the second stage, after the initial halakhic analysis, there is no significant place for emotion. For morality perhaps yes, but not for emotion (per se. But perhaps as an indicator and so on). On the contrary, emotional involvement is a test prescription for improper deceptions and deviations of thinking, and for making wrong decisions.

The conclusion from all this is that when studying a halakhic Talmudic issue there is no value to emotional involvement, and one should even try to overcome such a mental movement even if it exists (I am talking about those who have not yet been able to overcome it and get used to it). In practical halakhic rulings (i.e. a decision on a particular case that comes before us), where emotion and morality should be suspended, and perhaps given some place in the second stage (especially morality. To emotion less).

Instrumental claim

There is an argument on the instrumental level that a person who practices not treating human hypothetically in such hypothetical cases will not do the same in relation to real cases. I doubt it very much. It sounds to me like a good word for seven blessings, and I see no indication of its correctness. In any case, anyone who claims this should bring evidence to his words.

A similar claim can perhaps be made about the habit of artisans. The Gemara says that an artist, a doctor or a person who dealt with women, "in her slavery harassed", and therefore allowed him things that are forbidden to other men (singularity or contact with a woman and the like). Being busy in his professional work dulls his emotions and prevents offenses and forbidden reflections. I do not know if the sex of a gynecologist is duller because of it, even when he meets a woman on a romantic and unprofessional background. I doubt that this is a different context, but it requires examination. People know how to make separations and disconnections, and in this sense Dayan also learns in Abidathiyahu Tridi. When a person engages in his profession he knows how to detach his emotions, and that does not mean that they are more dull in other contexts. Of course, an artist who is preoccupied with his art is a more far-reaching situation than the above-mentioned situations in halakhic study, since for the artist these are women and real situations, while for the scholar these are hypothetical cases. Therefore, even if we find that the artist's emotions do diminish, this does not necessarily mean that this is what happens in the scholar. Perhaps it is more similar to a judge who disconnects his feelings, since the judge faces real cases but does so in a professional context. There it may be said that in her art she is troubled.

Study note

It may be argued that a learner who encounters such situations and does not evoke in him the relevant human feelings does not fully enter the situation. This is an argument against him on the academic level, and not on the moral level. The claim is that he is learning poorly and not that he is an immoral person. I do not think that is the case. A person can certainly enter a situation in an educational context even if he is not in it in human terms. My argument, of course, is conditioned on the perception of halakhah as a professional-technical occupation that does not involve emotional planes (except in the second stage, etc.). Anyway, a moral flaw I certainly do not see here.

[1] Not sure it has anything to do with female character. This may be due to the novelty of things, as women have not usually been accustomed to these issues since childhood.

[2] The result itself is welcome in my opinion. It is definitely not harmful for students at the Technion to study some humanities. But there is no connection between this and the case of the blood vessel. The case does not demonstrate any problem that needs to be solved, and if there was such a problem, humanities studies would not contribute in any way to its solution.

[3] Rashi in the Desert XNUMX, p.

45 Thoughts on "Mind and Heart - Emotions in the Study and Judgment of Halacha (Column 467)"

  1. The halakhic matter mentioned here was discussed in reality, if I remember correctly, following the murder of members of the Maklef family in Motza during the events of XNUMX.

        1. I will briefly summarize what was said there.

          A. The case that appeared in the column:
          [A man married his niece and another wife. If he dies then his brother can not live with his nephew (pubic) and therefore she and the other woman in need are exempt from abortion and bailing (forbidden abortion). If his nephew's daughter died before her husband and then her husband died then at the time of her death the other woman is not ashamed and therefore needs a baby.]
          The sentence in the Gemara is if one does not know who died first, whether the husband died first and his wife (his nephew) was still alive and then the other wife died of abomination, or the wife died first and then the husband died and then the other wife owes a child. [And the law is because there is doubt as to whether it is obligatory in Bibom or forbidden in Bibom then a shirt and not Bibum].

          B. The case in Ahiezer:
          [A man who has died and at the time of his death left a viable sperm or fetus his wife is exempt from abomination. But if he had no children at all or everyone died before he died then his wife must bibom. If he dies and leaves a fetus born after his death and even lives only one hour and dies, or leaves a dying son, it is a seed for everything and his wife is exempt from abomination.]
          The convict in Ahiezer is a father who died and at the time of his death left a carnivore who died one day after his father, whether a carnivore son is considered a seed for everything as dying and the dead woman is exempt from abomination, or a carnivore (who will probably die within XNUMX months). [Rose Garden thinks that predation is not considered alive at all and is worse than dying and the dead woman must be bibom. Ahiezer proves from additions that Ben Tripa was fired from Maybum]
          https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=634&st=&pgnum=455

          There are similarities in the fact that two family members died in a short period of time (for the same reason).

        2. I assume that Nadav is referring to Ahiezer's answer to HG in the middle of CJ:

          In the month of Adar XNUMX (c) on the question of the Darg who in the days of the murder in the Iraq the father was killed and then the son who lived one day, whom the murderers stabbed and punctured the lung, if allowed to marry without extraction, as in the Ginat Vardim responsa The Sephardi was brought in the knees of Yosef and Harka'a and in Petah Tikva, which can be aggravated.
          Here I saw in the Ginat Vardim responsa and I did not find any evidence there to renew it, only from a religious in Matanitin dying and guided and not from Tani Prefa, which means that Detrapa is not fired. However, from the Toss D. And as for the Toss, it seems that he was dying by a man explained in the Sanhedrin by the Dalarbanan Darbav Hoy as a prey, and so Maimonides in the PB from the murderer Dahurgo is not killed as a prey, and by another Demprashim GC Da'af who is gauged and he is dying. And it is also explicit that the houses of the Hari Batos Yavmot, where Demguide is in a place where there is no end to life, and In the B.H. A.H. After all, it is proven from the words of the Toss, a model who is dying and guided by a person who is like a prey, and so in the raids in the Qur'an of David, which are appended to S. Judgments We do not care what he forfeits, for the dying and the guiding need a bib and are fired from the bib. In general, it is strange that if a great-grandson assumes forfeiture that he will need to be rescued, and there will also be an abortion in the wife of a brother who has a son who is forfeited and since he brought the words of the Toss Reid on Shabbat KK certainly does not feel at all because of the doubter's doubts, and does not need to be rescued and is allowed to marry. + Shum in the Beit Yitzchak responsa, Chiv. And A.A. in the Beit Yitzchak responsa Kha.

          But this is not our case. While one can be impressed by the way of treatment and the absolute lack of reference to the emotional dimensions.

          1. [Regarding the end of your remarks regarding the way of treatment, a tour of the Treasure of Wisdom reveals that the questioner from Ahiezer is Rabbi Zvi Pesach Frank who was asked about it by the rabbi of Safed where the incident happened, and they have already expressed the shock, etc.

          2. For a brief moment I thought it might be similar to the day-to-day story of the priest who murdered his friend on the ram, and moreover his father flutters discussing the kosherness of the knife, about which articles and sermons were written, but it is not at all similar because it is murder of enemies.

            1. Between a halakhic answer and an eulogy sermon

              In the XNUMXth of Nisan XNUMX (Rabbi Yosef Caro's)

              The whole discussion of the feelings or non-feelings of the arbitrators of Halacha on the basis of their formulation in their answers - is irrelevant. The sages expressed their excitement at the summoning events in their sermons in the community, which were intended to arouse the feelings of the audience. In the halakhic answer the discussion is halakhic ‘dry’. Ruled separately and demanded separately.

              It is worth noting that only a few of the works of the sages of Israel were printed, partly due to the cost of printing. Therefore, try to print the selection that has a significant innovation. Whether it is a novelty in halakhah or a novelty in a legend. Expressing feelings of joy over good news and sorrow over bad rumor - there is no novelty, every person feels it, and there is no need to prolong it while adding sheets. Even in innovations they printed little of the little.

              Regards, the tiny guy.

              1. Paragraph 1, line 1
                … Based on their wording…

                It should be noted that sometimes repentance is prolonged in words of sorrow, when one is forced to rule harshly. When the arbitrator feels that despite his great desire he is unable to save - then he will sometimes also express his grief in his ruling.

                For example, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky briefly instructed his position in a few words, but Rabbi Menachem Burstein said that there were cases in which Rabbi Kanievsky said: 'Oh, oh, oh. I can not allow '.

  2. Something similar was when one wrong asked a Rosh Yeshiva how they deal with the issue of PP without it causing them sexual arousal. He replied that the students are not dealing with reality, but with halakhic norms concerning it.
    Truly a strange response, because the description in the Mishnah is not an "act that was".
    And for much less than that, Shlomi Emuni Yisrael, led by scholars who are studying, are mobilizing to help families

  3. A. Your analysis completely misses the humor in my remarks (and doc: a telenovela! Inside the wondrous script repository provided by the treatise, you might write more.).
    B. Both I and your doctoral students (those who are not into articles for journals-science-regrets, nor do they study in the Department of Macrame and Home Economics. Who said materialism and chauvinism and did not accept it?) Understand well the double standard. As mentioned, some of us even enjoy it. Indeed, most of us encounter gemara issues of this kind for the first time, and it seems to me that the proficient and ordinary learner can only benefit from our surprised and new gaze ("foreign") precisely because he is a primordial and unaccustomed and routine gaze. The healthy ability to look at things anew is important to everyone. Fear not, better scholars and judges (not transgender) have come out of it.
    third. However, the dayan and judge scholar really should not sob bitterly and eliminate bundles of tissue while studying, instead exercising their intellect and ability of inference and learning. I'm talking (talking) about a double and healthy look. Yes, even a wink works. Not just a tear.
    D. And will not be a priestess as an innkeeper? Go out and learn what Supreme Court justices' judgments look like that, by virtue of their position, address important issues that sometimes also pertain to disasters of one kind or another. The legal analysis will be there in all its sharpness, and without detracting from the sharpness of the discussion, there will always be some brief introduction or accompanying expressions that will relate to the value and moral side.
    God. The question of the rivers of blood and pipe is a good example of bad humor. It touches on a constant debate that exists here, about the contempt and lack of importance to the context, atmosphere and education.

    1. Hello her animal.
      A. I really did not miss. On the contrary, I wrote about the admiration and enjoyment of the duplication and understood the humor well. And yet from the shit I understood that there was a tone of criticism, and of course I was right. Your remarks here clearly state this. The total gemara does not include a poetic introduction of the Cheshin version.
      B. It is certainly a view that can be profited from, but usually not profited on the halakhic level. I commented on this at the end of the column. I focus on irrelevant moral criticism.
      third. I realized it was a double look, and I addressed that. The question I was dealing with is whether the absence of the second plane in relation to a hypothetical case should be of concern or not.
      D. Supreme Court justices, unlike arbitrators, are concerned with law and not halakhah. In law there is more weight than in halakhah (not always rightly) to their feelings. Beyond that, Halachic jurisprudence deals with practical cases, the Gemara does not. In my words I stood for this division.
      God. I mentioned the criticism of the bad humor, and said explicitly that this is not what I am dealing with. The question I was dealing with is whether there is room for moral criticism.

      Finally, the accusation of substantivity and chauvinism is typical and irrelevant (it is usually well used when the substantive arguments run out). When I report my impression of experience I talk about facts. If the result is substantive, then the substantivity is probably correct. The way to deal with this is not to deny the results or blame the substance, but to argue in a reasoned way that the facts are not true. If you intended to do so, I did not notice your words in such an argument. One of the ill evils of weak populations (women in this context are certainly a weak population, not always to blame. Here I am even willing to partially accept the disgusting phrase "weakened"), is to protest the factual description instead of dealing with the facts. I wrote about it in relation to female scholarship in the first place, and most of the women who read it were offended instead of drawing the required conclusions and trying to improve. It's a test prescription to commemorate the situation (if you think it's good, then commemoration is not necessarily bad in your eyes of course, but then I do not see what I am accused of).

      1. My critique is not of the Gemara but of the scholarly-Lithuanian approach that ridicules the request for double reference. The example from the judges does not have to go to Cheshin's well-known exaggerated poetry, it has much more successful and serious examples, as you know I am busy these days with the teachings of a dear Jew after graduates of the above Supreme Court and where things are worth observing.

        I accused you of essentially relating to style rather than content, that is, how surprising - again, to grin. Anyone who insists on making fun of the members of his company again and again, precisely in him should be suspected that his arguments are less successful. Or, to paraphrase your holy language: "The above grin is typical and irrelevant (it is usually well used when the relevant arguments run out)."
        I understand of course that in practice I encounter this kind of response from many students, and this justifies such and such theories, I just protest the disparaging style (unlike PhD students in gender and home economics, who have very developed moral sensibilities, especially when designing a conduit to their journal systems) To the sciences of regret ”), that is, we returned again, and this time I will quote my sacred language,“ to the constant debate that exists here, about the contempt and non-attachment of importance to context, atmosphere and education ”.

        1. But the double reference is missing in the Gemara itself. This is not an invention of Lithuanians. The Lithuanian scholar only clings to what is there, and his claim is that the double reference is entirely legitimate but that it is not a matter for the study of the issue, and certainly does not in any way indicate a moral virtue or defect.
          I did not understand your claim about the style. There is no grinning here. These are completely typical arguments of the fools / faculties of the gender department. This is what they do almost all the time. What I said about all women, even those who do not study gender (most of them like me), I said that such arguments are typical of women, and I do think these are the facts that emerge from my experience. There is no argument here but a factual observation.

          1. Indeed, as I wrote to Sarah, there is no moral flaw here, I saw on the Facebook of one of the scholars he suggested about the same examples that Tractate Yavmot brings over and over again Reuben and his rape, that it might be worth keeping the honor of Reuben and Shimon and giving instead examples of Aridta and Delphon and the other ten sons of Haman. (On the other hand there is a situation that it was said because of Purim and he did not mean it at all) To accuse the gender learners that they do not really intend but their purpose is to publish articles, this is defamation and not a factual observation.

  4. Sharp as ever. well done.
    Some unresolved thoughts:
    A. The humor of her animal was indeed missed. (I will confess that I also missed it on first reading)
    B. I think that helps the child in Hyder the fact that he formulates in the formulations of the Gemara. If his benchmate asks him what exactly it is that has come out of nowhere he will start to get entangled and blush.
    third. If my wife tells me she saw a crushed mouse on the street, without an exact breakdown of appearance, it would not make me nauseous. If I tell her - she's vomiting. Some people draw for themselves the reality they read about and then experience it in a certain way and some do not. One can read Harry Potter and then see the movie and say - I really did not imagine it that way! And another person just did not imagine me. I believe that the doctrinaires at Bar Ilan understand the double gaze, but are unable not to imagine the situations for themselves.
    D. As a particular implication, I think that if a person experiences in reality the situation he is learning about, it will be more difficult for him to be disconnected. He will immediately paint for himself the situation as he experiences it. Another reason why it is easier for a child in Hyderabad to learn about coming in the wrong way and so on. It does not belong to his world so much.
    God. It is also possible that the desire to innovate, which is present in some of the learners, and to project from their world onto the Talmudic world and not come entirely as receivers, causes the learning to become emotional.
    and. Without a doubt, the emotional disconnect is helpful in understanding the issues clearly. You may still lose something if you do not connect the emotion to it later. The morality I certainly have to connect to understand the issue, maybe even emotion has a place there somewhere.
    (I did not understand what the problem is with blood tubing. Do not transfer blood through tubes to patients? Is it not possible to transfer blood sterilely between wards through a tube? Or transfer blood from slaughtered animals to a tube for fertilization? Or just for sewage? The vampire should be helped to move the blood from the area where he slaughters humans to the kitchen with a pipe, how you would build it, etc. But that is an innocent question.

    1. A. Maybe you missed it. But not with me. Every critic in her place stands regardless of the question of humor.
      B. Indeed, it is like asking R. Chaim what a pan is.
      third. this is fine. I have no problem with those who portray situations in their minds, and with those who are shocked by it. I just do not think that this shock indicates a spiritual-moral virtue, nor that its absence indicates a defect.
      D. See c. This may be related to my reluctant remark at the end of the column about the flaw in the study itself.
      God. For health. Is there any claim here? I am not dealing with the diagnosis of women or learners, but with the essence. Not where it comes from but whether it is important and essential.
      and. I explained where he was.

      I did not understand what the problem is with a question about a vampire. I do not see any problem with it.

  5. Her animal,
    After all, the Gemara is written in the art of vigorous shortening. (This is one of the wonders there, to me, the astonished reader).
    Worlds-worlds may be folded in a three-word sentence, a paragraph may contain hundreds of years of gaps, how relevant is a comparison to the PSD of the Supreme? What lies in one short and sharp sentence of the Gemara would have been spilled there on dozens, if not hundreds of pages.

    I do not suspect the artisans of the final wording of the Talmudic page who were less sensitive than any woman and no supreme judge.

    And we must remember that it all started in the past, and then the lack of means of writing, the need to copy and preserve for generations.

    Maybe offer an example? What and how would you put in Sugia Danan?

    1. Agrees with you, and it does not occur to me to rewrite the Gemara. The comparison to modern-day judgments pertains to modern-day rulings. And perhaps to the way in which a rabbi teaches his disciples. I guess if this is a rabbi she teaches, she will teach this issue to her students, but there will be a small symbolic gesture. Wink, say and the like. The story of the death in the avalanche has no moral significance at all, just a tragedy that can happen even today in Ukraine, you have an interesting remark, about the oral. Do you suggest that there were certain gestures that were not preserved in the brief transcript of the writing for later? I do not know and do not think there is a way to know. Perhaps it is worthwhile to challenge the proficient here whether somewhere in the Shas there is a slightly more 'emotional' attitude to something. For example, on today's page there is the amiable phrase that appears several times - are we dealing with the wicked? This is a completely matter-of-fact statement, but it has a melody of amiable perplexity.

      1. Torah time and prayer time (for Sarah and her animals)

        B.S.D.

        To her and Sarah - hello,

        The Tannaim and the Amoraim who had the halakhah - also had a legend and authors of prayers. In their words in Halacha - be sure to formulate a matter-of-fact wording. While their emotional world - expressed in their words in the legend and the prayers they founded (some beautiful personal prayers that said Tannaim and Amoraim 'Batar Tzlotya' were gathered together in Tractate Brachot, and many of them were included in the 'Siddur'). Torah time separately and prayer time separately.

        Regards, Hillel Feiner-Gloskinus

        And not like the tendency of modern Torah scholars to combine study with emotion, about which it will be said: 'He who teaches his daughter Torah - teaches prayers 🙂

        1. 'And return to your heart' - internalizing the content of the study in your heart

          Although the study must be a 'ruling brain on the heart'. Studying the Torah requires listening to the Torah that does not always coincide with the inclination of the heart - after all, after the mental clarification - we must transfer things to the heart in the desire to create personal identification with the learned.

          See the article by Rebbetzin Or Makhlouf (Ramit in Midreshet Migdal-Anaz), in the file "Because they are beastly," Migdal Iz Tisha: 31, p. 0 onwards. There she cites, among other things, the pain of Grid Soloveitchikf, the ultra-Orthodox youth who succeeded in the field of intellectual endeavor… acquired knowledge of opinions and rulings. He enjoys beautiful lessons and delving into a complicated issue. But the heart still does not participate in this action… Halacha does not become a psychic reality for him. The actual acquaintance with the Shechinah is missing… '209 Words of View, p. XNUMX). Refer to the length article

          Let it be known that the Torah requires the activation of the heart before and after it. Before it - the longing to connect with God through his wisdom and desire in the Torah and prayer that we will be entitled to direct to the truth; Followed by a prayer that we will be privileged to apply in life the values ​​we have learned about.
          ,
          Regards, Hillel Feiner-Gloskinus

  6. 'A sword between his thighs and an open hell beneath him' necessitates a considered and calm decision

    In SD XNUMX in Nissan P.B.

    A arbitrator in his decision-making must act out of a storm of bilateral emotions. Woe to him on the one hand and woe to his soul if he errs and leaves a man's wife, and on the other hand woe to him and woe to him if he anchors a woman who can be allowed. A ruling proverb for a man who treads a narrow path on the edge of the abyss, that any slight deviation to the right or left - may degenerate him into the abyss.

    And the arbitrator must be in double anxiety, for indifference will lead him to an untrue ruling out of indifference, and a God-fearing arbitrator must be caring, caring that he will not fail and allow the forbidden, and care that he will not forbid the permissible. His anxiety and concern that justice will be published - is the motive for his tireless pursuit of the exact truth.

    But the very turmoil of emotions that prevented him from clarifying the halakhah - it itself requires that the clarification itself be done in a considered and calm manner, because clarification out of anxiety and loss of mind - could not overwhelm the truth. Therefore, the arbitrator must be calm during the inquiry, and be prepared to consider all the options, even the most painful ones. Therefore, when the question comes - the arbitrator must put the storm of emotions aside and think calmly.

    In this the man of halakhah is like a warrior being shot at, who must not react immediately. He must stop for a moment, take cover, watch where he is being shot at, then range and shoot accurately at the target. A mistake in hitting the enemy is dangerous for the shooter, as it betrays the enemy the place of refuge for him.

    And so is the situation of the rescuer who arrives at a traumatic event, multi-vulnerable and multi-casualty, who must quickly read the situation, and set priorities. Immediately address what is immediately dangerous, urgently address what is urgent, and leave to the last stage what is less urgent. Supervised condition assessment - is the foundation for proper treatment.

    The strong desire to win the battle or save the casualties - is the fuel that motivated the fighter or handler to volunteer for the combat unit or rescue force, but the decision of what and how to do in the 'malfunction' situation - must be made with calculated and calm judgment.

    Of course it is almost impossible to think calmly when encountering an unexpected coincidence, that due to stress one forgets the whole 'theory'. To this end, halakhic jurists, fighters and rescue workers hold a 'training course' that strives to anticipate every possible 'Batalam', to formulate in advance patterns of action for the same possible situation, and practitioners do not react in every situation. Then when the 'malfunction' arrives - the action scheme immediately pops up and you can act in an orderly manner without having to re-gossip. The plans were thought out and worked out in advance.

    The affairs of Tractate Yavmot. Disasters of earthquakes and house collapses, diseases and epidemics, disappearance of people on voyages of trade and sinking ships at sea, wars and lists and plots - were entirely possible situations in the world where the sages lived, especially in the days of the Roman revolts, the Holocaust and the Bar-Kochba revolt.

    A guidebook for the effective treatment of catastrophic stressful situations must be relevant and concise, and clearly and concisely encompass all the prototypes of possible scenarios and offer them a treatment scheme, so a Yavmot mask is formulated in a short and dry way, just as a book on combat theory or first aid will be formulated .

    Regards, Hillel Feiner Gloskinus

    In the Mishnah and the Talmud, the 'telegraphic' wording undertakes to convey them orally. In order for them to be able to memorize, they must be formulated in a light and absorbing way. Prolonged deep chatter or mental outbursts do not benefit with memorization. The Talmud is for in-depth study, and prayer is for the outpouring of the soul. A 'sub' must be concise and concise

  7. 'Willen named Jacob that night' - a storm of emotions that requires calm action

    And so Yaakov Avinu, who prays with anxiety and concern, 'Please save me, immediately, my brother, immediately do… lest he come and prepare a mother for sons' - continues to act calmly. He does not immediately begin to flee. On the contrary, he and his camp go to sleep (and who can sleep in this horrible situation?) And get up fresh so that they can fight to meet with Esau's army. \\

    And even David fled from Absalom his son, when he went broken and cried out and prayed for his salvation from the many who rose up against him, all the people against the handful of the faithful who remained with him. He expresses all his anxiety in prayer, and his prayer gives him the strength to act with matter-of-fact judgment. He tries the way of intercession by sending the archaic senses to violate Ahithophel's advice, and after the prayer and intercession, he is confident in it, and able in his horrible condition to hold 'in peace together I will lie down and sleep because you are the Lord alone and surely a resident.

    Anxiety finds expression in prayer, and out of it man is confidently nurtured to act with discretion.

    Sincerely, The PG

    1. Agree with everything you say.
      And even within the halakhah many times a lot of emotion is stored. And of course the combination of legend and halakhah allows this to some extent,
      Like, for example (her life) one that touches the heart, to my taste: (I wonder if there is a judge in the Supreme Court who allowed himself to spill so much)

        1. Quote yes, but not sure they would have initiated such a claim.
          By the way, you can see how long the rulings lengthen and become tedious, over the years, when the hand becomes light on the keyboard, and all the sources are available, and there is no longer a need to dictate to the reporter.

    2. 'Teaches that he did not sleep' - despite the enthusiasm

      BSD XNUMX in Nissan PB

      On the importance of maintaining composure while doing, Hasidim clarified the sage's article 'Yes, Aaron did - teaches that he did not sleep', that it is not understood what is the 'Salka Da'ata' that the holy Aaron Gd sleeps from God's commandments? And the followers explained that even though Aaron was full of enthusiasm when he went to light the lamp and there was room to feel that out of enthusiasm he would be wrong in the details. KML who, despite being hanged, Aaron is careful to carry out his duties accurately.

      Regards, Hillel Feiner-Gloskinus

    1. Indeed, there with Rami Bar the recitations of things are tragedy and comedy in one place. But there it can be said, that since things had already been done, they asked him for his deeds. And apparently he did not want to rely on the table of others

    1. Shuda Dadaini is a ruling in very specific cases and not in every situation where there is no decision. For this there are laws of sufficiency. But even Shuda is not an emotion but an intuition. Do not fight each other.

  8. In my opinion it is a fact: Someone started an online discussion on the question "If you found out tomorrow that Christianity is true - would you change your lifestyle accordingly". Some of the idiotic answers were "it will not happen so there is no point in asking". People really have a hard time understanding the section of a hypothetical question. I tried to explain to them that they also probably would never have to throw a very fat person on train tracks to prevent the train from running over five forced people, and yet this is a fundamental question in courses in the philosophy of morality; But it did not work…
    Then someone argued to me that in principle hypothetical questions are fine, but there are things that are too shocking emotionally and therefore it is wrong to discuss them hypothetically (as opposed to, say, the trampling of a very fat person by a train which is probably not shocking at all). The writer was R.M. in a high school yeshiva, and it's really not clear to me what he's doing on issues like the one you mentioned here… Anyway, after a short debate he asked me if I thought it was legitimate for him to ask me "what would you do if you found out tomorrow your mother kills" . Of course I did not understand what the problem was with that, and I even went to tell my mother, who also did not understand what the problem was with this question… what also while the argument he actually asked the question, so I did not quite understand what point he was trying to clarify.
    Bottom line - when it's hard for people to deal with the content (intellectually!) They run to the margins and try to point out cosmetic 'problems' as an excuse why in the first place it's not appropriate' to engage in this content (then it's left to learn only A very aesthetic story).

    1. indeed. I just remark that there is room for his claim about Christianity in the following way: perhaps in his opinion if Christianity made sense then it was not Christianity we know. So there is no room for the question of what I would have done if I had discovered that Christianity is right. Likewise, there is no room for the question of what Maimonides would have said about any situation in our day. If he were alive today he would not be Maimonides.

  9. Hello Rabbi Michi.
    It is difficult to argue with your claim, indeed in "common sense" it is clear that the cleanest and most correct is to work with net halakhic rational analysis. But it is impossible to ignore the fact that many times the scholarly Shas issues are wrapped in stories that give them a reading of a human or moral emotional direction.

    I will give 2 examples (the first one is a bit weak): After Tractate Gittin discusses the details of the various hypothetical and realistic problems, she bothers to end with a sermon on hatred and divorce. And how it hurts God for the divorce itself. Why is it important for the Gemara to end the Tractate in this way? Is not here a direction reading?

    In the Gemara in Kiddushin there is a beautiful legend about Rabbi Asi and his mother. It is so important that it entered into its entirety the laws of Miriam, Chapter XNUMX, and Maimonides. At the end of the issue it is written that Rabbi Asi said “I do not know Nafaki” Most commentators explained this sentence through halakhic glasses. Rabbi Asi says that he would not have left the Land of Israel for a variety of halakhic reasons (the impurity of the nations because he is a priest and other reasons). Maimonides wrote in Halacha that indeed if his parents were fooled he could comfort and command someone else to take care of them. Money Mishnah strengthens Maimonides and says that even though it is not explicitly written on the issue it is likely that Rabbi Asi used to. The Rabbi is angry at Maimonides and claims that this is not the way and how a person can leave his parents to someone else to take care of them. (It can be argued that this is a halakhic consideration but simply implies that he can not tolerate the idea of ​​morality) No issues = I would not leave Babylon. And refers to the Rab'ad's attack on Maimonides.

    The truth is that it turns out that in fact halakhic justice with Maimonides and money matters but our eyes see that a scholar and a judge have read this legend in fact in a moral romantic reading.

    I estimate that if I had Molly's book by a scholar, Rabbi Yehuda Brandes, "A Legend in Actually," I would give a few more examples and probably more successful ones.

    PS: Waiting and waiting for a column on the conversion controversy (how much can you resist?)

    1. There are indeed quite a few examples. See for example in column 214 on his ashes because of his arrows. But that's not what I'm talking about here. They wanted to teach me that divorce is a bad thing. What does this have to do with ruling on halakhah in these matters? It has to do with general leadership protesting against halakhah that efforts should be made to avoid divorce.

  10. “The arbitrator should think coldly about the case that comes before him. What the halakhah says has nothing to do with what the emotion says (and in my opinion not even what the morality says), and it is good that it does. The arbitrator should cut the law with detached composure, and thus be entitled to direct the truth of Torah. "So far your words.
    I gave an example from the story of Rabbi Asi and his mother who was condemned to Halacha. I ended up saying that the Rabbi and the Rashash did not agree with them halakhically, on a human or moral background.

    1. A worse partial quote is full to quote at all. After all, I wrote that there is room to introduce such considerations in stage B, after we have finished discussing the basic halakhic options. If the law is not cut but several options remain, the way to decide between them can also contain morality (and perhaps emotions as an indication).

  11. 1. Maybe this is one of the reasons why the Gemara is not for women and they are disqualified from discussing it? (Asks not determines)
    2. The truth is that years when I read “Two Bibles and One Translation” I come across stories from the Torah that for me and for the sake of our female generation lacks emotion (apparently of course) I never shared my surroundings with it because I do not have the words to convey my feelings especially we are busy with emotion, I am now I do not remember many examples except one when Eliezer came in negotiations to take Rebecca (at the time the globe had not yet become one family, it may have been a global separation from her family that it adds here to the emotion) and her father Bethuel and her brother Ben tried to delay and then The girl (not to forget that she was three years old is another point that contributes emotion to the whole play) Sages ask and where is her father in the temple? Sages answer that he died (ate the poisoned plate he prepared for Eliezer by an angel who replaced the plates as if I were reminders of the hyder) and it is immediately stated that they did ask and sent Rebecca on her way, and here the son asks imagine the situation today such a tragedy Dom Eliezer would at least for the time being bee his plans and would feel a little embarrassed by his whole class and being at home right now in the face of family tragedy (maybe trying to fold equipment quietly and leave the area as he came at such a difficult time or alternatively out of discomfort The purpose of coming and helping with all his body and soul to organize the funeral and building a tent and bringing chairs for mourners etc etc.) but in practice in the Torah world as usual continues except that the plans continue as planned In autism, the rabbi here has a remedy from "Dauriyta" to be in good company.On the case of Yosef and his brother, yes, gentlemen, this is the situation (this shock of Esau did not go through according to the sages. It was paid for by Mordechai the Jew thousands of years later, as is well known). Beyond the button of his shirt, once when judges tried to motivate one to divorce his wife by telling him it is written that the altar brings tears down he answered them not bad to this day I shed tears it would not hurt to shed a few tears now too, Of a father who foresaw in the temple stabbing his son and there the father went into a trance of grammar went and ordered to take his son out while fluttering for help for fear of impurity (instead of missing a beat) and the Gemara discusses there this father, whether he has excess reverence or "autism" in relation to murder
    3. In the context of the rabbi's remark “it's like asking R. Chaim what a pan is” the rabbi's example is not successful and I will illustrate this with a story. Perhaps for donations and tithes R. Chaim asked him what is an avocado? R. Avraham was moved and said do you understand what a lot means? That in all the Babylonian and Jerusalemite and the Midrashim and the Tosefot and the Zohar, etc., the word avocado does not exist
    Masach Pan is already mentioned in the Torah several times here to thank the rabbi for the "article that the rabbi did not write" following the death of our rabbi in keeping the ruling just as he is commanded to say something that is heard Was critical) and a lake that the rabbi likes to slaughter sacred cows from anywhere right now in his thirties when warming it is more prone to the explosion of the Temple Mount dome than the slaughter of a sacred cow, I once asked our rabbi in a neighborhood proficient in slander whether I was allowed to tell Really praise (and I add that for me it is a great praise) but the hearer bark thinks this story derogatory and I brought as an example the stories about R. Chaim (by the way R. Chaim would pray about it three times a day not to remember anything except this Torah another evidence against Rabbi Shefilot Assistants) and it seems to me that the rabbi answered me that it is probably forbidden and in the process told me that as a yeshiva student in America there were presidential elections I think for a president named Johnson and they had a yeshiva minister by that name and their yeshiva head being so immersed in learning when they told him The yeshiva head was amazed at how a yeshiva minister became the president of the United States overnight

        1. It is said that Rabbi Chaim of Brisk took out the pans and pots from an opinion poll, meaning that one does not need to know exactly how a pan is built and what the ratio is between the length of the handle and the diameter of the surface. Thus it came about that not in the usual way there is no need for the child to understand what it is exactly but only that they do something not the way he does and there are all kinds of laws, and his halakhic understanding is not damaged in anything.
          In general, just R. Chaim is R. Chaim of Brisk (at least in places that are dealt with in the Gemara rather than Halacha), just as the Rashba is just R. Shlomo ben Aderet and not Rash Mashantz, although the honor of both is very great.

  12. Rabbi did you do me de jow for a story I heard exactly in this context:

    I remember that in the lesson I attended, the rabbi who taught the lesson told us (all the participants were men) that he taught a Gemara lesson to build a seminary, and it was in Tractate Yavmot.

    He told us that he drew on the board the whole "family" of the issue and put Xs on all the "dead" and then he looked back and saw that the faces of the girls were terrified.

    They took pity on the "dead" drawn on the board.

    Needless to say, we all laughed and smiled at the story.

Leave a comment