Activate Beast Mode

Bechoros - Daf 44

Our Gemara on amud beis discusses a formula for certain kinds of material and spiritual success:

“Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: ‘There shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle’ (Deuteronomy 7:14)? It means as follows: When will there not be a barren male among you? At a time that you act as among your cattle… Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says, with regard to the same verse, that the phrase ‘There shall not be male…barren among you’ means you will not be barren of students, as one who leaves behind no students is considered barren. The term ‘or female barren’ indicates that your prayers will not be barren, i.e., unheard, before the Omnipresent, but will be heard by Him. And when will they be heard? At a time when you place yourself in prayer as an animal, with humility.”

The Maharal (Nesiv Hatemimus 2) explains: These two channels – prayer, which represents a Divine flow of material success, and students, who represent the Divine flow of intellectual success in Torah – come from a certain simple stance before G-d. It is the ego and pride that push G-d out. Rather, one should be as a beast in a sense, having no guile and being emotionally open to make room for G-d’s will and allow the blessings to flow.

This may be able to explain a difficult-to-understand aggadah in Pesachim (53b) regarding how Chananya, Mishael, and Azariah drew inspiration to martyr themselves:

“They drew an a fortiori inference on their own from the plague of frogs in Egypt. With regard to frogs, which are not commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of G-d, it is written: ‘And the river shall swarm with frogs, which shall go up and come into your house, and into your bedchamber, and onto your bed, and into the houses of your servants, and upon your people, and into their ovens and kneading bowls’ (Exodus 7:28). When are kneading bowls found near the oven? You must say that it is when the oven is hot. If in fulfilling the command to harass the Egyptians, the frogs entered burning ovens, all the more so, we – who are commanded concerning the sanctification of the name of G-d – should deliver ourselves to be killed in the fiery furnace for that purpose.”

On the surface, this makes no sense. Frogs don’t really think, and if some instinct drove them into the ovens, there’s no reason to believe that it was to obey G-d. And if it was a miracle that G-d caused the frogs to do so, this would serve as no inspiration or lesson for Chananya, Mishael, and Azariah, who were not given miraculous strength or willpower to jump into the fiery furnace.

However, it really has to do with how you look at it. They weren’t naïve; they understood that humans have advanced intellect and frogs do not. What they were saying to themselves was that sometimes you need to act just like a beast does, without overthinking. They overcame their fear by acting like beasts – serving G-d without thinking and not letting their fears overtake them.

Opposites Fit: Genetic Counseling, Traits, and Temperaments

Daf 45

Our Gemara on amud beis, in discussing various blemishes that could afflict people, offers an ancient form of genetic counseling:

“Reish Lakish says: A man who is tall should not marry a woman who is also tall, lest there emerge from them a child who is extremely tall. Similarly, a man who is a dwarf should not marry a woman who is also a dwarf, lest there emerge from them a child who is exceptionally short. A man whose skin is pale should not marry a woman whose skin is also pale, lest there emerge from them a child who is extremely pale…”

While we have somewhat of a different understanding of genetics, essentially this idea holds true. Diversity in the genome produces health, while homogeneity from too much inbreeding increases the expression of recessive features.

But this is not only true with physical traits; it is also true regarding emotional traits. While some people imagine marrying somebody just like them will be blissful, it could also lead to two people having the same blind spots. Two people who are financially impulsive can create a catastrophic situation. One parent who is stricter and another who is more lenient might make a better parenting partnership if they respect each other and hold each other accountable to balance out the other. This may work much better than two lenient parents or two strict parents; they lack diversity and might not create a system flexible enough to adjust to each child.

The most fundamental unit of humanity – and the model for all relationships – begins with a pair. Husband and wife, mother and father. Pairing offers many advantages: company and support, as well as the perspective of someone who knows you well enough but can also be more objective about matters when personal bias is powerful. This latter point is known in the psychological literature as complementarity, in which differences in style and perception create a more complete whole rather than serve as a source of frustration.

We all know this to be true, and there is no shortage of psychological books on how best to use these differences and bridge gaps in emotional language, affect, and cognitive style. Research has highlighted the benefits of complementarity, with one twist: The overall goal must be the same, even if the methods are different.

In one study, researchers found that, on the one hand, marital harmony does indeed depend on shared goals, and in that way, lack of congruence leads to dissatisfaction. However, once the goal is agreed upon, complementary and different self-regulation styles actually promote more success and satisfaction. In plain English, there are people who are more comfortable with risk, while others prefer security. To succeed in most goals, ranging broadly from parenting to investing, there needs to be a balance between risk-taking and caution. If the goal is shared, the means to accomplish it and the balance between risk and security can be dynamically adjusted based on the different perspectives that each person brings to the table. When one partner is being overly timid, the risk-taker can confront the other or take the lead in certain areas. Yet if the risk taker is over-exposing themselves to danger, the security-minded person can balance this out. That is why major financial decisions should be made as a team; if one partner sees an opportunity and the other a foolish risk, it needs to be sorted carefully with respect. Each person is doing their job, so to speak, but it is only a half-job if they do not allow for cross-influence.

This idea has implications for every aspect of relationships and parenting. First establish a degree of goal congruence so you are both able to aim in the same direction. Then notice how you each manage regulation of risk. As one example, one set of parents might have the same goal of raising a child who is not selfish; other parents might have a goal of promoting confidence; while a third set of parents may prioritize raising a child who pursues excellence. The primary goal of what the chinuch is supposed to accomplish should be decided on in harmony. After that, methods may vary greatly. One parent may be more afraid that the child will not feel cared for, and thus take a softer approach. Another parent may believe that the child must be challenged and held accountable. Many struggles happen on this continuum. It is important to first make sure that the goal is agreed upon; after that, there needs to be ongoing dialogue so that the vigilant party and the more risk-taking party can continuously work together in a complementary fashion.