Menachos – Daf 104
In our Gemara on amud aleph, we find Rav Bevai excusing himself from a particular Torah analytic discussion due to his stress over his basic food security. He drew a reference to a Biblical prophetic curse: “And you shall have no assurance of your life” (Devarim 28:66); this is referring to one who relies on the baker (hapalter) to give him bread because he has no grain of his own.
Rav Yisrael Salanter (Ohr Yisroel, Kochvei Ohr, 11) raised a contradiction from the Gemara Yoma (76a) which states: “The students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai asked him: ‘Why didn’t the manna fall for the Jewish people just once a year to take care of all their needs, instead of coming down every day?’ He said to them: ‘I will give you a parable. To what does this matter compare? To a king of flesh and blood who has only one son. He granted him an allowance for food once a year and the son greeted his father only once a year, when it was time for him to receive his allowance. So, he arose and granted him his food every day, and his son visited him every day. So too, in the case of the Jewish people, someone who had four or five children would be worried and say: Perhaps the manna will not fall tomorrow and we will all die of starvation. Consequently, everyone directed their hearts to their Father in heaven every day. The manna that fell each day was sufficient only for that day, so that all of the Jewish people would pray to G-d for food for the next day.’”
According to our Gemara and the Biblical prophecies, the inability to know from one day to the next is a curse, yet according to the Gemara Yoma, that same scarcity was a blessing! How is this possible?
Rav Salanter explains that it is all a matter of how you take it. When a person is suffering from lack of faith, the lack of food security will distract and disturb him. If he has faith, it will cause him to rely even more on G-d and his faith will be strengthened as he receives Divine sustenance. The same experience can be a curse or a blessing.
(Rav Salanter does not mention our Gemara and I wonder how he would interpret Rav Bevai’s attitude. Possibly he felt Rav Bevai, on his level, was indeed being honest and self-rebuking for his anxiety.)
This idea that blessing and curse are from the same source is consistent with the following Gemara Sukkah (52a) about the end times: “In the future, at the end of days, G-d will bring the evil inclination and slaughter it in the presence of the righteous and in the presence of the wicked. For the righteous, the evil inclination appears to them as a high mountain, and for the wicked, it appears to them as a mere strand of hair. These weep and those weep. The righteous weep and say: How were we able to overcome so high a mountain? And the wicked weep and say: How were we unable to overcome this strand of hair? And even the Holy One, Blessed be He, will wonder with them, as it is stated with regard to the eulogy: ‘So says the Lord of hosts: “If it be wondrous in the eyes of the remnant of this people in those days, it should also be wondrous in My eyes” (Zechariah 8:6).’”
This idea is also expressed in the verse in Hoshea (14:10): “For the paths of G-d are straight; The righteous walk on them, while sinners stumble on them.”
Why is this so? I believe the answer is that G-d only does good, so evil comes from a misuse or distortion of the experience or opportunities G-d provides. This is the pattern of the Divine flow, which is constant. What changes and fluctuates is how well equipped we are to receive and take advantage of it.
Equal But Not the Same
Daf 105
Our Gemara on amud aleph considers the case of a person who states: “It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering” but did not specify which kind. According to Rabbi Yehuda, he must bring the Mincha of fine flour.
The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yehuda’s position. At first, they consider that it might be due to the fact that the fine flour offering is mentioned first in the Torah. However, they reject that line of reasoning because when it comes to other sacrifices, the ones mentioned first in the verse are not assumed as the default. For example, one who says, “It is incumbent upon me to bring an Olah sacrifice,” but does not specify which animal, brings a lamb, even though the first mentioned animal is a bullock.
The takeaway from this discussion is that precedence in the verse does not always indicate importance.
Yet sometimes, order in the verse does indicate importance. For example, Gemara Berachos (41a) rules that in regard to blessings of the Seven Species of produce from the land of Israel, we recite the blessing first on wheat, then barley, then wine, and so on, as per the order of the verse in Devarim (8:8).
Sefer Daf al Daf brings an answer that the distinction lies in the context. Since the verse regarding the produce of Israel is specifically praising the land for its benefits, logic dictates that the benefits are stated in order of value. (That is different than a Torah listing of sacrifices which may use other criteria for the order, such as frequency of use, which might actually give preference to the less expensive, less important sacrifice.)
Sefer Daf al Daf quotes a question that was asked of the Gri”z MiBrisk: “How can we derive importance from the order of a verse, since in the end, it had to be written in some order and [the items] could not have been written at the same time?”
The Gri”z answered that this is not so, as when the Torah needs to clarify that an order does not signify importance, it finds a way of clarifying it. For example, the verse that names Aharon before Moshe does so to show that they were equal. (See Rashi on Shemos 6:26 based on Mechilta.) This is interesting in the sense that we must then assume that the default position on life is that there is hierarchy and usually two items are not equal, and thus that we can, from the context, derive meaning from a listed order. However, in the rare event that the items listed are equal, the Torah will find a way to clarify that.
(By the way, my answer to the aforementioned question is that perhaps two things could indeed be mentioned simultaneously if they are in fact equal. For example, when it comes to Shabbos, we have Zachor and Shamor stated at the same time (see Rosh Hashanah 27a).
Regarding the teaching about Aharon being equal to Moshe, it presents some difficulty. After all, are we not taught that Moshe was the greatest prophet of all time as per principle seven of Rambam’s Thirteen Principles of Faith and the verse in Devarim (34:10)?
Maskil LeDovid (Shemos 6:26) offers two answers: Either this equality was only initially, and then concomitant with the receiving of the Torah, Moshe leaped to the highest level that anyone will achieve, before or after. Or, the equality is in reference to piety and deeds, but not to the degree of prophecy.
This second answer is interesting because it shows that prophecy is dependent not just on piety but other factors, which may be G-d’s unfathomable will or perhaps powers of intellect and imagination, as described by Ramban in the Guide for the Perplexed (II:45).
Ha’amek Davar (Shemos 6:28) says that Aharon and Moshe were equal but separate. Moshe provided for the Jewish people in terms of prophecy. However, Aharon’s power of prayer and ability to bring Divine flow were equally valuable and distinctive. This corresponds to Aharon being chosen as Kohen Gadol and possibly also his trait of chasing after peace (Avos 1:12).
The Vow Doth Protest Too Much
Daf 106
Our Gemara on amud beis discusses a situation where someone pledges a smaller item but then brings a larger item. Is that considered a fulfillment of the pledge, or is it a different pledge and thus he still must bring his original sacrifice since he has not kept his word.
If one said: “It is incumbent upon me to bring a small bull,” and he brought a large bull instead, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the value of a small bull is included in the value of a large bull. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: “He has not fulfilled his obligation, as the offering that he brought did not correspond to his vow.”
The idea that too much is not good enough is an important theme that manifests in halacha and in psychological dimensions of life. Rav Breuer, who was a leader of the Yekke German community known for its precision and punctuality, is famous for having remarked to someone who showed up early for a meeting: “Early is also not on time.”
In halacha we find principles, such as kol hamosif goreya – that one who adds on to a mitzvah what is not commanded detracts from the fulfillment of the mitzvah (Sanhedrin 29a) – or kol yeser ke-natul – that any addition is considered as if it is missing. This comes up in the laws of t’reifos. For example, a missing hind leg renders the animal unkosher as a t’reifah. So too, an animal with three hind legs is also a t’reifah. Presumably, the additional hind leg causes as much dysfunction and is as disruptive to the animal’s health as a missing hind leg (see Chullin 58b).
As we have remarked many times, G-d designed nature, Torah, and psychology, so often similar dynamics apply. Psychologically, people who overcommit often end up under-performing. This is due to many factors. The obvious one is that since it was an overcommitment, the person did not have the true capacity to deliver. Perhaps guilt, impulsivity, or poor self-awareness fed the overcommitment and thus the project was set up for failure. Even worse, if the person has perfectionistic tendencies that motivated the over-pledging, then the frustration in noticing that he cannot fulfill the pledge fully could lead to despair and avoidance of fulfilling it altogether!
The more subtle point is an ego defense known as Reaction Formation. That is when a person is conflicted and feels that he should conform to an internal or external expectation, but deep down, does not want to. In order to fight the inner conflict, he overshoots by making an unrealistic (for him) emphatic declaration that he will absolutely do it. What is really going on is that he is externalizing an internal unacknowledged battle. In the words of Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” This is also related to the adage of the Sages, “The righteous say little and do much, whereas the wicked say much and do not do even a little” (Bava Metzia 87a).
I’ll conclude with a real-life practical application. I commute between Florida and New York weekly because I have offices in both locations. I am therefore dependent on flights being on time and have become attuned to the inflection and tonality of the pilot. When the pilot announces something such as “We have a slight maintenance issue and after we file the paperwork we should be getting out with only a small delay,” his tone and inflection make a difference. If he is overly confident and cheerful, then I get worried and start looking for alternate backup flights. If he says it matter-of-factly, usually it is only a minor delay. Similarly, when you are in the exam room and the assistant says, “The doctor will be right with you,” that means a moderate delay, since after all, if the doctor was really coming right away, why announce his arrival like the Messiah and Elijah on the white donkey? If the assistant announces in an overly cheerful and emphatic voice, “The doctor will be right with you,” then you know that he’s stuck in traffic, still in surgery, arguing with his ex-wife, or who knows what – but for sure he is not coming right away.