Bava Basra 49
Our Gemara on amud beis describes a legal process of rejecting a pending inheritance or acquisition:
With regard to an inheritance that comes to a person from another place, i.e., an inheritance one will receive in the future, a person can make a condition about it from the outset that he will not inherit it, since one can waive his future rights to property that is not currently his.
Sod Yesharim (First Night of Pesach 46) discusses this legality in a metaphysical realm. One cannot control thoughts that might come to him, yet he can choose to dwell on them or he can shift focus. Furthermore, he says, if one starts the day asking G-d to help him have proper thoughts and avoid evil thoughts, this matters spiritually, even if later he has an inappropriate thought or state of mind. The reason is that at least he is declaring in advance that he does not wish to “acquire it,” similar to the legal ruling of our Gemara. Sod Yesharim then references a remarkable aggadah (Avodah Zarah 20a-b), which I believe reflects a sophisticated psychological approach to thoughts deemed unwanted and unacceptable:
The Gemara raises an objection from a baraisa: There was an incident involving Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who was on a step on the Temple Mount, and he saw a certain gentile woman who was exceptionally beautiful and said: “How great are Your works, O L-rd!” (Psalms 104:24). And Rabbi Akiva too, when he saw the wife of the wicked Turnus Rufus, he spat, laughed, and cried. He spat, as she was created from a putrid drop; he laughed, as he foresaw that she was destined to convert and he would marry her; he cried, as this beauty would ultimately be consumed by dirt.
And how would Rav explain the incident involving Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who praised the beauty of a gentile? The Gemara answers: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was giving thanks to G-d for creating such beautiful people rather than praising the gentile herself. As the Master said: One who sees beautiful or otherwise outstanding creatures recites: ‘Blessed be He, Who has created such in His world.’
But is it permitted to gaze upon a woman? The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. The verse states: “And you shall keep yourself from every evil thing” (Deuteronomy 23:10). This teaches that a person should not gaze upon a beautiful woman, even if she is unmarried, and a person should not gaze upon a married woman, even if she is ugly. And a person should not gaze upon the colored garments of a woman; and a person should not gaze at a male donkey, at a female donkey, at a pig, at a sow, or at fowl, when they are mating; and even if one were full of eyes like the Angel of Death and saw from every direction, it is not permitted to look. The Gemara answers: Rabban Gamliel did not intentionally look at the woman; rather, he was walking around a corner and he saw her unexpectedly as they each turned.
The paradox of unwanted thoughts is that by trying not to think them, we are automatically reinforcing them. Thoughts are electrical impulses in the nervous system. If one directs energy, even angry or impatient energy, toward not thinking them, it also directs energy to that neural pattern, thereby reinforcing it. Consider this thought experiment: What is the best way to overcome an irrational fear? Is it to think, “I must not be afraid. It is foolish to be afraid,” or is it to accept that there is fear, and fearful events, and to gently redirect thought and focus elsewhere? The latter is a superior method, as the key is to gently redirect thoughts instead of going about it impatiently or with shame and self-contempt. This is because all that energy reinforces the neural network of fear by focusing on it.
Notice how Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamilel and Rabbi Akiva acknowledged to themselves the attractiveness of the women they encountered. Yes, as the Gemara says, they did not seek the encounter nor did they dwell on it. At the same time, they accepted the reality of the thought and the truth of it, then they let go and moved on, not through denial but acceptance of their full range of natural thoughts and feelings.
Fear And True Consent
Bava Basra 50
Our Gemara on this daf continued to discuss the legal implications of a psychological phenomenon that a woman is more likely to dodge the truth and fib out of a wish to please her husband, and perhaps a fear his reaction if she did object. This is based on a Mishna (Gittin 55b):
If one first purchased from the husband the rights to use a field belonging to his wife, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the wife, so that if the husband were to predecease or divorce her, the purchaser would then own it fully, his purchase is void. The woman can claim that she did not wish to quarrel with her husband and to object to the transaction, but that in truth she did not agree to the sale. By contrast, if he first acquired the field from the wife, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the husband, his purchase stands. This is because since she agreed first, it seemed to be a genuine act and not out of fear of reprisal.
While in some ways, female and male patterns of behavior have changed in modern times, it is important to respect that there are also patterns of behavior that remain typically and statistically feminine or masculine for many people. These patterns need to be respected and not ignored. Men and women have different tendencies and emotional defenses.
Often, when men are frustrated, they turn to aggression. When women are frustrated, they may turn to more passive forms of aggression. This is not always true, but it is a pattern of masculine and feminine behavior. Thus, if a woman feels angry or trapped, she is less likely to respond with aggression and more likely to take covert action, such as lying.
The idea that women under pressure are more prone to evade the truth is not a criticism. It is an observation that the Sages had, most likely coming from compassionately taking into account the fact that women are more likely to feel physically overwhelmed and threatened, and tend to react less aggressively than men do in a similar situation. This has to, in some way, affect how one behaves. It is just as much the man who contributes to the pattern as the woman, but nevertheless, it is a pattern that is important to recognize in a realistic manner.
In fact, it is described within the Torah both in regard to Sarah outright lying out of fear (Bereishis 18:15), and Rivka engaging in subterfuge and manipulation of Yitzchak in pursuit of obtaining a blessing for Yaakov (see the beginning of Bereishis 27). Rivka also hid the real reason that Yaakov had to run away (Esau’s murderous rage) by making it about shidduchim (see the end of Bereishis chapter 27 and the beginning of 28). It is notable that there is not much commentary from the Sages on their behavior, even though typically when a Patriarch or Matriarch is described by the Torah as sinning, it is mitigated with contextual explanations and justifications, such as by Reuven or Dovid HaMelech (see Shabbos 55b-56a). Yet when it comes to Sarah’s or Rivka’s behavior, we are mostly met with silence. I believe the reason is that it does not require justification; it is simply the way between men and women.
There are practical relational applications to this principle. As the person in the relationship who naturally tends to more aggression, it is incumbent upon the man to check and double-check if his wife truly agrees to something or is just feeling intimidated. Rabbi Shlomo Hoffman (Sichos al Shidduchim V’Shalom Bayis, pp. 147-148) tells over that one erev Yom Kippur, Rav Isaac Sher did not let him daven at the yeshiva because he said, “You did not get permission from your wife.” Rav Hoffman objected, “But I did ask her, and she said yes.” Rabbi Sher said, “That’s not mechila! Any good wife would say yes under those circumstances! You need to ask her with real options, such as, ‘Should I go daven at yeshiva, or maybe I’ll daven vasikin and then I’ll watch the children while you go daven.” Rabbi Sher did not let him daven at the yeshiva, Rabbi Hoffman writes, until he traveled back home and obtained “real permission.”
