The Talmud discusses if a less than religious Jew can give up his rights to the courtyard, allowing other Jews to carry items there on Shabbat.

מוּמָר וְגִילּוּי פָּנִים הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ מְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת. גִּילּוּי פָּנִים — מוּמָר הָוֵי?

An apostate or a brazen-faced person may not renounce his rights in favor of his neighbors. The Gemara wonders at the phrase brazen-faced. If he acts against Torah in a brazen manner,  is not he an apostate? Why are the two listed separately?

אֶלָּא: מוּמָר בְּגִילּוּי פָּנִים — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל רְשׁוּת, כְּמַאן כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

Rather, read the baraita as follows: A brazen-faced apostate, i.e., one who publicly displays his deviation from Torah, may not renounce his rights in favor of his neighbors.

The Gemara goes on to explain that a Jew who does not obey all of the laws, but is embarrassed and hides his errors, is still able to give up his rights, or even participate in the Eruv.  There is a useful concept in wisdom here: even when someone is making a mistake or disobeying you, if they are ashamed of that, the underlying relationship is still intact.  Everyone makes mistakes, but when someone doesn’t feel regret or embarrassment about hurting your feelings or acting against your interests, then that was not a mistake.

The Gemara continues bringing sources and clarifies that a Jew who desecrates Shabbat in public or engages in idolatry is no longer Jewish for the laws of Eruvin.  He is still Jewish, but is an apostate.  He can come back to the fold at any time, but right now cannot join in the Eruv.

When you are dealing with other people, break it down for them and clarify what is the minimum level you need from them.  Let them know your expectations.  If they can’t live up to your needs consistently, don’t invest your time and talent in working with them.

Jews study one section of the Bible, the five books of Moses, every week.  We gather to pray and read from a Torah scroll on Saturday, our Sabbath.  Every year we finish the last section and begin again from Genesis on the holiday of Simchat Torah.  It has been a full year since we discussed the first reading of the Bible.  It feels like a lifetime; those were simpler days. 

My prayer is that I not rely on my study from last year, but work to find new insights in our ancient wisdom that we can use now.  Times are changing, people are uncertain and anxious.  We can gain a lot of peace and practical advice by turning to the one book that has inspired and guided more people than any other in human history: the Jewish Bible.

You don’t have to believe in a Creator, or a creation.  Or that creation took seven days.  Those “days” were not necessarily 24 hours like our days, see Psalm 90:4.  Some rabbis point out that the sun, moon, and stars were not placed into their orbits until “day” 4. 

We are going to delve into the Bible to pull out wisdom we can put into practice today, no matter what you believe in. 

You don’t need to be Jewish or religious at all to improve your life.  Religion may be a motivation for personal growth, but it is not the only motivation.  There is actionable advice for every man in the Bible.

If, like conventional Jews, you do believe in an omnipotent God, a God who created time and space, then nothing is impossible.  God would be able to use methods that appear “natural” to establish creation, or make it look to us like He had.  Our sages explain (Talmud Chullin 60a) that God created animals fully grown, based on Genesis 2:1.  He could certainly create stars and planets that would appear fully grown.

If God can do anything, God can make the formation of stars and planets, the dawn of life and evolution happen in a way to appear random. 

As Arthur C Clarke put it “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.  The same is true for a sufficiently infinite deity.  In reality God is the force behind all physical forces, and is guiding the path of every single individual and species. 

Nothing is impossible with our God.  For you to benefit it doesn’t matter if you think it is true, as long at it works in practice.  I can say with certainty there is a lot of useful wisdom you can gain.

Naturally, most people are familiar with the basics of the creation narrative in Genesis.  God creates everything, from macro to micro, ending with humans.  Then God “rests” on the seventh day, establishing the Jewish Sabbath. 
Let’s take a step back and ask Who created God?

Jewish wisdom explains that God is infinite; everything finite was created, it exists in time and space for a while then it is gone.  God is beyond time and space, there was never a time without God.  God created time.  When our sages said this millennia ago it may have sounded absurd to the ancients.  Modern physicists now postulate that time is just another infinite dimension like space.  If you believe in a deity that had a starting time, that is not infinite but is finite…

We briefly mentioned the mechanics of creation when describing the concept of “Enlightened self interest“:

Before any creation, before time and space existed, there was only God.  God is outside of time and space.  God is not time-bound, as time is just another dimension of what He created.  Before Genesis, God was all there was.  Center of the universe?  There was no universe, only God.  But what did God do…?

God, to allow for the possibility of creation, first made what is called a “Tzimtzum” a withdrawal, a limitation of self.  This is not an actual withdrawal of anything physical, since God is not physical in any way.  In essence, what happened was that God hid Himself behind the created world, allowing the metaphysical space for humans to exercise (some) free will. 

The Hebrew word for World “Olam” is cognate to Hidden “Ne’elam”.  The existence of God was no longer obvious, making the creation of a universe with free will possible.  The Tzimtzum was so effective at hiding God that humans can even choose to rebel and deny God exists.  With Godliness cloaked, a universe with free will could be created.

There is much more to creation that this summary, but that is beyond our scope and my expertise.

Man and the universe – omega or alpha?

Let’s get into the text.  God creates light and darkness, heaven and earth, and then gets to plants and living creatures.  Man was very last (Gen 1:26).  Our sages state that man was created last to give us insight.  If a man acts properly, we tell him: “The entire world was created before you so that everything would be ready for you.” 

Man is the pinnacle of creation, and all other creations are for his service, as it says: “They shall rule over the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, over the animal, and the whole earth…” (1:26).  We have discussed how this idea can be a source of personal motivation.  However, if a man is unworthy or arrogant, he can recall that he was last in line for creation.

Our Rabbis taught: Adam was created on the eve of Shabbat, [the last of all created beings]. Why? So that if a person’s opinion of himself should become conceited, he would be reminded that the gnat preceded him in the order of Creation (Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 38a).

This is a reminder of the need for humility; a man who is not reaching his potential is no better than a bug.  This concept reminds us that men must work to become something better.  A man who does not strive to improve himself is not better than an animal running on instinct, and has no right to rule over the animals and eat them.  We discussed this idea regarding the slogan “meat is murder“.

Man and Woman

“And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (1:27).  Already in the first chapter of Genesis we see contradictions begging for our intellectual resolution.  The verse says “created him” in the male singular, then states “male and female created them”.  Which was it, the man first and then the woman, or both simultaneously?  To cloud the waters further, Genesis chapter 2 verse 21 tells us the male, Adam, was first and the female was later created out of his body!

Jewish sages asked these questions millennia ago.  Rest assured that whenever you notice something strange or beguiling in the Bible, Jewish sources have already wrestled with it.  Jews do not follow the Bible like computers running a script.  We are commanded by God to study and delve into the words, to identify what sounds contradictory and then resolve the problems, learning out laws and wisdom in the process.

The Talmud (aka Gemara), the major text of the Oral Law, offers a breathtaking explanation of the contradiction, based on ancient sources.  There is an opinion that Adam and Eve were created as one being, a woman’s body attached to the back of the man, facing backwards.  Later, God separated the female half from the male and made them into distinct bodies. 

Another take on Genesis is that Adam was created with an extra appendage, which was removed and shaped into Eve (Talmud, Eruvin 18).  The Gemara here does not say it was a rib, but various commentaries on Genesis 2:21-22 state that detail.

According to this interpretation, “male and female He created them” means God made a single being that was half male and half female.  While it would later become a man and a woman, it had the inherent potential for both genders.  The echoes what we know from human gestation.  For first six weeks a human embryo is neither male nor female, the development of gender specific biology has not yet begun. 

At around six weeks after conception, the Y chromosome activates and a male fetus experiences a flood of testosterone which primes his body and brain to grow into the male pattern.  In a female fetus, female hormones begin activity at the same time. 

It is no coincidence that in Jewish law an embryo is not recognized as a real pregnancy until 40 days after conception.  There are other reasons for that law, but if something is androgynous we can understand that it is not yet a potential human being as humans are gendered.

The verse 1:27 alludes to this dual state: we were originally a unified organism half male and half female.  Ever after birth, men normally have not only male but also female hormones at some level, and women have some testosterone.  There is variation of course, due to nature and nurture we see men who are more effeminate and women who are tomboys.  Some men could be even 40% female, due to their attributes, behaviors, and hormones.  We see more of this in recent decades as society has pushed men to be more effeminate.

Marriage, on the highest level, is meant to recreate the original dual state of humanity by bringing husband and wife together as one body (2:24).  With the right partner, we again become one unit which is half male and half female, with the abilities and aptitudes of both genders.  Of course, now this is two separate bodies coming together as one to accomplish to goal of creating a healthy family.

What is “Good”?

Now, you may ask: of no man is 100% masculine and no woman is 100% feminine, isn’t it good for men to embrace their female aspects and for women to use male attributes?  Is a good man the man “in touch” with his feminine side? 

“Good” can mean many things to many people.  Good is a container word. You put whatever you want in there.  Humans tend to define whatever they are personally doing as “good” and to define people they don’t agree with as “evil”.  The Nazis considered themselves and their mission as Good, and truly believed that their enemies were evil and subhuman.  “Good” is invoked to justify a lot of evil. 

So can we even define “good” if it depends on the beholder?

We have a concept in Jewish wisdom that to understand the true definition, we look at the first context in the Bible where that word is used. This gives us a deeper understanding of what that word means. God says over and over in the first chapter of Genesis that His work is “good”, first in 1:4.  So good could mean appreciating what you have accomplished, the results of your creativity.  Let’s go deeper.

Notably, on each day of creation God saw that it was good, except one.  God does not say good on the second day, but states it twice on the third day, 1:10 and 1:12.  This exception to the pattern is not a copyist’s error; every Torah scroll was copied from an existing scroll, going back to the original scrolls Moses wrote by God’s direct command.  There are no accidents in the Bible.  So what was not good on day two but then good on day three?

On the second day the process of separating the waters was not complete.  The firmament was made to separate the upper and lower waters (1:7), but they were still mixed together, not distinct and gathered into their places.  Only on day three, when they were noticeably separate, and the gathered water revealed dry land, was the situation truly good (1:9-10).  The different waters were each in their proper place, not in an undifferentiated mass.  The same applies to light and darkness, these were created mixed together and later split apart, attaining the label “good” (1:4).

Our ancient sages also explain that plants were created inside the ground, waiting to spring forth (2:5).  When they sprouted, that was also good, it clarified that the plants were not part of the ground, but were independent living entities.  Good also connotes things being in their proper place: the stars in their place, their orbits was called good (1:18).

Good, in the sense used in Genesis, means seeing different items as distinct, gaining clarity about the separate components that make up our reality.  Everything in it’s own place, not mixed in chaos, that is “good”.  Note that there was no evil yet.  Man had not yet eaten from that tree.  The original opposite of good is not evil but chaos, “irbuvia” in Hebrew, meaning mixed up.  Light mixed with darkness, upper waters mixed with lower, plants mixed with dirt.  When things are not distinct and clear, that is not good.

Balancing masculinity

So what if a man gets in touch with his feminine side and acts more like a woman?  He will then find the potential mates he attracts will act more like a man.  This is needed to fill the void in his masculinity, to restore the balance of their partnership to half male and half female.  A man who is more feminine will attract a woman who is more masculine.  If he doesn’t have the level of testosterone needed for the partnership to succeed, she will have to “man up” and take on those attributes. 

A man can also become less masculine during the relationship, causing the woman to feel that something is now missing.  The spark is gone – the manliness that had attracted her to him in the first place.  She may become assertive, a typical male trait, to balance his lack of male energy.  Modern mainstream society encourages women to take the lead and take charge. “You go girl!”  But this is not natural for feminine women and uncomfortable, and not a good role for her.

One of problems we see in modern mainstream society is that there is a lot of confusion as to what it means to be a man.  Boys are fed contradictory and manipulative ideas about how to become a man.  We have discussed that the natural ability of a man to take responsibility for his actions and his own family is hijacked in modern times to push men to unfairly take the burden and blame for others. 

Men are told to become more sensitive, more vulnerable, less assertive – to take on the behaviors traditionally associated with women.  This is sold to men as a way to be more appealing to women.  But as we pointed out, feminine women seek masculine men.  If a woman is already feminine, she doesn’t need a man who is also feminine, she needs someone different to complement and complete her.

Compounding the problem men face in modern society is that when they take on more feminine behaviors and attributes, the women in their lives must become more masculine to fill the void.  The men are pushed into a corner, they must become more passive and let the women run his life, or push back and assert himself, which is frowned upon in this culture.  Either way, this can destroy the life he has built up so far. 

The women in his life will lose interest for him as a man, since he is not acting like a man.  Instead he becomes more like a plow horse than a man, useful and reliable, but not attractive and stimulating.  She may start looking for a man who acts like a “real man”, while treating her husband as an androgynous wallet.  If the man pushes back and asserts himself, this may upset the women used to leading and getting their way.  This tension can be very frustrating for modern men.

However, men also hold the key to get out of this cycle.  You have the keys to your own prison.  The Talmud asks about this dual gender being, with the man facing one side and the woman the other, who walked forward? Our sages conclude that the man walked first, and notes that it is improper for a man to walk behind a woman, since this causes lust.  This shows us that the man must lead, and not be motivated by lust.  

When the man is not masculine and does not lead, then she steps into that role, causing chaos as no one is performing the roles they were meant for.  If both front and back try to walk forward, the partnership goes nowhere.  This hints that the impetus is on the man to change himself, become the leader, and that the woman will follow.

A man needs to become something, to go somewhere in his life.  This  is in the verse: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother…” (2:24).  Adam had no parents, this advice is for a man to strive to become something greater than he was as a child.  He must leave the comfort of home behind and forge himself into a better man before he is attractive to a woman.

Please return your thoughts to our discussion regarding defining “good”.  Recall that good in Genesis means the clarity of each component in the proper place, differentiated from other items. It means seeing reality for what it is, without confusion and chaos.

Humanity may have been created as a male-female amalgamation, but this was not our ultimate purpose.  Only by being split into our component genders could we achieve good.  Men being masculine and women being feminine, both combining their unique skills and aptitudes for the good of the family and the world.  We must be separate and distinct to be “good” in the Biblical sense.  Only then can man and woman come together into a successful family.

The desire dynamic

I wrote about the original sin a year ago, focusing on the concept of boundaries in relationships.  This year we should mention the fallout from that event.  When Eve is cursed for her mistake, God says something very juicy: “and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you” (3:16).

Some of our ancient Rabbis understand this verse to hint that a woman’s desire for a man is usually subtle, compared to the man’s desire which is seen openly. The Ramban (Nachmanides, a major figure in Jewish thought who lived about 900 years ago) wrote that this verse means she will have sexual desire for her man even though she will later suffer the pain of pregnancy and birth.  She will have desire without regard for the consequences of acting on her desire.  This was part of the curse, as before the sin there was no pain with pregnancy and birth.  This approach gives us insight into how modern society’s approach to sex is wildly different than in prior generations.

When a woman desires you for intimacy, she may be subtle but she will let you know.  Look for signs of interest so you know when to pursue a woman and when you are wasting your time and energy.  However, since modern culture and hormonal birth control has decoupled sex and pregnancy, a woman’s expression of desire usually signifies that she merely wants sex.  There is desire without regard for consequences because she feels there are no consequences. 

The highest level of a woman’s desire for you is when she wants your baby inside her.  She wants you enough to go through the pain and put in the time and effort to have and raise your child.  That is something more permanent than intimacy.  She has the desire despite the consequences.

The danger here is that a woman telling you she wants your baby is incredibly flattering to a man.  If this comes from a woman who has not yet had children and realizes she is approaching an age where it will be difficult or impossible to conceive without medical assistance, you need to be very careful.  Does she want your baby because of who you are, or just a baby to fulfill her biological imperative, and you are convenient and reliable?  This requires serious reflection. 

Lamech, who married two wives (Gen 4:19), illustrates the power of a woman’s need for a baby.  We noted that the wife supposedly on birth control also became pregnant.  This is a powerful biological imperative that women are blessed with.

“Because you listened to the voice of your woman”

After the sin, God takes all the guilty parties to task: the snake, the woman, and Adam.  To the latter God says “Because you listened to the voice of your woman and ate of the tree about which I commanded you…”

Notice that the Bible says “to the voice of…” instead of merely “to your wife”.  This may imply that she was pleading, begging, or angry and commanding.  (Some commentaries add that she was not only angry but physically beat Adam with a branch to get him to eat).  In any event, she was surely very emotional, realizing that she had just committed an epic sin and was now facing the fallout alone.

Adam’s listening to her voice implies he listened and obeyed to fulfill her emotional needs, as expressed in the tone of her voice.  He put human emotion over Divine command.  That was the core of his problem.  God demands our loyalty, even when that is difficult.  Married men know there is nothing more difficult to deal with than an extremely emotional woman.  Be it sad, anxious, angry, obsequious, there is an extra emotional intensity to women. 

Again, this is how women are created by the Creator.  It is both a problem to work with and a helpful feature of the female psyche.  She needs to be emotional to get the energy to protect her family, her offspring.  Because women are naturally more emotional and men more intellectual, we complement one another.

It is interesting to note that in Jewish wisdom we say that the man should listen to the advice of his wife about physical things, but not about spiritual pursuits.  Since men are more intellectual and women more emotional, we may have assumed the opposite.  However, Jewish spiritual pursuits demand significant intelligence and dedication.  Talmud Bava Metzia 59:

ואמר רב כל ההולך בעצת אשתו נופל בגיהנם שנאמר (מלכים א כא, כה) רק לא היה כאחאב וגו’ א”ל רב פפא לאביי והא אמרי אינשי איתתך גוצא גחין ותלחוש לה לא קשיא הא במילי דעלמא והא במילי דביתא לישנא אחרינא הא במילי דשמיא והא במילי דעלמא

And Rav says: Nevertheless, anyone who follows the counsel of his wife descends into Gehinnom (Hell), as it is stated: “But there was none like Ahab, who did give himself over to do that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, whom Jezebel his wife incited” (I Kings 21:25).  

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But don’t people say a proverb: If your wife is short, stoop and whisper to her to consult with her?  The Gemara answers: This is not contradictory, as this statement of Rav instructs that one not follow her counsel in general matters; and that proverb instructs that one follow her in household matters. The Gemara presents another version: This statement of Rav to not follow her counsel is in divine matters; and that proverb maintains that one should follow her counsel is regarding general physical matters.

While the act of eating is itself physical, the tree of knowledge of good and evil is clearly a spiritual device.  It could be that Adam was willing to listen to Eve because he downplayed the spiritual consequences of this physical act of eating.  If the question was merely what to have for lunch, he could justify the mistake of listening to her.

I have heard the Talmud above restated like this: in a marriage, the husband makes the spiritual decisions and the wife the physical decisions.  Based on this division of authority, you can see exactly how spiritual the family is:  If the husband is making more decisions then the family must see more parts of life as having spiritual consequences.  If the wife is running the show, most of their life is merely physical.  An illustration of this concept was when my own local rabbi needed new couches.  His wife suggested certain couches.  Then rabbi then chose different couches, since their primary purpose was to make guests comfortable.  Hosting guests is a high level spiritual activity.

This concept of split authority with husband and wife complementing one another is critically important for a healthy marriage.  Men and women are different and have differing aptitudes.  The genders work best together, complementing one another, rather than trying to emulate the other and becoming androgynous. 

A man should not try to control every aspect of the household, but to realize what is critical for his growth and success and make sure he has those areas locked down.  Realizing that women are naturally different with their own talents and attributes helps you to share decision making.  Gentlemen, may we be blessed to exercise proper authority and to make more of our life spiritual.

The Talmud explains a situation where there are two connected courtyards, and the inner one has access to the street through the outer.  The residents of both can join into one Eruv (everyone contributes food which is placed in one home) to allow carrying in both yards on Shabbat.

However, if one resident forgets to contribute, his yard is forbidden, until he gives up his rights in that yard.  If they placed the Eruv (the food) in a house in the inner yard, and the resident left out was in the outer yard, the sages say the inner yard is still permitted.  The reason is that the residents of the inner yard can say “לְתַקּוֹנֵי שַׁיתַּפְתִּיךְ, וְלָא לְעַוּוֹתֵי” we joined with you only to improve our situation, not damage it.

This is a serious statement that in certain circumstances you may need to make.  You can’t join forces with anyone and everyone, you must be discerning.  When someone else’s actions start to damage your own rights or your personal mission, close the door on them for now.

Today we bring a case where they wanted to bring hot water from Rava’s courtyard to the neighboring yard to wash a baby after his circumcision. According to the medical knowledge of that time it was necessary for the health of the baby to wash him in hot water.

Rava said he would give up his property rights in his yard, allowing the neighbors to move the water, and he would stay in the back rooms of his house so he wouldn’t forget and carry into his yard.  They asked Rava why he didn’t have the neighbors give back his property rights after they had moved the water.  He explained that technically he could but he didn’t want the rabbinical laws to look like a joke to others.

This shows the importance of sticking with your path once you make your choice.  If you change your mind or waver, others will not take your decisions seriously.

We explore the case of a residential area with one courtyard inside an outer courtyard.  The men in the inner must pass through the outer to get to the public street.  For everyone to be able to carry on Shabbat, the residents of both courtyards need to join in the Eruv.  If someone in the outer yard forgot to join, the men in the inner yard can still carry in there, since they could close the door between themselves and the outer space.

We have an echo of this concept in the modern slogan “a lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part”.  This is an important concept to remember and internalize.  Many people will try to make their own mistakes into your problem.  Don’t let them.  Don’t be the nice guy who bails others out, you are just incentivizing them to continue their pattern.

The corollary to this is that if it really is your problem, you do need to deal with it.  In the Eruv case, if someone in your own courtyard did not join, you have a problem.  Now, you could get out of this by having the residents give over their property rights to one man, but it is not ideal.

Today the Gemara mentions that Rav Chisda and Rav Sheshet would learn together and that each had tremendous respect for the other’s intellectual abilities:

When Rav Chisda and Rav Sheishet would meet each other, Rav Chisda’s lips would shake from Rav Sheishet’s vast knowledge of Mishnayot and Rav Sheishet’s entire body would shake from Rav Chisda’s analytical skills.

They were opposites – one had a broad knowledge and the other could go deep into the intellectual analysis.  The could attain new insights in wisdom and resolve issues in Jewish law only because they were not the same but were different in a complimentary way.  When you are finding a partner for learning, business, or life, don’t look for someone similar to you, but someone who complements you in the areas you are deficient in.  You must know yourself first because you try to understand someone else and how that person fits into your life.

The Talmud continues examining the rules of making an Eruv in a location with multiple owners, or one owner who rents to others.  There was a case where three rabbis stayed at an inn, and the innkeeper returned on the Sabbath itself.  They were not sure if they could rent the property rights from the innkeeper on the Sabbath, and two of the three agreed to do so.  After Shabbat they asked Rabbi Yochanan if they had acted properly, and he confirmed that they had.

Tomorrow we clarify that if the doubt is in biblical law, we must resolve the issue before acting.  For a rabbinical ordinance we can act first and then check and resolve the doubts.

The lesson here is to double check your work with a man who has more experience.  Hammering this point home, the Gemara compares  Rabbi Yochanan’s allowance with other laws stated by  Rabbi Yochanan and a statement of Shmuel.  When you have conflicting views about your plans, check with men you know are authorities in your field, and see if their advice conflicts with other experts.

The Talmud continues discussing intoxication and brings an amazing statement from Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah:

יכול אני לפטור את כל העולם כולו מן הדין מיום שחרב בית המקדש ועד עכשיו שנאמר לכן שמעי נא זאת ענייה ושכורת ולא מיין

I can make an argument that exempts the entire world from judgment, from the day that the Temple was destroyed until now. As it is stated: “Therefore, hear now this, you afflicted and drunken, but not from wine” (Isaiah 51:21); this teaches that in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, all Jews are considered intoxicated, and not responsible for any sins they commit.

Understand that the Temple in Jerusalem gave ancient Jews a solid framework for life.  Without the Temple, and with Jewish people scattered among idolaters, they were influenced by other frameworks. This is why restoring the Temple to Jewish hands was the key victory in the Chanukah war.  But the Gemara objects:

מיתיבי שיכור מקחו מקח וממכרו ממכר עבר עבירה שיש בה מיתה ממיתין אותו מלקות מלקין אותו כללו של דבר הרי הוא כפיקח לכל דבריו אלא שפטור מן התפלה

One who is intoxicated, his acquisition is a binding acquisition; (he cannot retract the transaction when sober), and his sale is a binding sale. If he committed a transgression for which he is liable to receive the death penalty, he is executed; if by lashes, he is flogged. He is like a sober person in all matters, except that he is exempt from prayer.

Therefore, even if the people of Israel are considered “drunk”, they are legally responsible for their actions.  The Talmud concludes that Rabbi Elazar meant we are not responsible for our prayers without proper intent, but we are indeed responsible for sins.

Even being in a foreign environment where idolatrous practice dominated public life is no excuse for not following the Bible.  A man must be aware of the outside influences on him, and if they are harmful he must go his own way to counter their influence and continue on the right path.  Even a drunk man is responsible for his actions, after all, he put each cup into his mouth.  There is an exception:

אמר רבי חנינא לא שנו אלא שלא הגיע לשכרותו של לוט אבל הגיע לשכרותו של לוט פטור מכולם:

Rabbi Ḥanina said: They taught that an intoxicated person is responsible for all his actions only in a case where he did not reach the state of intoxication of Lot; but if he reached the state of intoxication of Lot, he is exempt from all liability.

Lot famously committed incest with his daughters while very drunk (Genesis 19:30-38).  The daughters, seeing Sodom, Gomorrah, and the neighboring cities wiped out assumed the entire world had been destroyed, like in the time of Noah.  They gave wine to and seduced their father with the intention to continue the human race.  Lot was so drunk he did not recognize his daughters, though he is faulted for drinking again the second night, since he realized after the fact what had happened on the first night.

A practical lesson here is to be cautious about associating with men who get blackout drunk. In such a state they may well do extremely embarrassing things that you won’t want to be around. When they sober up, they may blame you for letting them go so far.

The Talmud also brings this gem:

אמרה ליה ברתיה דרב חסדא לרב חסדא לא בעי מר מינם פורתא אמר לה השתא אתו יומי דאריכי וקטיני ונינום טובא

Rav Ḥisda’s daughter said to her father, Rav Ḥisda, who would spend his nights in study: Doesn’t the Master wish to sleep a little? He said to her: Days that are long, but short will soon arrive, and we will sleep a lot.

Rav Hisda meant that he will not have an opportunity to accomplish when he dies.  This is the origin of the quip:  I’ll sleep when I’m in the grave

The Talmud continues discussing Jews sharing a courtyard with an idolater, suggesting that the Jews relinquish their rights in the yard to one Jew and rely on his rights.  They will make an Eruv as a reminder, even though it is not needed, and announce this.  The Gemara objects to this plan אַכְרָזְתָּא לְדַרְדְּקֵי?!   The children growing up in the yard will see people carrying and making an Eruv and not realize the explanation behind this.

Much of what we do what as adults is because of patterns we saw as children.  Oftentimes we do not even understand why we continue these patterns even when they are dysfunctional.  For some of us, our relationships are influenced by our experiences with our parents at a very young age, before we could possibly understand what was going on.  Our ancient sages caution us to make sure our behaviors are appropriate without an accompanying explanation.  Children are watching and learning from adults long before they begin to understand any rationalizations the adults provide for their behaviors.

When you can serve as a role model for proper behaviors and healthy relationships without the need to explain and justify yourself to others, you know you are succeeding.

Today’s learning discusses intoxication, and brings a wonderful observation:

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.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If one drank a quarter-log of wine (3.8 fl. oz. or 112 ml), he may not issue a legal ruling, as the wine is liable to confuse his thinking.  Rav Naḥman said: This law is not excellent, as for myself, as long as I have not drunk a quarter-log of wine, my mind is not clear.

This reminds us that there are always outliers to any generalization. That fact does not destroy the generalization.  You can use certainly employ statistics and majorities to understand life even when there are individuals who do not fit the mold.

Also, people love to cast themselves as an outlier even when they are not.  Whenever you make a generalization about women, know that some woman will come forward to say she is not like that, based on her personal sample size of 1.  Fine, even if she is right that does not disprove your generalization.  Self identifying as the outlier can be dangerous to your self awareness and objectivity.  A man may tell himself: “sure, most of the time when a man marries a single mother and adopts her out of control kids it becomes a disaster for him…but I am an outlier, strong and confident and besides, she really loves me…”

Rav Nahman also reminds us that you should be aware of how to manage your own physical, intellectual, and emotional states.  If you actually need a drink to get moving, drink.  What gets you motivated and functioning efficiently is not the same as what helps the other guy.  When you have a good day or a clear mind, reflect on this and analyze why.  Break it down and find the factors that improve your success.

Our learning today, on Simhat Torah, is a major source for the vital concept of respecting your teacher.  A student, even if he himself is an accomplished sage, may not issue even a simple a legal decision in the presence of his Rabbi.  This was a grave infraction that could bring death at the hand of heaven.

This concept is reminiscent of Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power, in which Rule #1 is never outshine the master.  Greene takes the approach that you should flatter your master and disguise your own strengths.  That may be valid in politics, but it is not the same as the philosophy of our sages.  Our respect for the Rabbis is based on our concept of “Mesorah”: our Law is handed down from the prior generation, going back to Moses.  The older generation is closer to the Divine revelation at Sinai, and due to that is assumed to have more clarity and authority regarding the Law.  However, if the Rabbi (or a boy’s father) was making a mistake in Law, the student or son was expected to politely remind him of the verse or scripture that would show the master to be wrong.  We don’t want our leaders to make mistakes, this brings disgrace to them and by extension to all of us.

Our Talmud also teaches that the student should take immediate action even in front of the teacher to stop a man from transgression, since there is no greater honor than that due to God.  Indeed, the respect for the Rabbi is due to the master’s connection with God.

The Gemara brings a statement that Joshua was punished for his request that Moses deal with Eldad and Meidad so they would stop prophesying (Numbers 11:28).  Eldad and Meidad were prophesying that Moses would die and Joshua would bring the Jews into Israel.  Joshua objected to this, due to his devotion to Moses.  Joshua never wanted to outshine Moses, not due to Greene’s advice, but his own humility.

The Talmud notes another factor in Joshua’s punishment: when Joshua led the siege against Jericho he brought out the Holy Ark to the siege.  When the Ark was out of place, the Jewish people were not permitted to engage in sexual intimacy.  Because he prevented husband and wife from living together for one night, Joshua never had sons (he did have daughters with Rachav, Talmud Megillah 14b).

On this theme, the Talmud brings:

Interfering in another couple’s private life is a grave mistake, even when they would not have been physically intimate. Conventional Judaism reminds us of the importance of a couple’s intimate life and the tremendous respect needed for their privacy.