Our Gemara on this daf discusses the difficulties of exile for those who committed involuntary manslaughter and that they cannot return home until the Cohen Gadol dies. Sefer Daf al Daf brings down a question from Rav Chaim Kanievsky: What really was this great hardship? We have learned that the family goes with the person if they choose to do so, and then even the person’s rebbe is compelled to join him. What creature comforts is he actually missing out on?
Rav Chaim remarks on the irrational but incredible power of this aspect of human nature. The moment we are not allowed to do something, that is when we desire it most. The ir miklat might well have been a tropical paradise, but if a person felt forced to stay, it became excruciating. Rav Chaim also referenced the Biblical story of Shim’i ben Gera’s demise. It came time to finally pay him back for his perfidious actions, and Dovid Hamelech, on his deathbed, cryptically advises his son Shlomo to “do with him according to your wisdom that he does not go down to the grave as a white-haired old man” (I Kings 2:8). It was not wise to openly assassinate such a politically powerful person. Even though the monarch technically had great powers, there still was the effect of the sentiment of the people. For example, there was a moment where King Shaul was contemplating executing his son Yehonasan for having violated the ban on eating and drinking, but the indignation of the people and their sense that it would be unfair to take that action against a war hero overrode his objections (I Shmuel 14:45). Here too, Shim’i might have done despicable things, but he apparently also had a following amongst the people. In any case, Shlomo apparently hatches a plan to let Shim’i live so long as he does not leave the boundaries of Jerusalem. It only took three years for him to bust from frustration and finally violate the ban, thereby bringing death upon himself (ibid 36-44).
Rav Chaim quotes the Gemara Yerushalmi (Yoma 6:4): “The evil inclination only desires that which is forbidden.”
It is interesting that the Yerushalmi creates its own idiom when we have a verse in Mishle (9:17) that states:
“Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten furtively is tasty.”
Is there a difference between these two expressions? I think so, although they operate similarly. The issue with stolen waters is more about the pleasure of rebellion and engaging in something illicit. In a certain way, it is an enactment of the Oedipal Complex—that is, the son unconsciously wanting to vanquish his father and have his mother all to himself. It is the anti-authoritarian troublemaker that seeks competence by undermining and outwitting. However, the idiom in the Yerushalmi fits situations where one has a fear of loss of control, such as not having enough food or, in our case, not being able to leave a certain location. It’s not so much about rebellion and the pleasure of undermining authority; it’s more about needing to have a sense of security and control. The former is considerably more pathological when enacted on a rebellious level, while the latter is a basic function of human nature.
While we desire the forbidden, the degree and frequency by which we allow that to manage our behaviors become a matter of pathology. However, that we dread things being forbidden from us—that is, the loss of control when something we value is now being taken away or restricted—is a broader and more adaptive natural human trait.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation
Free resource for couples/families:
Over 80 lectures on heathy communication, marriage and sexuality from a Torah perspective Click here
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, LMFT, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com