Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses a leadership and governance practice that is alien to modern thinking. As with many ideas and wisdoms in the Gemara, there is no pretense of political correctness — instead, it presents a hierarchical, though generally benevolent, perspective on society.
The Gemara discusses the following rabbinic practice:
When the Sages decreed a decree in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they would not reveal the reason behind it until twelve months had passed, lest there be a person who does not agree with it and will come to treat it with contempt.
In other words, a little knowledge is dangerous. The belief was that if people knew the specific reasons for the enactment, they might lack the nuance or perspective to appreciate its importance, and would therefore minimize its applicability. On the other hand, if they did not know the precise reasoning, they would be more trusting and deferential.
This kind of mentality runs counter to our modern sensibilities about transparency and information sharing between government and the governed. Today’s psychological belief is that if people understand the rationale for a rule — whether students in a school, children in a family, or citizens in a society — they are more likely to buy in and internalize it.
There is logic and experience to justify such an approach in a society steeped in individualism and independence. Most people do not take well to being asked to “take one for the team,” not because it isn’t theoretically a morally just idea, but because they don’t trust their leaders. The abuse of misinformation during COVID — especially the pretense that side effects were so rare as to be nonexistent, and the dismissal of a lab-origin hypothesis as a conspiracy theory — is only one recent example of shattered trust.
Although anecdotal, a number of chassidic clients have shared with me their belief that there is a stronger tendency for a chosid who leaves his community to go totally OTD, compared to a yeshivishe counterpart who becomes secular. The reason stated is that since they are not taught to psychologically or halachically differentiate between a custom held sacred or taboo and a Halacha in Shulchan Aruch, breaking with a mode of dress or other modesty custom feels the same as eating a cheeseburger or violating Shabbos. The litvishe counterpart, by contrast, might go too heavy on the rationalizations, perhaps feeling that looking at a phone on Shabbos or taking sexual liberties are “only derabanan.” Still, the legalism allows them to maintain some self-perception of observance which contributes to continued observance of a sort..
The rabbis of the Talmud apparently felt that the first year required experiential adoption of the rules, with less analysis or give-and-take. After that period, if the population accepted the practice (see our discussion on Avodah Zarah 33), more information could be disclosed. Like many aspects of Torah, there is sensibility and balance, without rigid allegiance to one political mindset or the other.
For example, the Torah generally respects autonomy and allows capitalism and market forces to promote economic well-being. Yet, when it comes to major assets such as real estate, the fear that eventually the everyday man will lose his birthright to a small group of wealthy barons is addressed through the return of ancestral property to the tribe every Yovel year. Similarly, restrictions on usury and loan forgiveness in the shemitta year serve as wealth resets. These are socialistic features within a generally capitalistic system.
So too, the Rabbis believed (at least for their times and perhaps ours as well — though that remains unknown) that certain rules needed to be introduced out of trust and acceptance of authority, to see if their desired effect could be realized. Indeed, this has been effective with certain kiruv approaches, where the emphasis is on immersion in the system rather than logical persuasion. Live Shabbos or daven the tefillos before analyzing their purpose, because only within the totality can their meaning be appreciated. So it is with many Torah ideas: They generally prove reasonable and offer both subjective and objective benefits, but trying to understand the “why” before the “what” often misses the insight that comes from firsthand experience.
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