Daf Yomi, Marriage Counseling, Psychotherapy, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Torah and Psychology
Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses a case where a person pledges to bring two bullocks and they became invalidated. If he offers in their place one big bullock, even if the value of the big one is equal to the two, Rabbi Yose says he has not fulfilled the requirements of his vow. Rashi comments that two are considered more significant than one, even if the single one is equal in actual value to the two small ones.
Rav Yosef Engel, who had an ingenious talent of comparing diverse sugyos in Shas and finding common themes, labeled this as the concept of ribuy hakamus neged eichus — quality versus quantity in Torah measures (Lekach Tov 15.) His encyclopedic knowledge of Torah allowed him to explore this idea in surprising and creative ways, jumping from halacha to Midrash to mussar. For example, he applies this idea to the famous debate about whether it is preferable to violate one severe prohibition one time, instead of a less severe prohibition several times. Such as, if a person is suffering from a life-threatening illness and must eat fresh meat on Shabbos. Should he eat unkosher meat, thereby transgressing the kosher laws with each kzayis, or should a Jew violate the Shabbos to slaughter and cook a fresh slab of prime kosher steak? Shabbos is a more severe prohibition but it will be violated only once versus eating non-kosher food with every kzayis.
In a different way, he compares it to the famous Rambam in Avos (3:15) that many actions of Mitzvos have more influence on character than one big action. Giving $1 a thousand times is better than giving one gift of a thousand dollars, as the latter deeply embeds the trait of generosity. Likewise, Rav Engel quotes the Sefer Hachinuch (561) who notes that though the Egyptians enslaved us for years, the Amonites and the Moabites earned the distinction of never being allowed to marry into the Jewish people, while an Egyptian convert can marry into the Jewish people at the third generation. Why is this? He says, one despicable grave act is worse than many terrible small acts. The Amonites, who did not provide water and bread to beleaguered, exhausted refugees, and Moabites who hired Bilaam to curse them, exhibited such lack of humanity, that they must be distanced forever.
And finally, one other interesting example cited by Rav Engel. Avraham’s rationale for identifying Sarah as his sister, and not his wife, was “surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.” (Bereishis 20:12.) Some ask, why were the Egyptians so concerned about violating adultery that they would murder Avraham to possess Sarah, but not be concerned about murder? Rav Engel argues that they too employed a certain lomdus: it is better to commit one big sin (murder), than to repeatedly commit adultery.
That is clever, however I believe there is a pashut peshat answer. The immoral Egyptians that Avraham feared, cared no more about adultery than murder. The reason to kill in order to possess his wife instead of just kidnapping her is because if you leave the husband alive you must contend with the possibility that he will avenge and free her. Indeed that is exactly what Avraham did successfully when Lot was taken captive (Bereishis 14:14.)
sponsored by Empowermentaftertrauma.com
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