The Psychology Of Intuition And Rashi

Bava Basra 78

Our Gemara on amud aleph describes a certain saddle used for women, known as a kumni, which presumably functioned in a manner that allowed a woman to ride side-saddle and more modestly.

This brings to mind the famous Rashi (Shemos 28:4) that describes the form of the Ephod. The Ephod was one of the garments that the high priest wore, composed of cloth and had the breastplate attached to it. Apparently, there is no explicit teaching about what this item of clothing looked like. Rashi describes it as similar to a riding apron worn by women of his time. One can imagine the function of an apron-shaped garment to preserve the modesty of the woman rider, without her having to wear pants. How Rashi comes to this idea is significant.

He introduces his thought and description of this vestment by saying, “Though I have not heard a teaching or tradition that describes this garment, my heart tells me it is shaped as follows…” Rashi is reporting that he had an intuition and insight into the Ephod’s shape, based on having seen a woman’s riding apron.

Rashi’s experience is reminiscent of a number of great thinkers and scientists who described their breakthroughs as coming from imaginative visions. For example, Dimitri Mendalev is said to have first seen the Periodic Table in a dream, and August Kekule saw the benzene molecule in a daytime reverie, while Einstein described himself as imagining riding a light wave.

But there is a second time that Rashi uses the phrase, “My heart tells me” in his discussion in Shemos. The second usage is perplexing. He says, “My heart tells me it is an article of clothing based on the following verses…” If Rashi had proof texts that it is a kind of garment, and indeed if you look up his sources, they are compelling, why then did he say “my heart tells me?” This second example seems unrelated to intuition, as he had ample proof.

To answer this, we must study the phenomenon of intuition. We can define intuition as a process by which the symbolic part of the mind discerns a pattern or meaning in totality, without a linear step-by-step deduction. Our consciousness is divided between things we isolate by intense focus and scrutiny versus background noise. Consider the example of a party where there is a cacophony of noises and conversations which your ears hear, but your mind only processes deeply what your friend is telling you. Still, all of the sudden, if someone mentions your name across the room, your ears perk up. A less conscious part of your mind must have been sorting out and listening to all the noises, and it only flagged the noise of relevance – when your name was said. Since this part of the mind is crunching much larger amounts of data, it has to rely on a different mechanism than scrutinizing each stimulus in detail. It must rely on some kind of data sampling method, which lacks precision but gains breadth to allow for filling in the blanks with suppositions.

So too, even with ideas, a part of the mind may have grasped a pattern but your conscious thought might only notice it via a symbolic image, thought, or feeling. We all have had the feeling that we are being followed, even though we do not have eyes in the back of our heads. Somehow, a collection of subtle cues (echoes, shadows, reflections, or the way in which local animals slink, vegetation rustles, or even an uncanny quiet) signal to us that something is off, just beneath our conscious perception.

Similarly, everyone instantly knows that a circle cannot be a square, though it might take time to construct a logical proof that this is so. What is happening cognitively? Apparently, there must be enough general data to strongly support the truth of this, but there is not enough linear step-by-step proof. The mind uses general points to identify the overall pattern.

This is also why we can understand G-d through what’s known as Via Negativa. It’s a way to understand G-d by focusing on what G-d is not, rather than what G-d is. We can never understand what G-d really is, but we can understand what He is not. We know He is not physical, not weak, not unwise, not uncompassionate. When we do say He is wise or compassionate, those are inaccurate, borrowed human terms. If G-d were compassionate, He would then be subject to physical bounds, as something (His emotions) would influence Him. Only physical objects change, which makes them subject to time and entropy and having a beginning and an end. Even to say G-d is mighty or wise is not accurate, because wise means to “know something” or to be strong “means to contain a certain power.” But if it is something to have or to contain, then it is a quantity, and therefore physical and not infinite. G-d’s wisdom and power is infinite, so calling Him wise or powerful is not anything like human wisdom or strength. (All this is explained in Rambam’s Yesode HaTorah, chapter one.) Yet by knowing what G-d is not, we get an intuitive understanding of what He is, just as we know about the square and the circle, even though we did not fully connect the dots.

This is how intuition works. Without fully worked-out logic, the quick and general processor in your mind picks up a pattern which then becomes subject for possible rational analysis. Now we can understand Rashi’s choice of words for his second assertion. True, he found a prooftext that the Ephod was an article of clothing, just as Einstein ultimately did the math to prove his intuition, but Rashi realized that the inspiration to notice those verses and the ability to link them together to prove the point came from his intuition.

 

To Know, You Must Let Go

Bava Basra 80

Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses the sale of pigeons produced from a dove coop: The buyer must leave the first pair of doves from the brood for the seller. The reason that an extra pair of doves must be left behind is to ensure that the first brood will not fly away. The Gemara also rules that the buyer must also leave a second pair from the brood of the children.

The Gemara questions this logic: If the reason is that she is attached to her daughter and the mate which one leaves for her, this should also be true with regard to the daughter, i.e., she too will become attached to her mother and the mate which one leaves for her. Why then, is it necessary to leave behind a pair of the daughter’s own brood to ensure that the daughter will not leave?

The Gemara answers: A mother is attached to her daughter, whereas a daughter is not attached to her mother. Therefore, in order for the daughter to remain in the dovecote, it is necessary to leave the daughter’s brood with her.

This brings to mind the Yiddish adage that a Jewish mother can take care of ten children, but ten children cannot take care of one mother. Despite the adage, it is the nature of the world. As children grow up, they become less attached, but their parents still remain more attached. It is also reflected in the verse (Bereishis 2:24): “Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.”

We have seen many times how the relationship of husband and wife is a symbolic representation of the emanations and patterns of how G-d and Man relate. Tikkune Zohar 92a, using this verse, says: Just as during intimacy there should be no physical barriers, literally clothes, and metaphorically any emotional distance, so too there should be no barriers when praying to G-d. This is symbolically represented in the halacha that one should pray the Amidah by a wall, with nothing else in between.

Chassidic thought takes this even further. The “father” represents chochma – raw knowledge, truths, and facts. Just as the father provides the tiny seed, which contains everything in the microscopic point, so too there is a pure simple truth from which everything emanates. The “mother” is bina – understanding and inference. Just as the mother takes the seed and grows it into a child, so too understanding takes raw knowledge and truth, and uses reasoning to apply the knowledge. However, to fully know and transcend human limits, there needs to be an integration of both aspects, which can only come by letting go of holding onto either truth too rigidly.

We can come to godly knowledge by integrating truth and understanding, and then letting those two go enough to see beyond the veil of physicality and reality. Consequently, the verse reads as follows: “Therefore a man will let go of his grip on blunt truth and his grip on his ability to infer, and make the intuitive leap to become one, and attach to G-d.” (See Likutei Halachos, Yoreh Deah, Laws of Shaving 4:7. This fits well with our description of intuition that we discussed above on daf 78.)