Walks of Life

Some things just never change. When someone joins a weight loss group, some people ask, “Can’t you just diet by yourself?” When someone sees a nutritionist, some people ask, “Can’t you just eat healthy?” The presumption of these questions is that a weight loss group or a nutritionist just facilitate something you can do on your own. Of course, a nutritionist would vehemently disagree. However, supposing they indeed only provided moral support in one’s quest to be healthy. Wouldn’t that suffice? It is an aspect of human nature that people often tend to be lax in issues relating to their health. Any possible advantage we can gain to overcome this should be implemented. This is nothing new. Even two thousand years ago, people needed extra encouragement to follow healthy practices.

The Gemara in Bava Metzia discusses what material possessions should be left with a debtor when collecting a loan. (There is a disagreement among the Rishonim as to the precise circumstances the Gemara is referring to.) A beraisa (113b) states that a debtor must be left with two beds. The Gemara questions why an individual needs two beds. The Gemara explains that one bed was used for eating (people used to recline while eating), and one bed was for sleeping. Why was it necessary to have two beds? Couldn’t he use the same bed for eating and sleeping? The Gemara quotes a statement from Shmuel attesting to the fact that sleeping immediately after eating without even taking a walk of a few steps can be extremely detrimental to one’s health.

Rashi explains that one positions the sleeping bed four amos (six to eight feet) from the bed on which he eats. This will ensure that he walks at least this far after eating before sleeping. Yet seemingly the same question can still be raised. Why can’t the debtor use the same bed for eating and sleeping? To overcome the relevant health issue, the debtor should simply get up after eating, take a short walk, and return to the same bed to sleep. The creditor should have a right to take the extra bed. It’s not a necessity. It’s a luxury! It seems that the debtor would personally rather take a meaningful walk from one bed to the other, instead of simply encircling his only bed. That’s a personal preference! Rashi seems to answer this by saying, “This will condition him to get up and walk…” Of course you could always tell a person he needs to exercise. How many doctors have told their patients that they need to exercise? Yet how many actually do?

We could tell the debtor, “Don’t fall asleep! Get up and walk around!” Yet we all know that after a nice, good meal, he most likely will be too sleepy to get up. After all, this is where he sleeps anyway. The next time he eats, he’ll be sure to walk around before sleeping. But it’s always the next time. The solution therefore is to leave the debtor with two beds. He’ll be forced to get up before sleeping (assuming he wants to sleep in the bed where he usually sleeps). Humans always need various ploys to get them to follow healthy habits. Chazal considered this particular ploy not a luxury, but a necessity.

It is interesting that a few pages earlier the Gemara also discusses what would seem to be a meaningless walk. The Gemara notes that Rebbe Yochanon is of the opinion that it is not considered advantageous to live close to a shul. Rebbe Yochanon said the further away one lives from a shul, the more reward he will get for all the steps he takes in walking to shul. Rashi explains that Rebbe Yochanon came to this conclusion by witnessing the actions of a widow. One day, Rebbe Yochanon saw her davening in his neighborhood. He asked her, “Isn’t there a shul in your neighborhood?” She replied, “But isn’t there a reward for the additional steps?”

The Mishna Berura cites this as practical halacha. If one has a choice of two shuls to daven in, one should daven in the farther shul. The Divrei Malkiel is incredulous. What point is there to daven at a shul simply because it’s farther away? It’s meaningless! He, therefore, limits the application of the Gemara.

However, the Chaya Adam and the Mishna Berura understand the Gemara simply. One should daven in a shul simply because it is farther away. The Maharal explains that this is unique to a shul. There is no mitzvah to find a sukkah that is farther away. The Divine Presence rests in a shul. The purpose of prayer is to develop a relationship with Hashem. The effort expended traveling to shul will make the relationship all the more meaningful. Of course, one can develop a relationship with Hashem through other mitzvos as well. But there is something unique and special that occurs when speaking to Hashem directly in a place where His Shechina rests.

The Betzeil HaChachma takes this one step further. Even if one intentionally lengthens his route to the very same shul he was anyway attending, he will also get increased reward. However, see Piskei Teshuvos (OC 90 footnote 212) that others disagree. They reason that the increased reward is only if one chooses a further shul to daven in, not if one simply meaninglessly increases his route.

On a practical level, this halacha is often not relevant. People may have a makom kavua in the closer shul. Perhaps, in the closer shul, one will be on time for davening. Some suggest that davening in a farther shul is inappropriate if it detracts from his learning time. However, all things being equal, the Mishna Berura feels one should daven in the farther shul. Anyway, as noted above, we could all use the exercise.