In our Gemara on Amud Aleph, we explore a question regarding the status of a Canaanite slave who sustains injuries inflicted by his master. If these injuries affect an organ such as an eye, tooth, or other limb, the slave is automatically freed. However, the Gemara delves into a nuanced discussion regarding whether an injury to the slave's ear or eye caused by the master making a loud and frightening noise is considered a direct injury, which would result in the slave's freedom:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הִכָּהוּ עַל עֵינוֹ וְסִמְּאָהּ, עַל אׇזְנוֹ וְחֵרְשָׁהּ – עֶבֶד יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לְחֵירוּת. נֶגֶד עֵינוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה, כְּנֶגֶד אׇזְנוֹ וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ – אֵין עֶבֶד יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לְחֵירוּת. אָמַר רַב שֶׁמֶן לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לְמֵימְרָא דְּקָלָא לָאוּם הוּא?
The Sages, in a Baraisa, taught that if a slave owner struck his slave on the eye, causing blindness, or on the ear, resulting in deafness, the slave is emancipated due to these injuries. However, if the master struck near the eye, causing impaired vision, or near the ear, leading to partial hearing loss, the slave is not emancipated by these injuries. Rav Shemen questioned Rav Ashi: Does this imply that a loud sound causing damage is inconsequential?
וְהָתָנֵי רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל: תַּרְנְגוֹל שֶׁהוֹשִׁיט רֹאשׁוֹ לַאֲוִיר כְּלִי זְכוּכִית, וְתָקַע בּוֹ וּשְׁבָרוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, אָמְרִי בֵּי רַב: סוּס שֶׁצָּנַף וַחֲמוֹר שֶׁנָּעַר, וְשָׁבְרוּ כֵּלִים בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת – מְשַׁלְּמִים חֲצִי נֶזֶק.
However, Rami bar Yeḥezkel taught in a Baraisa that in the case of a rooster sticking its head into the airspace of a glass vessel, crowing into it, and causing the noise to break the vessel, the owner must fully compensate for the damage, much like a standard case of damage. Furthermore, Rav Yosef mentioned the view of the Sages in Rav's study hall: In the case of a horse neighing or a donkey braying, causing them to break vessels in the house, their owners must pay for half of the damage. While these examples differ in terms of payment responsibility, they illustrate that sound can indeed be a source of liability for damages.
The Gemara refutes this proof by stating that humans are unique. Due to their intellectual capacity, the fear generated by a frightening noise is attributed to the individual himself. In other words, it is not the physical sound that directly causes harm, but rather the subjective fear experienced by the person, which does not result directly from the action.
This aspect of human cognition and response to threat, is supported by the famous research conducted by LeDoux (1990) and Pasley et al. (2004), which involves functional brain imaging. Their work has shed light on how the brain processes danger through two distinct pathways often referred to as the "high road" and the "low road." These pathways provide insight into how trauma affects the brain and influences how trauma survivors react to perceived threats and triggers.
The "high road" represents the default brain process, where visual information is routed through the neocortex before reaching the amygdala. This allows for sophisticated, analytical interpretation of perceived threats before the more primitive, instinctive parts of the amygdala come into play. The amygdala is responsible for triggering survival instincts, and interestingly, the amygdala in humans closely resembles that of a lizard. Humans, however, possess an additional layer of brain material, the neocortex, responsible for higher-order thinking.
In contrast, there are moments when the neocortex is bypassed, and information is sent directly to the amygdala. This occurs when a threat or potential threat is perceived, and the brain takes a "low road" shortcut, instantly activating the amygdala immediately. This rapid response, often seen as "fight or flight," is highly effective for survival, as even a fraction of a second can make a difference in avoiding danger. When the neocortex is bypassed and information goes directly to the amygdala, we can understand the verse in Koheles (3:19) states, “וּמוֹתַ֨ר הָאָדָ֤ם מִן־הַבְּהֵמָה֙ אָ֔יִן כִּ֥י הַכֹּ֖ל הָֽבֶל׃ man has no superiority over beast, since both amount to nothing. If a person sees out of the corner of his eye something that looks like a snake, the organism from past experience will not waste an extra microsecond trying to distinguish between a stick or a snake. The person will immediately jump out of the way. This confers an edge in terms of survival, as an extra 100th of a second makes a difference in terms of evading a snakebite, However, since the neocortex is not being recruited to analyze this data, the shortcut is also sloppy and can mistake a stick for a snake.
This system can be maladaptive in non-emergent situation. For instance, a combat veteran may react to minor provocations, like someone cutting them off in traffic, with rage and aggression. In a combat context, such reactions can be life-saving, but they are disruptive and counterproductive in non-combat situations. This explains why survivors of interpersonal violence and abuse might struggle to maintain composure, especially during conflicts and disputes. Such individuals may react with extreme emotions or violence to situations that others perceive as benign or ordinary interpersonal challenges.
Trauma treatment and mindfulness practices play a crucial role in gradually retraining these neural pathways. Anger, fear and intrusive memories need to be processed to allow the person to adjust and respond without extreme emotional reactions. This approach fosters healing and resilience for those who have experienced trauma, offering them the opportunity to navigate life's challenges with greater emotional stability and understanding.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)