Continuing our study of the Gemara’s approach to contradictory statements, let us review the dispute between Ben Nanes and the Sages. If there is a discrepancy in the statements of a seller, where their first clause indicates approximation, and the second clause indicates specificity, or vice versa, Ben Nanes holds that we follow his last statement and the Sages hold that we choose the more conservative meaning within the contradiction. That is to say, we presume a meaning that incurs less liability to the person who already has the established presumption ownership.
There are times when we get angry and say things that are hurtful and wish we can take them back. Even when we apologize, our spouses will be likely to say, “In your anger, when you were less inhibited and guarded, you showed your true colors! This is what you really think of me.” Oh, would it only be that our spouses Talmudically agreed with Ben Nanes, while unfortunately, they seem to follow the opinion of the sages!
When people are angry, indeed they are less inhibited and can say hurtful things. There must be a degree of truth to what is being said, otherwise it would not be said. However, when people are angry they also want to hurt the other person, which means that not all of it has to be true. In addition, positive and loving statements said at other times may be no less true. There is a basic biological process that is hardwired in our brains to attach more weight, validity and significance to negative statements than to positive statements. This is because the organism stands more to lose by ignoring a potential threat than by ignoring a potential benefit. Think about it, if one suspects they are about to be attacked by a murderer, even if it is just a suspicion, there is potentially a high penalty to be paid by ignoring the threat. If, on the other hand, you suspect that someone is about to give you a million dollars, if you ignore it, there is no damage other than a lost opportunity. Therefore, our minds are automatically hardwired to give more credence to negativity and this is why bad news travels so much faster than good news. This is also why we tend to believe insults more than we believe compliments.
There is another mental process as well going on based on research regarding emotional stimuli, the visual cortex, and Trauma. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5222876/) It seems that there are multiple paths from your optic nerve to the brain. When something is not emotionally stimulating, or not seen as an immediate threat, what is seen goes through the visual cortex and is processed. The visual cortex is the primary cortical region of the brain that receives, integrates, and processes visual information relayed from the retinas. However, if something is emotionally stimulating, possibly reminding someone of a past trauma or danger, the brain takes a shortcut and goes straight to the amygdala.
This can easily be understood from a survival mechanism point of view. That is, if someone sees a crooked brown object out of the corner of their eye in the woods, there is little time to discern whether it is a snake or just a stick. Therefore, in this case, the amygdala goes into overdrive and skips visual processing to allow quick reaction to a possible danger. The person will jump up rapidly to get away from the snake, even if in the end it doesn't turn out to be a snake. On the other hand, if there's less emotional stimulation and less threat perceived, there is a bit more time to analyze what is being seen before your eyes and it goes through the visual cortex.
This is important in understanding trauma, because often people are triggered by things that they perceive as threats, due to past experiences. This leads to an immediate mental shortcut without having conscious introspection. It is useful to know this and to work on developing mindfulness in order to discern between friend or foe, snake or stick. This can lead to less contentiousness in relationships with people.
Applying this to insults, if a person is feeling threatened and angry, rationally or not, they will perceive their spouse as an enemy. We don’t only say the truth to enemies, we also try to wound enemies. Therefore, the insulting remark may not be as true as the person feels it is.
We even see this somehow manifested in how humans are to perceive how God relates to us at times. As it states in Berachos (7a):
God becomes angry, as it is stated: “God vindicates the righteous, God is furious every day” (Psalms 7:12).
How much time does His anger last? God’s anger lasts a moment. And how long is a moment? One fifty-eight thousand, eight hundred and eighty-eighth of an hour, that is a moment. The Gemara adds: And no creature can precisely determine that moment when God becomes angry, except for Balaam the wicked, about whom it is written: “He who knows the knowledge of the Most High” (Numbers 24:16).
This should not be understood to mean that Balaam was a full-fledged prophet. Now, clearly, Balaam did not know the mind of his animal; and he did know the mind of the Most High? If he could not understand the rebuke of his donkey, he was certainly unable to understand the mind of the Most High.
Rather, this verse from Numbers teaches that Balaam was able to precisely determine the hour that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is angry. At that moment, Balaam would utter his curse and, through God’s anger, it would be fulfilled.
So God can also seem to react differently when He is angry.
None of this helps too much at the moment, but it is useful for people to keep this in mind in general. In relationships, hurtful statements said in the throes of anger have a context and are not utterly true.
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?)