כללי הוראה ב. מחלוקת

MISHNA: Yosei ben Yo’ezer says not to place one’s hands on offerings before slaughtering them on a Festival because this is considered performing labor with an animal on a Festival. His colleague, Yosef ben Yoḥanan, says to place them; Yehoshua ben Peraḥya says not to place them; Nitai HaArbeli says to place them; Yehuda ben Tabbai says not to place them; Shimon ben Shataḥ says to place them; Shemaya says to place them; Avtalyon says not to place them. Hillel and Menaḥem did not disagree with regard to this issue. Menaḥem departed from his post, and Shammai entered in his stead. Shammai says not to place them; Hillel says to place them. The first members of each pair served as Nasi, and their counterparts served as deputy Nasi.

The third is that in the case of a rebellious elder whom his court sought to forgive for his deviation from their ruling, they can forgive him. And when I came to my colleagues in the South, with regard to two of the cases they agreed with me, but with regard to a rebellious elder they did not agree with me, so that discord would not proliferate in Israel. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Kahana. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: Initially, discord would not proliferate among Israel. Rather, the court of seventy-one judges would sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. And there were two additional courts each consisting of twenty-three judges; one would convene at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and one would convene at the entrance to the Temple courtyard. And all the other courts consisting of twenty-three judges would convene in all cities inhabited by the Jewish people.

And when he died, peace be upon him – since he bequeathed to Yehoshua that which was imbued to him of the explanation – Yehoshua and the people of his generation applied their wisdom and their thought to [the received Torah]. And everything that he received from Moshe – he or any of the elders – there is nothing to say about it; and no disagreement arose about it. And whoever did not hear an explanation from the mouth of the prophet, peace be upon him, about matters that derive from them, extrapolated laws by propositions from the thirteen [exegetical] principles through which the Torah is expounded, which were given at Mount Sinai. And among those laws that they derived, there are some things wherein no disagreement arose, but [rather] they agreed about them. And there were among them [those] wherein disagreements between two opinions did arise – this one says like this, and that one says like that; this one reasons according to his reasoning and becomes more sure of his opinion, and that one reasons according to his reasoning and becomes more sure of his opinion; as principles of analysis that are by way of argumentation will result in such a result.

But one who would think that the laws about which they disagree are likewise transmitted from the mouth of Moshe and they think that a disagreement occurred by way of a mistake in the laws or because one of them received the true transmission and the other made a mistake in his transmission or he forgot or he did not hear from his teacher everything he was supposed to hear – and bring [as] a proof about this, that which they said (Sanhedrin 88b), "From when the students of Shammai and Hillel – who did not serve all that was required of them – multiplied, disagreement grew in Israel and the Torah was made to be like two Torahs"; this thing is very repugnant. And these are the words of one who has no intellect and does not have the fundamental principles in his hand and who disfigures the people from which the commandments were transmitted; and all of this is emptiness and naught. And what brought him to believe this faulty belief is his lack of cognition of the words of the sages that are found in the Talmud. As they found that all of the explanation that is transmitted from the mouth of Moshe is true, but they did not [take cognizance] of the difference between the transmitted fundamentals and the topical extensions that [the sages] extrapolated by investigation.

The Gemara adds: And Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya also commenced his lecture and taught: It is written: “The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails well fastened are those that are composed in collections; they are given from one shepherd” (Ecclesiastes 12:11). Why are matters of Torah compared to a goad? To tell you that just as this goad directs the cow to her furrow to bring forth sustenance for life to the world, so too the words of Torah direct those who study them from the paths of death to the paths of life. The Gemara asks: If so, derive the following from that same analogy: Just as this goad is movable and not rigid, so too matters of Torah are movable in accordance with circumstance and are not permanent. Therefore, the verse states: “Nails,” which are permanent.

It is stated further (Chagigah, Ibid): "'the people of the gatherings' (Koheleth 12:11) — these are the Torah scholars, who sit in groups and study Torah. These pronounce unclean and these pronounce clean; these pronounce unfit and these pronounce fit; these pronounce forbidden and these pronounce permitted. Lest you say, this being the case … how can I study Torah from now on [in the face of this variance in the rulings of the Torah scholars]? Scripture tells us that they were all (Ibid) 'given by one shepherd.' All the words of Torah were stated by one leader [Moses] from the mouth of the Omnipotent One, as it is written (Exodus 20:1): 'And G-d spoke all of these words, saying…'" They expound the word "all" as implying that even the words of those who did not attain to the truth were stated to Moses at Sinai. Now this, indeed, must be understood. How can it be said that other rulings in a halachic dispute were stated to Moses by the Omnipotent One! Shammai says (Iddyoth 1:2) that the requirement of chalah begins from a kav; Hillel says that it begins from two kavim. Only one of these can be true; the other must be untrue. How can it be said, then, that something untrue issued forth from the mouth of the Omnipotent One? The understanding is as follows: All of the Torah — both the written and the oral — was given to Moses on Sinai, as our sages have stated (Megillah 19b): "R. Chiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yochanan: 'From the verse (Deuteronomy 9:10) "…and upon them according to all the words…" we infer that the Holy One Blessed Be He showed Moses all of the Torah's deductions and all of the scribes' deductions and what the scribes were destined to originate, namely, the reading of the Megillah.'" "The scribes' deductions" are the disputes and differences of view among the Torah scholars — and all of them were taught to Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him, by the Omnipotent One without the decision for each specific dispute. But he was given a guiding principle for the ascertainment of the truth, namely (Exodus 23:2): "After the multitude to incline [judgment]," and also (Deuteronomy 17:11): "Do not turn aside from the thing that they tell you." And when disputes multiplied among the sages, if it were a case of one against many, the halachah was established according to the majority. If it were a case of many against many or one against one, the decision was according to the view of the sages of that generation, this decision having already been relegated to them, as it is written (Ibid 9): "And you shall come to the priests, the Levites, or to the judge that shall be in those days." Similarly, "Do not turn aside…" We see, then, that permission was given to the sages of the generations to rule on the disputes of the sages according to their own view, even if their predecessors were greater and more numerous than they. And we have been commanded to abide by their consensus whether it corresponds to the truth or is at variance with it.

§ Apropos the topic of verbal mistreatment, we learned in a mishna there (Kelim 5:10): If one cut an earthenware oven widthwise into segments, and placed sand between each and every segment, Rabbi Eliezer deems it ritually pure. Because of the sand, its legal status is not that of a complete vessel, and therefore it is not susceptible to ritual impurity. And the Rabbis deem it ritually impure, as it is functionally a complete oven.

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.

And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number.

The sayings of the Lord are pure sayings. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: The Scripture established two or three expressions and did not utter anything improper. As it is said, "Of the clean animal, and of the animal that is not clean" (Genesis 7:8). Rabbi Tanchum said: The Holy One, blessed be He, spoke two expressions to you and they are pure. To whom did He give the tribe of Levi? To the one of whom it is written, "And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver" (Malachi 3:3). And which is the section that deals with the dead? The one that begins, "Speak unto the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say unto them" (Leviticus 21:1). Rabbi Yannai said: The words of the Torah were given in concise language, but for every matter that the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke to Moses, He would speak from two aspects: one clean and one unclean. He said before Him, "Master of the Universe, until when will we stand for the purification of the law?" He replied, "After the majority, incline." The majority of the judges who rule that the unclean is unclean, and the clean is clean. Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: Rabbi Akiba had an advanced disciple who would render the unclean unclean with one expression, and the clean clean with one expression. So too did Rabbi Meir have a disciple named Sumchus, who would render the unclean unclean with one expression, and would then render it clean with one expression, as it is said, "He is pressed, he is seven times refined" (Psalms 12:7). Rabbi Joshua said in the name of Rabbi Levi: In the days of David, even infants knew how to expound the Torah in two aspects, as it is written in Psalm 7. (source: Sotah 42a, translation adapted from sefaria.org)

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits are decided,” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, if the Torah had been given decided, no foot could stand. What is the reason? The Eternal spoke to Moses. He said before Him: Master of the Universe, inform me what is the practice. He told him, to bend after the majority. If there was a majority for acquitting, they acquitted; if there was a majority for convicting, they convicted; so that the Torah could be explained in 49 ways impure and 49 ways pure, the numerical value of ודגלו. And so it says: the commands of the Eternal are pure sayings; molten silver in an earthenware crucible, refined sevenfold. And it says, the straightforward love You.