Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: Machlokes Means Building Consensus, Not Argument

The old joke is, "How does a talmud scholar scratch his left ear?"  It's a visual joke, so you now have to imagine extending one's right arm over his head and scratching the left ear with the right hand.  Ha ha ha.

The root cause of jokes like this is, of course, that anyone reading the gemara sees nothing but a mish mash of disconnected thoughts.  Classic example near the end of Bava Kama.  The topic is clarifying the intent of the Torah in requiring a thief to return the stolen property.  The mishna on 103a clearly states that the thief has fulfilled his obligation as along as his victim forgives the loss (not just the crime, but actually tells the thief that he needn't return the stolen goods nor their value).  The mishna on 108b, however, clearly says that the thief must get the stolen goods out of his pocket -- even if the victim has died and the thief is the sole heir, as discussed previously.  Both of those mishnayos are "stam" -- stated anonymously.  Pretty clear contradiction, but no suspects as to who holds these contrary opinions, nor why.

The gemara finally finds source that discusses the issue on 109a, the case of gezel ha'ger; as discussed here.  To refresh your memory, in that case the ger converts the theft to a loan, then the ger dies.  In that case R' Yosi haG'lili says the case may be put to rest; R' Akiva says it's not over till the thief gets the property (or its value) out of his hands.

R' Yochanon says, "Great!  The mishna on 103b is R' Yossi haG'lili, the mishna on 108b is R' Akiva."  R' Sheishes, however, says, "No way!  Both mishnayos are R' Yosi haG'lili."  Rava (not to be outdone, it seems) says, "Umm... no.  Both mishnayos are R' Akiva."  Wow... one case, six opinions!?

Yes and no.  We clearly have a difference of opinion between R' Yosi haG'lili and R' Akiva; as demonstrated by our gezel ha'ger case.  Chazal, however, all state things is the most succinct manner possible.  By delving into the matter, two factors not readily apparent have surfaced.  One, the two mishnayos have a subtle difference; on 103b the forgiveness is between victim and thief, whereas on 108b the forgiveness is only between the thief and himself.  Second, the case of gezel ha'ger added the strange twist of converting the theft to a loan.  Obviously that was not just done for dramatic effect, it was introduced to reveal a new factor that has halachik consequences.

The gemara then goes on (using a nice amount of prime real estate) to show just how far one can push the boundary of agreement and in how many directions.  When a real boundary is found, the reasons and arguments are explored and digested until all is understood.  At the end, one is left with several factors -- all important and true -- contributing to the final decision.  Not unlike (thank you, Rob) deciding what bracha to make on a chocolate covered raisin.  Both the chocolate and the raisin are important, but you can only make one bracha.  The machlokes is not "argument", but "clarifying and distinguishing the relevant factors".

So besides all the other benefits of learning gemara, one learns to look past the surface, understand different points of view, and build a conclusion on consensus.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Sha...

Thought for the Day: Why Halacha Has "b'di'avad"

There was this Jew who knew every "b'di'avad" (aka, "Biddy Eved", the old spinster librarian) in the book.  When ever he was called on something, his reply was invariably, "biddy eved, it's fine".  When he finally left this world and was welcomed to Olam Haba, he was shown to a little, damp closet with a bare 40W bulb hanging from the ceiling.  He couldn't believe his eyes and said in astonishment, "This is Olam Haba!?!"  "Yes, Reb Biddy Eved,  for you this is Olam Haba." b'di'avad gets used like that; f you don't feel like doing something the best way, do it the next (or less) best way.  But Chazal tell us that "kol ha'omer HaShem vatran, m'vater al chayav" -- anyone who thinks HaShem gives partial credit is fooling himself to death (free translation.  Ok, really, really free translation; but its still true).  HaShem created us and this entire reality for one and only one purpose: for use...