Machloket can be defined as debate or logical dialectics on a topic. It is impossible to understand rabbinic Judaism, either historically or as we know it today, without a foundation of machloket. Yet, as we find ourselves in an age where the art and value of debate is waining, can the process of machloket help us to navigate 21st century quandaries? If so, how?
אמר רבי אבא אמר שמואל:
שלש שנים נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו
והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו
יצאה בת קול ואמרה:
אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים הן
והלכה כבית הלל
וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים מפני מה זכו בית הלל לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו
ושונין דבריהן ודברי בית שמאי
ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי בית שמאי לדבריהן
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 patient, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai.
Moreover, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements.
The teaching from Eiruvin is locus classicus for the centrality of machloket in Judaism.
1. The Divine Voice makes two proclamations which the Gemara understands as being contradictory. What is the contradiction between the two parts? How does the Talmud resolve this contradiction?
2. What reason(s) is the halacha like Beit Hillel? Do you find this argument compelling? Why or why not?
הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּפְרֹשׁ מִן הַצִּבּוּר,
וְאַל תַּאֲמִין בְּעַצְמְךָ עַד יוֹם מוֹתְךָ,
וְאַל תָּדִין אֶת חֲבֵרְךָ עַד שֶׁתַּגִּיעַ לִמְקוֹמוֹ
Hillel said: do not separate yourself from the community, Do not trust in yourself until the day of your death, Do not judge not your fellow until you have reached his place. Do not say something that cannot be understood [trusting] that in the end it will be understood. Say not: ‘when I shall have leisure I shall study;’ perhaps you will not have leisure.
(ג) אע"פ שנחלקו ב"ש [כנגד ב"ה] ...
לא נמנעו ב"ש לישא [נשים] מב"ה
ולא ב"ה מב"ש
אלא נהגו האמת והשלום ביניהן שנא' (זכריה ח׳:י״ט) האמת והשלום אהבו.
Despite the fact that Beit Shammai debated with Beit Hillel [regarding marriages]...
yet they Beit Shammai did not regraim from marrying women from Beit Hillel
nor did Beit Hillel refrain from marrying women from Beit Shammai.
Rather, they acted in the interests of truth and peace between them, since it is said, "they loved truth and peace" (Zech. 8:19).
רָשָׁע מָה הוּא אוֹמֵר? מָה הָעֲבוֹדָה הַזּאֹת לָכֶם. לָכֶם – וְלֹא לוֹ. וּלְפִי שֶׁהוֹצִיא אֶת עַצְמוֹ מִן הַכְּלָל כָּפַר בְּעִקָּר. וְאַף אַתָּה הַקְהֵה אֶת שִׁנָּיו וֶאֱמוֹר לוֹ: "בַּעֲבוּר זֶה עָשָׂה ה' לִי בְּצֵאתִי מִמִּצְרָיִם". לִי וְלֹא־לוֹ. אִלּוּ הָיָה שָׁם, לֹא הָיָה נִגְאָל:
What does the evil [son] say? "'What is this worship to you?' (Exodus 12:26)" 'To you' and not 'to him.' And since he excluded himself from the collective, he denied a principle [of the Jewish faith]. And accordingly, you will blunt his teeth and say to him, "'For the sake of this, did the Lord do [this] for me in my going out of Egypt' (Exodus 13:8)." 'For me' and not 'for him.' If he had been there, he would not have been saved.