Talmud Tuesdays - Session 55

(יז) כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:

Pirkei Avot 5:17

(17) Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.

Menachem Meiri (Catalonia, 1249-1306), Beit HaBechira
The argument between Hillel and Shammai: In their debates, one of them would render a decision and the other would argue against it, out of a desire to discover the truth, not out of cantankerousness or a wish to prevail over his fellow. An argument not for the sake of Heaven was that of Korach and his company, for they came to undermine Moses, our master, may he rest in peace, and his position, out of envy and contentiousness and ambition for victory.

שבת ס״ג א:י״ז

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַמְחַדְּדִין זֶה לְזֶה בַּהֲלָכָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַצְלִיחַ לָהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַהֲדָרְךָ צְלַח״. אַל תִּקְרֵי: ״וַהֲדָרְךָ״, אֶלָּא ״וַחֲדָדְךָ״. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁעוֹלִין לִגְדוּלָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״צְלַח רְכַב״. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל דְּבַר אֱמֶת״. יָכוֹל אִם הֵגֵיס דַּעְתּוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעַנְוָה צֶדֶק״. וְאִם עוֹשִׂין כֵּן זוֹכִין לַתּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה בְּיָמִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְתוֹרְךָ נוֹרָאוֹת יְמִינֶךָ״.

Shabbat 63a:17

Rabbi Yirmeya said that Rabbi Elazar said: Two Torah scholars who sharpen one another in halakha; the Holy One, Blessed be God, ensures success for them, as it is written: “And in your majesty [vahadarkha] prosper, ride on, in behalf of truth and meekness and righteousness; and let your right hand teach you tremendous things” (Psalms 45:5). The Sages said:
Do not read “and your majesty [vahadarkha],” rather, by changing some of the vocalization and the letters, read it as and He will sharpen you [veḥidedkha], and ultimately you will be successful.
Moreover, they who act in that manner will rise to prominence, as it is written: “Prosper, ride on.”
I might have thought even if one engages in the study of Torah not for its own sake; therefore, the verse states: “On behalf of truth.”
I might have thought that one would be rewarded with prosperity even if he became arrogant; therefore, the verse states: “Meekness and righteousness.”
And if they do so in the proper manner they merit the Torah that was given with the right hand of the Holy One, Blessed be God, as it is written: “And let your right hand teach you tremendous things” (Psalms 45:5).

תענית ז׳ א:ח׳

אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא מַאי דִּכְתִיב בַּרְזֶל בְּבַרְזֶל יָחַד לוֹמַר לָךְ מָה בַּרְזֶל זֶה אֶחָד מְחַדֵּד אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ אַף שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים מְחַדְּדִין זֶה אֶת זֶה בַּהֲלָכָה

Taanit 7a:8

The Gemara cites other expositions that deal with Torah study. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend” (Proverbs 27:17)? This verse comes to tell you that just as with these iron implements, one sharpens the other when they are rubbed against each other, so too, when Torah scholars study together, they sharpen one another in halakha.

סנהדרין י״ז א:כ׳-י״ז ב:ג׳

אמר רב כהנא סנהדרי שראו כולן לחובה פוטרין אותו מ"ט כיון דגמירי הלנת דין למעבד ליה זכותא והני תו לא חזו ליה א"ר יוחנן אין מושיבין בסנהדרי אלא בעלי קומה ובעלי חכמה ובעלי מראה ובעלי זקנה ובעלי כשפים ויודעים בע' לשון שלא תהא סנהדרי שומעת מפי המתורגמן אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אין מושיבין בסנהדרין אלא מי שיודע לטהר את השרץ מה"ת אמר רב אני אדון ואטהרנו ומה נחש שממית ומרבה טומאה טהור שרץ שאינו ממית ומרבה טומאה אינו דין שיהא טהור ולא היא מידי דהוה אקוץ בעלמא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל עיר שאין בה שנים לדבר ואחד לשמוע אין מושיבין בה סנהדרי ובביתר הוו שלשה וביבנה ארבעה רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע ור"ע ושמעון התימני דן לפניהם בקרקע מיתיבי שלישית חכמה רביעית אין למעלה הימנה הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא שניה חכמה שלישית אין למעלה הימנה

Sanhedrin 17a:20-17b:3

§ Rav Kahana says: In a Sanhedrin where all the judges saw fit to convict the defendant in a case of capital law, they acquit him. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning for this halakha? It is since it is learned as a tradition that suspension of the trial overnight is necessary in order to create a possibility of acquittal. The halakha is that they may not issue the guilty verdict on the same day the evidence was heard, as perhaps over the course of the night one of the judges will think of a reason to acquit the defendant. And as those judges all saw fit to convict him they will not see any further possibility to acquit him, because there will not be anyone arguing for such a verdict. Consequently, he cannot be convicted. § Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They place on the Great Sanhedrin only men of high stature, and of wisdom, and of pleasant appearance, and of suitable age so that they will be respected. And they must also be masters of sorcery, i.e., they know the nature of sorcery, so that they can judge sorcerers, and they must know all seventy languages in order that the Sanhedrin will not need to hear testimony from the mouth of a translator in a case where a witness speaks a different language. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: They place on the Sanhedrin only one who knows how to render a carcass of a creeping animal pure by Torah law. The judges on the Sanhedrin must be so skilled at logical reasoning that they could even produce a convincing argument that creeping animals, which the Torah states explicitly are ritually impure, are actually pure. Rav said: I will discuss the halakha of the creeping animal and render it pure, i.e., I am able to demonstrate how it is possible to construct such a proof: If a snake, which kills other creatures whose carcasses are impure and thereby increases impurity in the world, is itself nevertheless pure, as it is not included in the list of impure creeping animals, then concerning a creeping animal that does not kill and does not increase impurity, isn’t it logical that it should be pure? This argument is rejected: But it is not so; the logic of the halakha of a creeping animal is just as it is concerning the halakha with regard to an ordinary thorn, which can injure people or animals and can even kill and thereby increase impurity, but is nevertheless pure. It is therefore apparent that this consideration is not relevant to the halakhot of impurity. § Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to any city that does not have among its residents two men who are able to speak all seventy languages and one additional man who is able to listen to and understand statements made in all the languages, even if he cannot speak all of them, they do not place a lesser Sanhedrin there. The members of the Sanhedrin do not all need to know all of the languages, but there must be at least this minimum number. And in Beitar there were three individuals who were able to speak all seventy languages, and in Yavne there were four, and they were: Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva, and Shimon HaTimni, who was not an ordained Sage, and he would therefore deliberate before the other judges while seated on the ground, not among the rows of Sages. The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: A third, i.e., a Sanhedrin that has three individuals who can speak all seventy languages, is a wise Sanhedrin, and if it also has a fourth such person, there is no court above it, meaning that there is no need for additional language experts. Apparently the minimum requirement is three people who can speak the languages, not two. The Gemara answers: Rav states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: A Sanhedrin that has a second language expert is wise; and if it also has a third, there is no court above it.

משנה עדיות א׳:ה׳

(ה) וְלָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד בֵּין הַמְרֻבִּין, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הֲלָכָה אֶלָּא כְדִבְרֵי הַמְרֻבִּין. שֶׁאִם יִרְאֶה בֵית דִּין אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד וְיִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵית דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן. הָיָה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה אֲבָל לֹא בְמִנְיָן, בְּמִנְיָן אֲבָל לֹא בְחָכְמָה, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דְּבָרָיו, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן:

Mishnah Eduyot 1:5

(5) 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.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"Dissents speak to a future age. It's not simply to say, 'My colleagues are wrong and I would do it this way.' But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views become the dominant view. So that's the dissenter's hope: that they are writing not for today, but for tomorrow."