A recent post about the distinct ways R. Akiva and R. Ishmael interpret verses merited this comment: "i am so confused. i choose to be a democrat or a republican. that is arbitrary. same with choosing a mode of interpretation. just one opinion or another. i like vanilla, you like chocolate. different theories, not! just he says, he says. am i missing something?".
I thought that it warranted a specific reply, and in depth.
The perception that all disagreements are arbitrary is prevalent in the modern world. Perhaps it is because so many disagreements that we encounter are quite arbitrary. People disagree with others because they don't like them or the way in which they say what they say, or their groups; because they wish to belong to a popular group or party or because , at that moment, they are ornery and feels like disagreeing.
I particularly hear this sentiment from those who are exposed to Jewish thought in the Conservative venues. How does a typical Conservative adult education session works? The leader asks a member to read a (usually translated) statement from, say R. Akiva. Then someone else reads a quote from R. Ishmael. Then the leader asks, "And how do you feel about it", and a discussion ensues, in which rank beginners pass judgments and share feelings about what was said by the greatest Tannaim.
The truth is that ALL disagreements among serious people are based on underlying assumptions. For example, the debate about raising or not raising the Federal debt ceiling is at the root a disagreement about the role of the government. Some believe that it should be constrained and, therefore, are against raising the debt ceiling. Others believe in expanidng governmental powers and want the ceiling raised so more money is available to the governmental agencies. In turn, that underlying dispute is also predicated on different views on the role of the individual in the society, on the nature and goals of the American Experiment and on many other equally weighty propositions.
The point is that even in the secular sphere, disagreements are based on something that is deeper than they.
For us as Jews looking at our tradition, disagreements are a fact of life. They are everywhere. Granted, what we agree on is much more than what we disagree about, the sheer number of disputes is a prominent fact.
Why do Tannaim disagree? Some believe that the personality of a Tanna determines his views. Conservative scholars, beginning with Zecharias Frankel in Darke ha-Mishnah" (Leipsic, 1859). and many others claimed that it was because this Tanna was tacitun and withdrawn or gregarious or outgoing that he selected a certain view. Even R. Dovid Tsvi Hoffman allowed this approach to seep into his "Mar Samuel", for which R. Samson Raphael Hrisch vehemently denounced him. R. Hirsch (Selected Writings, vol. 5) consdered this a form of heresy but he did not himself provide an good explanation for the phenomena of machlokes. I am not talking about how disagreements are possible but why specific Tannaim select specific stands.
Many Conservative scholars, for example Professor FInkelstein (Pharisees and Sadduccees), explain this through a Marxist lens, Pharisees were a group of small shopkeepers and merchants and, therefore, they championed certain views whereas Saducess were aristocrats and warriors and they defended a different view. Neeedless to say, I don't accept this facile and wholly inadequate explanation for it is too reductionist; neither is the Marxist perspective any longer popular.
To me, disagreements among Sages represent their differing grasps of spirituality. One Sage sees reality on a a certain spiritual plane, one in which the haalacha appears in one way, and another Sage, because his root of the soul is different, sees it in another way. The Lubavitcher Rebbe's approach is similar, for example, the disagreements between Hillel is due to Shammia representing Gevura and Hillel representing Chessed. Rebbe's view is solidly based on Zohar and has influenced several contemporary writers, such as R. Jonathan Sacks and R. Nachman Cohen, who published several books extending this concept to other pairs of Tannaim who disagree. When I discussed this once with R Cohen, he rolled off a number of other authorities throughout the ages who employed this approach.)
This is similar to what Ritva says in Eruvin 13b. He says that Moshe received every possible opinion but it was handed over to the Sages as to what opinions they would select according to what the generation needs. See an interesting article on this here.
At least, this is how I see this issue at this time. As I reach higher in the never ending climb to the root of my soul, perhaps my perception will change.
Comments