Monday, May 06, 2013

why halacha is like Beis Hillel

The gemara (Eiruvin 13) writes that the halacha follows Beis Hillel over Beis Shamai because Beis Hillel were “nochin v’aluvin,” they were humble and modest and therefore would first discuss Beis Shamai’s view and only then present their own opinion. 

It sounds at first glance like this is some kind of mystical segulah, that if you have good midos the schar is that you will hit the mark in psak halacha.  I saw R’ Zalman Nechemya Goldberg explains it differently. We know the general rule of thumb in psak is “hilchisa k’basra’ah,” the halacha usually follows a later authority over an earlier one.  This is because if you approach an issue after the fact, you have the advantage of hindsight and can better weigh the different options.  The halacha follows Beis Hillel because they reviewed Beis Shamai’s opinion first; they first considered the counter-argument carefully before arriving at their own view.  Therefore, their opinion was always the “basra’ah.” 

6 comments:

  1. I liked this post but I think you have elaborated (pontificated :) more on the implications of this topic...
    Is this to say that BS did not consider the opinion of BH first? Did BH and BS not live (meaning the Talmidim or whatever "Beis" means here)at the same time? If they did, couldn't they have had an ongoing dialogue about an issue?
    It's interesting because when we quote BH and BS having a one line dispute - presumably the people behind these statements were doing much more analysis (that goes unrecorded-?)
    I guess I have to do some more BS/BH research...

    ReplyDelete

  2. I liked this post but I think you have elaborated (pontificated :) more on the implications of this topic...
    Is this to say that BS did not as well consider the opinion of BH first? Why wouldn’t they have? Did BH and BS not live (meaning the Talmidim or whatever "Beis" means here)at the same time? If they did, couldn't they have had an ongoing dialogue about an issue? Is there a chronological issue at play here? I’m a bit confused.
    It's interesting because when we quote BH and BS having a one line dispute - presumably the people behind these statements were doing much more analysis (that goes unrecorded-?)
    I guess I have to do some more BS/BH research...
    [ I made some additional remaarks - can't figure out how to edit...]

    ReplyDelete
  3. The gemora, Eruvin 13b, records a dispute/dialog between BH/BS
    that extended over 2 1/2 years, but which they eventually
    resolved.

    It would appear that the "one-liners" are the distilled conflicting
    opinions after they had reached an impasse.

    This issue, incidentally, speaks to an essential point of what psak
    halacha is. While in general, Bais Hillel should have been controlling
    because of Acharei Rabbim, and they were the numerical majority, Bais
    Shammai felt that their superior lomdus trumped that. A typical quality
    vs. quantity issue.

    In fact, the yud ches devarim the beginning of Shabbos was an example of
    Bais Shammai using a [temporary, 'chance', enforced by violence] numerical
    superiority to establish certain halachot according to their psak. I would
    love to know why they picked those apparently arcane halachot to pasken on
    definitively [why they granted cert] as opposed to much more central ones like
    tzoras ervah, shulchano b'toch habayis, etc.

    However, if I die with that the only unresolved question in nigla I have, I will be
    reasonably happy.

    On this topic, I tend to reference the [beautiful/magnificent/awesome] drush of
    the Malbim on chumash, at the beginning of chukas. It's not apparent at the beginning
    [and it's a long ramified drush] but it eventually gives an overarching philosophical
    underpinning for most of if not all machloksim between Bais Hillel and Bais Shammai.

    There is a similar common-thread analysis in Rav Zevin's Ishim v'Shitot.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for your comments and Mekoros. IYH I will take a look.
    Incidentally, I think I stumbled over a Tosfos today by the Tanor shel Achnai sugya which says that a Bas Kol paskened like BH (some place or maybe in all siuations) because BH was greater in number and Acharei Rabim L'Hatos...

    ReplyDelete
  5. >>>There is a similar common-thread analysis in Rav Zevin's Ishim v'Shitot.

    The L. Rebbe has an approach I think based on a distinction between b'koach vs. b'poel. (Does R' Zevin say the same? I don't have the sefer at home to check.)
    R' Yosef Engel also shows the kamus/eichus issue working l'shitaso in the tanur shel Achna'i sugya (R' Eliezer = Shamuti).

    ReplyDelete
  6. That is, I25WOL, R' Zevin's approach. R' Yosef Engel applies the same to the machlokes of B'Nissan nivra ha'olam or b'Tishrei. As in, originally, b'koach, the bri'ah was supposed to be b'din...

    ReplyDelete