[Avodah] Beis Shammai vs Beis Hillel, general approaches

[Micha Berger]

A few sugyos that came up in quick succession in the Y-mi made me think
of what might be yet another approach to finding a leshitasam to unify
all -- or at least the vast majority -- of machloqesin between batei
Hillel veShammai.

The best known and best established such approach is al pi Qabbalah, that
BH is based on midas haRachamim, whereas the Shamutim founded their pesaq
on midas haDin. This is what led BH to usually being the more meiqil,
to being the larger and less exclusive school (beis Shammai was gadol
bekhochmah), and as the Maharal notes on Avos 1, fits their roles. The
talmidim were guilty of shelo shimshu es rabosam, and sure enough their
derakhim follow the *jobs* of their rabbeim -- the students of the nasi,
the organizer of the community's social works, saw only their rebbe's
rachamim, and the students of Shammai saw only his persona as av beis din.

A second and pretty successful approach is that of R' Zevin in LeTorah
uLeMo'adim, opn ner Chanukah. He says that BH pasqens based on what /is/,
whereas Beis Shammai pasqens based on potential. The oil burning on the
first day was the smallest miracle, but the oil contained the most potential
-- seven more days. Therefore, BH lights only one candle, and increases
as the neis becomes further from teva. However, Beis Shammah lights 8,
and decreases as each day holds less potential.

I write about both in <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2010/04/reality-vs-potential.shtml> and then talk about how the latter relates to Qiddush:

	Mishnah: These are the things which separate Beis Shammai and
	Beis Hillel with [respect to the laws of] a meal.
	Beis Shammai say: [In Qiddush] bless the day [i.e. make the
	berakhah referring to the qedushah of Shabbos], and then bless
	on the wine.
	And Beis Hillel say: Bless on the wine, and then bless the day.

	Talmud: What is Beis Shammai's reason?
	The sanctity of the day causes that the wine be brought, and
	one is already obligated to sanctify the day even when the wine
	hadn't yet arrived.
	What is Beis Hillel's reason?
	The wine causes that the sanctity of the day be declared.
	Another thought: The wine is [relatively more] frequent...
		    - Yerushalmi Shabbos 8:1, 56b

    ...
    Taking thes to our opening dispute, with Beis Hillel as explained
    by the first opinion in the gemara...

    Beis Shammai say the order of blessings in the night-time Qiddush is
    the order in which the obligations arrived. First it became Shabbos,
    then you sat at the table with the cup of wine. Therefore, Qiddush
    should start with the sanctification of Shabbos and end with the
    blessing on the wine.

    Beis Hillel instead focus on the order in which we are able to
    fulfill each obligation.

    So Rav Zevin's explanation works. Beis Shammai follows the order in
    which one gains the potential to do the mitzvah. Beis Hillel follows
    the order in which one can actualize that potential.

    Also, the Sephirotic interpretation: Beis Shammai look to the
    obligation, the chiyuv -- which also means "debt", even though the
    person has no ability to fulfill it. So, blessing Shabbos comes
    first. Beis Hillel take a more generous approach, and don't consider
    such a chiyuv to be fully real. Therefore, the sequence is when one
    can act upon it.

This same machloqes returns in Pesachim 10:2 on the seder, with a similar
discussion in the Y-mi (vilna 69b) about goreim.

Then shortly after, we have Beitzah 1:1 (1a):
    Mishnah: An egg that was laid on Yom Tov
    Beis Shammai say it may be eaten.
    And Beis Hillel say is may not be eaten.

    Talmud: What is Beis Shammai's reason? 
    It is prepared [for Yom Tov, and thus not muqtzah] on the back of
    its mother [having been set aside for Yom Tov].
    What is Beis Hillel's reason?
    It is like a set-aside [area for drying fruit whose contents] dried
    [and are thus ready, eg raisins, prunes, dried figs] and he did not
    know about it [-- he didn't know about the mother harboring an egg
    either].

Here, the Rachamim vs Din analysis is harder to work out. BH are the
machmirim, so they aren't choosing simchas Yom Tov over issur.

The real vs potential model does work. Beis Shammai consider the egg as
a potential within the mother a real concern, and thereby the mother's
hakhanah extends to the egg. BH only deals with the egg itself, and thus
whether we can consider the egg mukhenes even though the owner didn't
know there was a basically ready egg inside the chicken on erev YT.



It occured to me also that we may be able to formulate a variant on R'
Zevin's theme, using R' Shimon Shkop's derekh halimmud.

One of the Design Patterns RSS uses that his rebbe R' Chaim Brisker did
not is "hitztarfus". RCB's derekh is reductionist. We make chiluqim to
pare the topic down to the one essential issue which is causing the din
in one particular case/shitah. RSS also has an element of holism with
his concept of "hitztarfus". Rather than always looking for one cause,
sometimes it's how the causes combine to make "the perfect storm" that
causes a given outcome.

R' Zevin explains Beis Shammai as looking at potential. In RSS's
terminology, this means that he is looking at the first element in the
hitztarfus even before the other elements combine with it. This is the
time in which the oil has the potential to burn, the chicken has the
potential to lay the egg, and there is a Shabbos to be meqadeish -- most
of the causes are there -- but the cause that realizes the potential is
not yet.

Similarly, BH looking at the real means that they focus on the final
cause, the one that combines with all the factors there already, and
makes the potential real. We thus order qiddush and hagafen not by the
times of their respective first causes, but the times of their potential
final causes.

Y-mi Chagiga 2:1 has a machloqes:
    Beis Shamai say that shamayim was created first, and then the aretz.
    Beis Hillel say the aretz was created first, then the shamayim.

Notice that in this formulation, both are saying that shamayim is the
more important concern. The machloqes ends up being whether that means
shamayim should have come first, or last. Sof maaseh, or bemachashavah
techilah.

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
micha at aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch