[Avodah] Eilu v'eilu

[Kenneth Miller via Avodah]

R' Joel Rich asked:
> Question: If one doesn't view eilu v'eilu as multiple truths
> but rather one truth and one nice try (but we don't know which
> is which), ...

I didn't understand that 2nd view, so he suggested to look
> here for some more specifics:
> http://nishma.org/articles/commentary/slifkinrevisted3print.pdf
> especially starting around page 11.

On page 4 of that article, the author offers this explanation of the concept of Machlokes L'Shem Shamayim:

> ... every individual striving mightily to gain truth and an
> understanding of God's Will can only achieve what is possible
> within the parameters of his/her own individual being. Since the
> fullness of Torah extends beyond the comprehension of any one
> individual, machloket must necessarily ensue. It is not simply
> that machloket emerges because of the inherent limitations of
> the human condition. It is only through the enunciation of
> machloket that human beings effectively are able to express the
> fullness and truth of the Divine wisdom of Torah. ... Within
> this category of disagreement, the existence of differing views
> is not a problem. It is actually positive. It is the natural
> consequence of a limited humanity trying to encounter the
> unlimited nature of God and Torah.

Elsewhere in that article, I understood him to say: Because both Hillel and Shammai worked within the rules of how Torah is to be understood, their differing views are equally valid and equally true (notwithstanding the detail that for purely practical reasons, halacha l'maaseh has to go one way or the other).

This much fits very well with what I've been taught: Hashem deliberately wrote and designed the Torah in such a way as to allow both Hillel and Shammai to reach those differing views, and when they did reach those views, and (lovingly) refused to yield to the other, they accomplished exactly what Hashem had intended.

But RJR referred us specifically to page 11, and on that page, the author brings the two views that RJR had initially posted:

> One significant question in this regard, though, that should be
> presented is: whether kalpei Shemaya, from the perspective of
> Heaven, one view may really be correct or not? How one answers
> this question will affect whether one considers any position in
> a machloket l'Shem Shamayim as ultimately able to be labeled
> incorrect. Effectively the question would be: are all positions
> in the disagreement theoretically, equally part of truth and a
> decision rendered between the opposing views solely because of
> practical necessity? Or is there a truly correct position –
> albeit only able to be ascertained by Heaven – but we still
> accept all positions as part of Torah, albeit some are mistaken,
> as they all are equally the best that humanity can achieve and
> the mistakes only arise from the actual limitation of the human
> being?

With all due respect, but it seems to me that this second view is illogical and mistaken. How can there be a view which was obtained by legitimate methods of learning the Torah, without any personal agenda, and the best that humanity can acheive -- and yet be one which Hashem did NOT want us to arrive at? If there is a view that is NOT truly correct, yet the incorrectness can be ascertained only by Heaven, then why did Hashem design the Torah in a manner which allowed us to reach that mistaken conclusion?

If only He would have made one little change, if only the pasuk had said this instead of that, then we'd have darshened that pasuk differently, and would have avoided that mistake. But since He did not make that change, but rather He wrote the Torah as we have it, and Toras Hashem Temimah, then I believe that the conclusions reached cannot possibly be mistakes, but rather, this is exactly what we mean by Eilu V'Eilu Divrei Elokim Chayim.

(Of course, I am referring only to drashos made with the proper tools, and in the proper manner, such as those made by Hillel and Shammai and others of similar caliber. I am not referring to people who are of lower caliber, or who were working with broken tools. And I'm certainly not referring to people who deliberately distort Torah for their own purposes.)

But then, as I was reviewing this post, my mind turned to the Tanur Shel Achnai. R' Eliezer had a minority view, and R' Yehoshua was in the majority. I've got to believe that both views were firmly grounded; this machlokes was surely just as L'Shem Shamayim as any between Hillel and Shammai. I'd *like* to say that Klapei Shmaya, both views were Truth.

But then what can I do with Hashem's response of "Nitzchuni banai"? It sure sounds to me like this Judge was not impartial. He was rooting for R' Eliezer! And yet He wrote a Torah that allowed for R' Eliezer's mistaken interpretation. Why would He do that?

To paraphrase RJR's question from the very beginning of this post, Tanur Shel Achnai seems to be an example of "eilu v'eilu": At the time of their dispute, it was possible that both views were Truth, but we didn't know which was which, so for practical purposes they took a vote. But later, Eliyahu Hanavi revealed the fact that it was NOT multiple truths, but rather one truth (R' Eliezer) and one nice try (R' Yehoshua).

TO RECAP: In the beginning of this post, I explained my logical basis for believing that every true Eilu V'Eilu is a case of multiple Truths. At the end, I brought an example of an Eilu V'Eilu which was "one truth and one nice try (but we don't know which is which)". I cannot reconcile the logic and the example. All I can do is to ask again: Would Hashem really write a Perfect Torah which allows for mistaken interpretation? Why would He do that?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/553464ea69a2864ea0cc6st01vuc