[Avodah] Eilu v'eilu

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 11:48:03AM +0300, Saul Mashbaum via Avodah wrote:
: This passage in IM is cited by R. Shalom Rosner in a systematic discussion...
: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/720210/Rabbi_Shalom_Rosner/Kesubos57.
...
: Very briefly, R. Rosner cites three approaches in the sources
: 
: 1. Illustrating the truth - The Ran in Drashot HaRan drasha 5 - In this
: approach, which severely limits the principle of eilu v'eilu, the Ran
: states that actually only one of the opinions is true. The other opinion is
: 'divrei Elokim chaim' only insofar as it serves to illustrate and elucidate
: the other opinion...

: 2. Levels of truth - R. Moshe in the hakdama to IM, and R. Yaakov to
: Bereishit 26, the Netziv in his Hakadama to Haamek Sh'eila, his commentary
: to the Sheiltot)...

: 3. Multiple truths (Ritva in Eiruvin, Maharal) - Both opinions are true,
: reflecting different perspectives of the subject at hand (IMO, this is
: similar to the previous explanation, without establishing a hierarchy
: between the truths expressed by the different opinions)..

My opinion differs from yours.

The Maharal is saying that what RMF calls emes shamamis (I think that
conjugation is yours, no?) is actually too rich to fit in this universe,
and certainly in a human mind. Therefore, two shitos can be correct
descriptions of the Truth, because each are incomplete.

Rather than invoke the 5 blind men and the elephant, I think it's more
useful to use a mashal of an object and a shadow. Because a shadow is
only 2D, information is lost. It could make you think the two opinions
are describing differnt thing, but they don't.

If you shine a light directly at the fact of a cube, the shadow is
a square. If you shine it at a corner, the result is a hexagon. Beis
Shamma could hold "hexagon" while Beis Hillel holds "square", and both
are describing the same cube.

It all depends on which direction you face the cube from. The difference
is in the approach chosen, where one stands at the foothills when answering
"mi ya'aleh beHar Hashem", not the emes kelapei shamayim.

None of which involves separating abstract truth from law, as RMF does.
The Maharal places eilu va'eilu entirely within our understanding of
that abstract truth.

RSR's analysis differs from the two I've discussed in the past, RMHalbertal's
and R' Michel Rosensweig's. E.g. See v32n8
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol32/v32n008.shtml#13>
E.g. RMH describes the Ritva and the Ran as sharing what he calls "the
Constitutive view" of what pesaq is (halakhah is constituted by pesaq, and
there is no one pre-existing reality), and thus the notion of one right
answer doesn't fit. Rather, his peshat in the Ran is more like RMF's
opinion.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 16th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             does harmony promote?
: that the Rashi in question on Ktuvot 57a takes this approach.
: 
: R. Rosner's explanation of the shittot is very lucid  and concise. He
: refers in his shiur to Ktuvot 57 to a previous, more comprehensive shiur he
: gave on the subject, but I don't know if that shiur is available online.
: 
: Saul Mashbaum

: _______________________________________________
: Avodah mailing list
: Avodah at lists.aishdas.org
: http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 16th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             does harmony promote?