[Avodah] Eilu v'Eilu - Rabbi Hershel Schachter

Thu Dec 29 08:06:02 PST 2016

Rabbi Hershel Schachter
TorahWeb.org

EILU V'EILU

The gemara (Shabbos 21b) quotes the story of Chanukah from Megillas
Taanis (Rashi, Shabbos 13b, explains that this work is referred to as
a megillah because it was already written down at the time that the
mishnayos were still being learned orally.) The Yevonim were metamei
all the oil in the Beis Hamikdash and the Chashmona'im only found one
small container of pure oil that should have only lasted for one night.
Rav Yaakov Emden (Mor U'Ketzia #670)[1] raises the following major issue:
the mishna tells us that liquids in the Beis Hamikdash are not mekabel
tummah [2] so the whole story does not make any sense! The olive oil
was a liquid and could not become tameh, so why was there a need for a
miracle if there is no such thing as shemen tameh in the Beis Hamikdash?

Some suggest the following answer. The psak of a talmid chochom is
binding because he probably had divine assistance in developing his
position[3]. And even when there is a machlokes in halacha each yeshiva is
obligated to follow its own rebbe, and we assume that this is so because
each rebbe was given the divine assistance to formulate his position. The
story of Chanukah occurred in the middle of the period of the second
Beis Hamikdash over two hundred years before its destruction. In that
generation, the accepted psak was that even liquids in the Beis Hamikdash
are also mekabel tumah. It was only several generations later, during the
period of the zugos, that R' Yosi ben Yoezer's position that liquids in
the Beis Hamikdash are tahor was adopted l'halacha. How can it possibly
be that Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel each had a divine assistance to
come to differing conclusions? The answer is: the gemara says that
sometimes when there is a machlokes in halacha we assume eilu v'eilu
divrei Elokim chaim.[4] The Ritvah[5] explains that when Moshe Rabbeinu
was on Har Sinai and Hashem was teaching him the entire Torah, and Moshe
Rabbeinu posed questions to Hashem regarding what the din is in various
cases and under various circumstances. In some cases Hashem told him
that the din is mutar; in other cases Hashem told him the din is assur;
and in other cases Hashem told him that this is a grey area of halacha,
with both elements of heter and of issur, and He leaves it up to the
judgment of the chachmei ha'dor in each generation to decide based on
their perspective of kol haTorah kulla whether the elements of heter
outweigh the elements of issur or the reverse.

Every so often in the gemara we find that in different generations the
consensus amongst the rabbonim shifted and the psak was changed. The two
positions are often referred to mishna rishonah and mishna acharona. The
gemara tells us[6] that for the four hundred and ten years of the first
Beis Hamikdash the Kohanim fulfilled the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin in
one fashion. When the second Beis Hamikdash was built (after the seventy
years of galus Bavel), the chachomim of that generation decided to do the
nisuch hayayin in a different fashion. The Sfas Emes in his commentary
on that gemara raises a question, does that mean that during for all
of the four hundred and ten years of the first Beis Hamikdash they were
never properly yotzei the mitzvah of nisuch hayayin?! The simple answer
is that eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chaim. Since both groups of chachomim
were knowledgeable in kol haTorah Kulah and both were working within the
framework of the middos sheHaTorah nidreshes bohem, both positions were
considered correct. During the Bayis Rishon period the correct halachic
position was in accordance with the consensus of that time and during
the Bayis Sheini period the correct halachic position was in accordance
with the consensus of that era.

Similarly, if the story of Chanukah would have occurred a few generations
later, Hashem would not have caused any miracle to occur because the
accepted psak was like R. Yosi ben Yoezer that the olive oil cannot
become tameh. But in the generation of the Chasmona'im the Ribbono Shel
Olam went along with the psak of the consensus of that generation and
caused the nes to occur.

 -------------------------

[1] See also She'eilos U'Teshuvos Beis Yitzchok, Orach Chaim #110

[2] See Pesachim 16a

[3] See Sotah 4b

[4] Eruvin 13b

[5] Eruvin ibid

[6] Zevachim 61b