[Avodah] Machlokes in Mishnayos, why?

Micha Berger via Avodah avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Mon Sep 11 08:11:31 PDT 2017


On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:20:59AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: What about all of the disputes between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai?
: Mishnayos are full of them and they were in this period of the Bayis
: Sheini.

But likely after the Sanhedrin's departure from the Lishkas haGazis.

I believe that's why it required a bas qol before they were willing to
accept "vehalakhah keBH". After all, as Tosafos point out (Berakhos 52a
"veR' Yehushua"), BH was larger, so this conclusion is a simple "acharei
rabbim lehatos". And therefore this bas qol does not defy the conclusion
of the tanur akhnai story. But Tosafos do not say why we suddenly needed
a bas qol to confirm of an existing rule.

The departure from the LhG is in the right time period. And it was a
fundemental shift in what a Sanhedrin was. So it's my proposed answer.

Those machloqesin do get closed by vote, though, eventually. The mishnah
records Beis Shammai's position well after it was no longer viable pesaq,
for reasons given in Edios 1:4 -- to teach "shelo yehei adam omeid al
devarav, for even these greats weren't.

So recording both sides of a machloqes doesn't mean there was no vote
and that in Rebbe's day the question was still open. Maybe that's the
best answer to your question.

And if you do not consider the lishkas hagazis significant, then why
draw a line between Bayis Sheini and those Sanhedrins all the way up to
the late amoraim?

Every time amoraim quote tannaim or earlier amoraim, why not ask why
(leshitas haRambam) the question was still around?


: On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
:> IOW, not every plurality is a machloqes.

:> To me the question is more: When are we okay living with a variety of
:> valid alternatives, and when it's a machloqes that requires final pesaq?

: The Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim seems to take a much more black and white
: approach. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Mamrim
: "Kol din shenolad lo safek l'echad miyisrael" seems to include everything
: in the resolution of the Beis Din Hagadol. The Rambam seems to be saying
: that there were no disputes when there was a Beis Din Hagadol

Which is why I framed it as not every plurality of pesaqim was necessarily
a machloqes. This would allow one to stick with the Rambam's shitah in
spite of archeological evidence that there were a variety of accepted
orders of parshios in tefillin during bayis sheini.

(Of all rishonim, it's strange to think of the Rambam as saying we'd
stick to our guns rather than accept the evidence, anyway. But that's
just projecting.)


There is a difference between

1- One shitah saying "Qadeish, VeHayah ki Yevi'akha miymin, Shema`, veHayah
in Shamoa misemol" means putting them in Torah order and another shitah
saying it means the last two are in reversed order;

and

2- A consensus among everyone one that any sequence that embodies this
idea would be kosher.

The latter isn't a machloqes, and wouldn't need resolution by Sanhedrin.
And yet, multiple norms would co-exist.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
micha at aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507



More information about the Avodah mailing list