Eruvin 13

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל, הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ, וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ. יָצְאָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים הֵן, וַהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל.

Rabbi Abba said in the name of Shmuel: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: ‘Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.’ The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai. (Eruvin 13b)

for Video Shiur click here to listen:  Psychology of the DAF Eruvin 13

What does “these and those are the words of the living God” mean?

Maharal (Be’er Hagolah 1) adds an interesting twist in regard to the arguments of Shammai and Hillel. 

Regarding that the Talmud Chagigah (3b) states that all of the varying Torah opinions come from the Master of all creations, we may ask why did they identify G-d with such a descriptor? They chose this phrase to demonstrate that it is precisely this quality of G-d that explains how to understand the multi-dimensional quality of Torah. G-d has created all matter, and within the world, physical matter consists of compounds. These compounds that constitute physical matter have opposing substances within. So too with the matters of halakha and matters of the physical world; there is nothing that is simple essence without opposing aspects within. Therefore, the one who ruled that an object is impure and likewise the one who ruled than an object is pure have both studied Torah. Each side has its own aspect. G-d created all that is, and He created the object that has both aspects. 

Rather in regard to practical halakha, there is no doubt that one aspect has dominance. This is just as G-d put within the physical substances, though they be compounds of opposing elements, one element of the compound will be dominant. For example, wood which is composed of the four elements, has a dominant element of wind, as is known. (Note: Like any sage, secular or Jewish for at least 1500 years, Maharal subscribed to the theory that all matter is composed of Earth, Water, Air (wind), and Fire.) Though any substance is composed of a compound of opposing elements, and G-d imbued them as such, one element is primary and that decides the halakha.

But one must not say that the lesser aspects are as if they are nothing. Because as one studies even the lesser aspects he is studying a part of the Torah, because the opposing aspects are part of the totality. The halakha is merely the ruling coming about from the dominant aspect. 

There are occasions when aspects are of equal status, and neither one outweighs the other. In such a case, this part of Torah is given with equal possibility, both from Hashem, May He be blessed. This is the case for the arguments of Hillel and Shammai, of which a Bas Kol voice declared, “These and those are words of a living G-d.” This declaration meant to say that both opinions are equal because they both stem from aspects that are equal, and not dominant over the other, and so both are words of the living G-d. 

Hashem gave the Torah and commanded each ruling follow according to its (dominant) aspect. If the dominant aspect indicates a ruling of pure, G-d commands that it be considered pure, if the dominant aspect indicates a ruling of impure, then G-d commands a ruling of impure. And, if the aspects are of equal power, then these and those are the words of the living G-d. Each ruling comes from an equally dominant aspect.

Thus, according to Maharal, Torah consists of multiple layers. The halakhic layer is decided in accordance with the dominant aspect or aspects as seen by the rabbis, commonly with the majority determining what is the dominant aspect, and or as in the case of Shammai and Hillel, either side equally dominant. The other layer to Torah study is delving into any aspect of a halakhic discussion, and even if post-facto one opinion by majority rule is determined to have ascertained the correct dominant aspect, the other opinions can still be studied and considered legitimate Torah as even minor aspects of a compound are still part of a compound. The halakha though will never be determined in accordance with a minor aspect, even if it is still true Torah.

We might ask, what causes something to be a minor or major aspect? Is it possible that in different situations or eras, different aspects become dominant, much as in the science of epigenetics we find that different environments actually activate different genes? It is not clear. However, there is a logical argument in favor of this idea, because otherwise it is hard to understand what is the divine purpose in having minor aspects intertwined within the Torah. In other words, if we accept the “what”, we must ask the “why”. Why did G-d insert minor aspects into the Torah? We can suggest, just as different environments cause compounds to behave differently, such as elements that conduct electricity at different temperatures, so too different circumstances could activate minor aspects of Torah and cause them to become dominant, allowing for the halakha to be in accordance with them. Torah mirrors nature, as Rambam points out in the Guide (III:43). 

This section of Talmud implies that the House of Hillel or the House of Shammai are equally correct; the reasons for the Heavenly voice endorsing the rulings according to the House of Hillel was due to their humble and temperate qualities. If so, this suggests a subjective approach to halakha as the Heavenly voice is ruling according to the House of Hillel based on values such as humility and temperament. On the other hand, one might argue such temperament can lead to finding the truth more so than a combative stance, and indeed so argues Tosafot Rid (Op. Cit.). Therefore we cannot argue this as proof for a subjective process, because perhaps the house of Hillel merited to have the law in accordance with their opinion due to their humble and temperate nature that enabled them to be more likely to arrive at the truth.

But we must wonder, why so often are the rulings of the House of Shammai more strict than the rulings of the House of Hillel? Common sense shows a pattern which then indicates some degree of subjective process. Malbim Numbers (19:1) offers an ingenious understanding of the tendency of the rulings of the House of Shammai to be stricter while the rulings of the House of Hillel to be more lenient, the specific ends it serves, as well as a fascinating allegorical interpretation of the famous Oven of Akhnai controversy in Bava Metzia (59b) and several other aggados which we will discuss more of later. Malbim suggests that The House of Shammai represents a spiritual ideal. Namely, the intellect can be elevated through engagement in spiritual matters and abstention from physicality to an extent that it can attain an Edenic state of Adam prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge. If this is attained, a higher level of immortality of the soul is achieved insofar as the intellectual soul can divest from the body at will, allowing for transcendent states even prior to death, and higher levels of attainment in the World to Come. This accounts for why the House of Shammai’s rulings are often more stringent because the foci are on abstinence and spiritually pure states. The House of Hillel endorses a more temperate approach; serving G-d in this world by engaging in physical acts while also in devotion to G-d. 

Thus as one example, the dispute between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel in Mishna Succah (2:7) can be understood on a halakhic level as well as metaphysical: 

One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the succah and his table within the house: Beis Shammai say: it is invalid and Beis Hillel say it valid. 

Here we find typically the House of Hillel choosing the more lenient position. Malbim adds a thematic meaning to this Mishna. The House of Shammai allows for no compromise; one must completely disengage from the comforts of this world (the home) and dwell on the spiritual plane (the Succah). However, the House of Hillel advocates moderation. One may have his head and the greater part of his body in the Succah (spiritual sphere) but still stay partially engaged in the physical world (the lower part of his body resides in the home).

This idea is also reflected in a teaching of the Arizal, that in the World to Come, the halakha will be in accordance with the House of Shammai (Sefas Emmes, Korach 5647). Meaning, in a post-Messianic world, people can live on this ideal plane of disengagement from physicality, in accordance with the principles of the House of Shammai.

We can add to the Malbim’s mystical take on Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel in regard to another of their disputes found in Mishna Keylim (18:1)

A wooden chest that is large enough to contain forty se’ah is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, since it is no longer considered a vessel. In determining its capacity, Beis Shammai say that it is measured on the inside, and Beis Hillel say that it is measured on the outside so that the volume of the walls of the chest itself is included in the measurement. 

Once again, Beis Shammai is more strict, requiring forty se’ah of volume to be reached only on actual inside capacity before the vessel can be exempted from impurity. While Beis Hillel allows one to use the total areas including the outside and thickness of walls to reach the volume of forty se’ah. We may say metaphysically and metaphorically, Beis Hillel allows the outside (earthly experiences) environment to be included in the measurements to achieve purity. While Beis Shammai requires uncompromising internality (only the inside volume) to achieve purity. 

In addition, one can apply the Malbim’s ingenious principle to another dispute between Shammai and Hillel found in regard to Shaatnez and Tzizis. According to Beis Hillel, one may wear a linen garment, even though the fringes that contain the blue thread are made out of wool, which is ordinarily a forbidden mixture (Deuteronomy 22:11) of wool and linen. However, according to Beis Shammai, this mixture is forbidden and thus a linen garment is exempted from the obligation of Tzizis (Menachos 40a). 

Let us consider the sources of both of these materials. Wool comes from sheep and linen comes from flax plant fibers. In other words, a shepherd manufactures wool, while a farmer manufactures linen. What is the Biblical understanding of these two professions, farming and shepherding? Notably our forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as Moses and David were all in the shepherding profession. And, it is most telling, that the two rivalrous sons of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel are pitted against each other in these opposing professions. “Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil.” Genesis (4:2). The commentaries attribute significance to each brothers’ chosen occupation. Rabbenu Bechaye (Genesis 46:32) reflects on the nomadic qualities of the shepherd. It involves a life of separation from cities and metropolitan life, as often cosmopolitan life is sinful and materialistic. The farmer, on the other hand, is tied down to his possessions and is in a fixed location, usually part of a city/state structure. We moderns are used to thinking of farmers as the opposite of city folk, but in ancient times, agriculture was the core of a city, as opposed to nomadic hunter-gatherers.  

As the Malbim has explained, Shammai advocated for an ideal withdrawal from the pleasures and pursuits of this world, while Hillel advocated moderation. Therefore, we may also understand the argument about the permissibility or prohibition to wear Shaatnez and tie Tzizis to a linen cloak as stemming from this same truth. Shammai affirms the suitability of the ascetic nomadic life represented in the shepherding and wool garments. Only such garments are considered the cloak of a Jew, and only those are obligated in Tzizis. Hillel accepts that in this world one cannot fully withdraw. One can be a part of society, and belong to an agrarian city/state, as symbolically exemplified by the linen garment. This cloak, (or metaphorically this persona - in Jungian dream analysis clothes often represent personality), can also be worn by a Jew and can also fulfill the mitzvah of Tzizis. The city community life represented by linen/farming/persona can be enjoyed along with and not in contradiction, to any other spiritual pursuit.  Tanya (Iggeres HaKodeh 13) offers a similar understanding of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, though he does not develop it explicitly on a practical level.

for Video Shiur click here to listen:  Psychology of the DAF Eruvin 13

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria

Photo Abba Mari Rav Chaim Feuerman, Ed.D. ZT"L Leiyluy Nishmaso

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)