Continued from
17a:
Attack: R. Shimon says that that this cannot forbid eating
Olah outside the since we learn this from a Kal va'Chomer from Ma'aser!
Answer: Rather, this is obligating malkot for eating Olah, even after Zerikah
inside the hangings.
Statement: Rava compliments R’ Shimon and says that everyone
should have children like R. Shimon!
Attack: Yet, he continues to
refute all of R’ Shimon’s previous kal vechomrim:
1) One should be more machmir for maaser than for bikurim since maaser
is even forbidden to an onen (one who lost a family member on that day)!
2) Also, ma'aser is more machmir than todah and shlamim since maaser can
only be redeemed on minted money!
3) Todah and shelamim are actually more stringent than bechor since they
require semichah, nesachim and waving the chest and legs!
4) Bechor is more machmir than Chatas and Asham since it is kodesh from
the moment it is born!
5) Chatas and Asham are more stringent than Olah because they are for
atonement. In fact, all Korbanot are more stringent than Olah, because both the
Mizbe'ach and people consume them!
Question: Why did Rava say that
one should have children like R. Shimon if he just refuted all of his kal
vechomrim?
Answer: Because we learn many
new laws from these kal vechomrim.
Question: Do we truly warn to give
malkot on account of a kal ve'chomer?! Even if you would say that we generally
punish on account of a kal vechomer, we cannot derive this lav from a kal vechomer!
Answer #1: R. Shimon did not mean for
someone to be given lashes for these, just that they are forbidden.
Question:
But Rava just said that R. Shimon holds that he is to be lashed five times
(sets of 39 lashes)!
Answer: He really meant that he would be violating
five prohibitions.
Question for discussion: Rava says that everyone
should have children like R’ Shimon right before he refutes all of R’ Shimon’s
kal vechomrim. The Gemara is confused by this as well and asks why Rava would
compliment him like this if he immediately criticizes him afterwards? It
answers that it is because we still learn many new laws from these refuted
statements of R’ Shimon.
How
can we see the partial truths even in the views that we reject? Is it even
possible to find the merit and appreciate the values of an individual person or
a movement even if we disagree with their point of view? What are the benefits
and what are the costs to adhering to one position?
Two thoughts:
ReplyDelete1) I think that this shows that the macholokot in the Gemara were truly Machlokot L'Shem Shamayim. Not only does Rava not attack R' Shimon personally, rather, just the points he makes, but he goes out of his way to tell us explicitly that he thinks very highly of R' Shimon's character. There is no personal insult, just attempts to uncover the truth.
2) On a related note, this reminds me of the Mishnah that tells us about how Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai would marry into each other's families, as a display of the honor that they ascribed to one another, despite their intellectual disagreements.
We had a Super Tuesday a year or two ago about Machloket L'Shem Shamayim, and we stressed the importance of never making personal attacks. I think this Gemara is a perfect example of this. We can respect one another without agreeing on every single thing.
A machloket allows us to debate for the sake of Torah and give ourselves an even deeper meaning of what we are debating about. If we adhered to only one position we may not have that deeper and better understanding even though it may make things more simple to have one position that we follow.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Chana and Yehudit. This short anecdote in the gemara is a valuable source of the chachamim teaching what it means to have a machloket l'shem shamayim and to appreciate the wide-breadth of Torah that our peers and teachers have, regardless of whether we share the same opinions.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about this idea a lot recently because of its relevance in the news, as following Justice Scalia's death, many people, particularly those who starkly disagree with his political opinions have been commending his great achievements and brilliance. Lehavdil, this is a great example of an appropriate appreciation of a person's character, and being able to separate it from his/her opinions.
I think this is a great example of seeing the good in people, even when we may disagree with them on certain issues. It also enforces the idea of always finding the good in people and respecting other people- like complimenting them in one way before attacking them. These ideas are extremely relevant to our day to day lives, especially with many people talking about the presidential candidates- it is important to respect others and their opinions and look for the good in them even if we disagree with some of their ideas.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fact that we acknowledge the opinions of others in the law process shows how much we value unity and diversity at the same time. As a nation, we stick together and are one family. But, we still have our differences and different opinions; even while we are figuring out the law that we will all follow as one nation, we have our different opinions. The fact that we acknowledge others' opinions shows that as a nation we care about being united and different at the same time.
ReplyDeleteI think this is one of the many beautiful things found in Judaism. Unlike other religions which have one right way and everything else is wrong and useless, we are taught that there is something to be learned from everything, even if the opinion in the end is rejected.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is something we should all learn from. Just like it was said about Supreme Court Justice Scalia how when he disagreed with someone it was with their views, not with them as a person. It is so important to separate the two. We cannot and should not take what people say and decide that we can no longer respect them as a person. It is two separate things. I think that it is also like what Yehudit is saying. It is an argument/ machloket for the sake of deepening our understanding of the Torah. It is not meant against the other person, and I think that is highlighted here in this case with Rava and R' Shimon.
ReplyDelete