Throughout rabbinic literature there is a tension between unifying the Jewish people by observing one halakha and recognizing the validity of opposing halakhic views. We have to remember that within rabbinic Judaism there was some leeway between dissenting opinions and that there were groups that were outside the pale of Judaism by rabbinic definition like the Samaritans and the Karaites.
This tension is explored on dappim TB Yevamot 13b-14. The
Gemara provides the underpinning derasha
for the ideal of unity. “Reish
Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: I should read here
the verse: “You shall not cut yourselves [titgodedu]” (Deuteronomy 14:1),
which is interpreted as meaning: Do not become numerous factions [agudot].
In other words, the Jewish
people should be united, rather than divided into disparate groups that act
in different ways.” (Sefaia.org translation) Rashi explains what’s wrong with
factionalism. When different Jewish groups observe halakha differently, to the outsider it appears that there are two
Torahs and not just one.
The Gemara notes that the disagreement concerning the
co-wives of a forbidden relative Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is one example of
this tension. “Rabbi Yoḥanan
raises a difficulty: But Beit Shammai permit rival wives to the brothers, and
Beit Hillel prohibit
this practice. This is an example of a clear prohibition, and yet two different
traditions were followed.” (Sefaria.org translation) Beit Shammai would require
these co-wives the either observe yibum,
levirate marriage, or halitza, while
Beit Hillel would free them from their link to the surviving brothers and allow
them to marry any person. The Gemara comes to the conclusion that Beit Hillel
and Beit Shammai put into practice their approach concerning yibum.
Both Abaye and Rava try to resolve this tension by
limiting the scope of the derasha “Do
not become numerous factions.”
“Abaye said: When we
say that the prohibition: “You shall not cut yourselves” applies, we
are referring to a case where two courts are located in one city,
and these rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai and those
rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. However, with regard to two
courts located in two different cities, we have no problem with
it.
“Rava said to him:
But the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is considered like a case of two
courts in one city, as these two schools of thought were found everywhere,
not in any specific place. Rather, Rava
said: When we say that the prohibition: “You shall not cut yourselves”
applies, we are referring to a case where there is a court in one
city, a section of which rules in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai and
another section rules in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. However,
with regard to two courts located in one city, we have no problem
with it.” (Sefaria.org translation)
The
continuation of the sugiya teaches us
a very important lesson on how the Jewish people can be unified with diverse opinions.
“The Gemara
continues to discuss the question of whether Beit Shammai followed their own
rulings. Come and hear that which is taught in the mishna: Although
Beit Hillel prohibit and Beit Shammai permit, and these
disqualify the women and those deem them fit, Beit Shammai did not refrain
from marrying women from Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel refrain from
marrying women from Beit Shammai. Granted, if you say that Beit Shammai did
not act in accordance with their opinion, it is due to that reason
that they did not have to refrain from marrying women from Beit
Hillel. However, if you say that they did act in accordance with
their opinion, why didn’t they refrain from marrying one another?
“The Gemara elaborates: Granted, Beit
Shammai did not refrain from marrying into Beit Hillel, as even if
Beit Shammai maintain in a certain case that a rival wife required levirate
marriage or ḥalitza, if she went ahead and married another man their children
are born to a union whose partners are liable by a regular prohibition:
“The wife of the dead man shall not be married outside” (Deuteronomy 25:5).
Since this transgression does not entail karet, the children of this
relationship are not mamzerim.
“However, why did Beit Hillel not
refrain from marrying
into Beit Shammai? In the opinion of Beit Hillel the children of
these rival wives who entered into levirate marriage are born of a union whose
partners are liable to receive karet, as the prohibition
of a brother’s wife was never nullified in this case, which means that the
children are mamzerim. If so, how could Beit Hillel allow these
marriages?
“And if you would say that Beit Hillel maintain that
the child of a union whose partners are liable to receive karet
is not a mamzer, as a mamzer is only one whose parents
violated a prohibition that entails the death penalty, didn’t Rabbi Elazar
say: Although Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed with regard to
rival wives, they concede that a mamzer is only from a union whose
prohibition is a prohibition of forbidden relations punishable by karet?
Consequently, the children of rival wives are mamzerim according to Beit
Hillel. Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from here that Beit
Shammai did not act in accordance with their own opinion?
“The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No;
actually, Beit Shammai did act in accordance with their opinion. As
for the problem with these marriages, the answer is that they would inform
Beit Hillel and Beit Hillel would withdraw from the match. When
those who acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel would come to
marry women from those who followed the rulings of Beit Shammai, they would be
notified that certain children were born of rival wives and that those people were
considered mamzerim in the opinion of Beit Hillel, who therefore
declared them forbidden in marriage. (Sefaria.org translation)
The key to diversity within unity is
mutual respect and real communication.
No comments:
Post a Comment