Photo Credit: 123rf.com
Imagine three blind men are holding onto a single object, trying to discern what it is. The first asserts that it is the trunk of a tree. The second argues that it is a snake. The third insists that it is a horn.
Now, is it possible that all three of them are right? Of course not. So all three of them continue arguing back and forth, fighting for the truth. As another person walks by and overhears them arguing, he kindly asks them, âWhy are all of you holding onto an elephant?â
Suddenly, all three of the blind men receive a flash of insight; they realize that they were each âholding ontoâ a piece of the picture, a piece of the truth. The first one was holding onto the leg of the elephant, thinking it was the trunk of a tree. The second one was grasping its trunk, assuming it was a snake. The third one was clasping onto its tusk, claiming it was a horn.
Eilu V’Eilu Divrei Elokim Chaim
One of our most fundamental human drives is our desire to know the truth. Whether it is a question about halacha, a political debate, or a simple argument, we tend to take sides, defend our position, and fight for âthe truth.” And yet it’s fascinating that no matter what area of Torah you learn, there is always a machlokes (argument) regarding the truth.
A paradigmatic Torah shiur spends significant time delving into the different approaches that talmidei chachamim throughout Jewish history have taken to the sugya (topic) at hand; a great shiur will aim to get to root of the sugya and the halachic questions in discussion, striving to learn and understand the different perspectives, explanations, and conclusions that lie at the root of the sugya. We start with the primary Torah sources; we then learn the various Mishnayos and Gemaras relating to the topic at hand, and we then delve deeper and learn the various ways that the Rishonim (and Geonim) understood these sources from Chazal; this then leads us to delving deeper in the Rishonim, analyzing the ways that the Achronim understood the often complex or cryptic analysis of the Rishonim.
And yet, there is always a fundamental question at the end of every sugya:
- What do we hold?
- What is the halacha?
- Who do we paskin like?
- What is the truth?
The answer always seems to be the same: it’s a machlokes. But how can that be the case? Isn’t there a single truth? If halacha is the way that we are supposed âact out and live a Torah life,â then how can there be such a debate regarding the nature of truth within halacha? Shouldnât there be a single correct course of action, a single truth? Why, then, does there seem to be a multitude of opinions and perspectives on every possible topic in Torah? This question is not only fascinating, but its foundational premise (that there should be a single truth) becomes fundamentally challenged by the famous Gemara in Eruvin (13b), which addresses this dichotomy, and seems to conclude that in every Torah argument, both sides are somehow true. The Gemara states as follows:
For three years Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel disagreed. These said: The halacha is in accordance with our opinion. And these said: The halacha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living G-d. However, the halacha is in accordance with the opinion of Beis Hillel.
The Gemara states that after years of arguing, a bas kol (divine voice) proclaimed that both Beis Hillel’s and Beis Shamai’s opinions were the words of the living G-d: Eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chaim. In other words, as Chazal explain it, both opinions are the emes. While this sounds nice and inspiring, it also seems to contradict basic logic. In most cases, it would seem that something is either true or false; the answer is either yes or no; either it works or it doesn’t. 1+1 does not equal 3. A 20-year old is not a 30-year old. A 24-hour day is not 28 hours long.
To say that everyone is right can just as easily be interpreted to mean that “no one is right.” Once you lower the standards of truth, you dilute it, and open the doors for anything and everything to be included as equally valuable and weighty. A $100 bill is not the same as a $1 bill, so how can we say that different answers are both true? The most valuable thing we have is truth, and once we equate different things as “true,” we risk losing that which we value most.
So how are we to understand this cryptic passage in the Gemara?
Not surprisingly, the truth is that there are several different ways to explain the nature of truth within Torah.
1) One Truth: An Arduous, But Valuable Journey
Some Achronim, such as the Chida and Nesivos Ha’Mishpat, maintain that there is always a single truth. However, it is only by going through the process of considering all the other untrue answers and perspectives that we are able to arrive at the one true answer. In other words, we start our journey to the truth in total intellectual darkness and confusion, trying our best to attain an ever-greater sense of clarity and understanding of the Torah. And even though many of the pathways, approaches, and opinions in every journey through Torah are false, they serve a fundamental purpose in the journey, as they help clarify the correct answer. Thus, even though these false answers are false when isolated and standing on their own, when held in the context of the “sugya as a whole,” they become part of the journey towards truth. Thus, they actually become “part of the truth.” Thus, Eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chaim.
This also explains why we paskin like Beis Hillel. The same Gemara later states that the halacha is like Beis Hillel because they would teach Beis Shammai’s opinion in addition to their own, and they would also state Beis Shamai’s opinion before stating their own. Now, granted this is a nice gesture, but why should this warrant the halacha being like Beis Hillel?
At first glance, this seems to be a technical idea, connected to humility and good middos. In other words, because Beis Hilllel showed humility and mentioned Beis Shamai’s opinion first, we reward them and paskin like them. However, there is a much deeper layer here as well:
In the journey to truth, many people will take a position and fight for it, no matter what. When Beis Hillel mentioned Beis Shamai’s opinion before their own, it showed that they wanted to first understand the opposing side before defending their own approach. In other words, it was the humility itself that gave them access to a greater form of truth, a truth that fully took Beis Shamai’s opinion into account. Thus, any question or challenge that Beis Shamai’s approach might have posed was accounted for and answered, because they valued it to such a degree that they not only mentioned it, but mentioned it before their own approach. So Beis Hillel is showing us that it is through the process of going through other opinions that one can arrive at the greatest truth.
2) Multiple Truths: Pluralism
Other Jewish authorities, such as the Ritva, suggest that there are in fact multiple true answers. In other words, every question or topic in Torah (and life) opens up and expands into a number of possible directions, and each of those directions are true, in their own way. The Ritva quotes the Gemara Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 4:2) which states that the (halachic discussions in) Torah can be understood in 49 ways tahor (pure) and 49 ways tamei (impure). Meaning, every topic and case can be interpreted in a whole range of ways.
Rebbi Yannai said, if the Torah had been given decided, no foot could stand. What is the reason? The Eternal spoke to Moses. He said before Him: Master of the Universe, inform me what is the practice. He told him, to bend after the majority. If there was a majority for acquitting, they acquitted; if there was a majority for convicting, they convicted; so that the Torah could be explained in 49 ways impure and 49 ways pureâ¦.
And so it says: the commands of the Eternal are pure sayings; molten silver in an earthenware crucible, refined sevenfold. And it says, the straightforward love You.
As interesting as this idea sounds, we are left with a fairly obvious question: why would Hashem create a world with multiple truths? And even if there are multiple truths, is every truth equal in value and weight to every other truth?
The Ritva ends off by saying that even though there are multiple truths, “b’emes (in truth), there is actually a much deeper principle here.” What is that deeper principle?
3) Multiple “Smaller Truths” that Comprise a Single Higher Truth
The Ritva, in addition to many other Achronim, such as the Aruch HaShulchan and Rav Eliyahu Dessler, are hinting to a very deep Torah concept. While the emes is one, it is not one in number; rather, it is “oneness.”
Rav Dessler (in Michtav MeâEliyahu, vol. 1, p. 92) describes two different types of order. The first is a practical one, an order that facilitates access and usability. For example, a library is organized according to a system that allows one to access each piece of information efficiently. Without an ordered system, it would be hard to benefit from a huge collection of books. The order therefore provides access and usability.
There is a second type of order of a fundamentally different quality from the first. In this second type of order, the pieces of a structure come together in such a way that it results in a whole that transcends the sum of its parts. For example, a radio is composed of a bunch of pieces, none of which is especially valuable on its own. However, when these pieces are assembled in just the right way, something incredible emanates from the pieces â a radio signal.
This level of order is fundamentally different from the first form of order. Regardless of their organization, each book in a library maintains its individual worth; nothing greater results from their order. However, in a system of the second type of order, it is only when the pieces come together that something truly valuable results. And the âonenessâ that results is actually something infinitely greater than the sum of the individual parts.
The same is true is true of white light. Just as white light, when refracted through a prism, reveals the full rainbow of colors, the same is true of emes. When the white light reveals this spectrum of colors, it’s actually revealing something very profound: it’s not that the white light is limited to being any one of these specific colors, nor is it that the white light is the sum of these colors; rather, it’s that the white light is beyond the sum of the parts, and when the infinite is constricted and revealed within the finite, it reveals itself as the seven colors of the
Source link