Quoting Beit Shammai: Embracing the Mandatory Torah Dialectic

We all know about the praise given to Beit Hillel in that they quoted Beit Shammai first (T.B. Eruvin 13b), yet what does this value really represent? I would like to offer the following understanding that I believe is very applicable to many of the issues facing the Torah world these days.

To begin, we must first recognize that any behaviour that a person undertakes can be placed in one of the following five broad halachic categories:

1) Chiyuv - one is obligated to perform this action;
2) Mitzvah - in this context, we mean a behavour that is deemed of value (and, generally, recommended) but not obligated and thus subject to the personal choice of the individual to perform;
3) Reshut - permitted;
4) Not Recommended (Menuval b'reshut haTorahI)  -- not technically prohibited but clearly deemed to be inappropriate.
5) Assur - prohibited

Rather than definite, hard markings these categories should really be seen as markings on a continuous value spectrum that we are to apply to our actions. That is to say, the force of mitzvah in category 2 may not be the same in every case; some behaviours are more recommended than others. The key is to recognize that for anything we do, we are called upon to evaluate our action in the context of this value spectrum yardstick.
 .
Given this recognition, the call of Beit Hillel is then to recognize that there may further be differences of opinion, within the realm of Torah analysis, in regard to how an action may be so evaluated. The extreme would be the case where one may define an action as assur while another may define it as a chiyuv -- but that is only one possibility. What you actually find are distinctions across the spectrum: one saying assur, another stating that it is only not recommended but technically permitted, and yet another stating that it is even praiseworthy and recommended. Included in this recognition would also be the numbers and standing of those taking the variant sides -- who said what; what was the breakup in terms of percentage of the various positions. Even as one is to take a definite personal stand in regard to any action, the call of Beit Hillel is to recognize that one's personal decision is still made in the context of these variant views on the action.

It is the lack of recognition, let alone promotion, of this perspective that I feel is so problematic in our world today. What bothers me, for example, is when one voices an opinion, for example, from the far left -- such as it is permitted for women to get aliyot today -- as if it is an absolute, unquestioned fact. A statement may often begin, again for example, with: Everyone knows that it is really halachically permitted for women to get aliyot and that those who are against are only reflecting their chauvinistic perceptions... The halacha is presented as a clear-cut conclusion with the only possibility for deviation arising from personal bias. This is sadly,, also, often how it was taught to the one making the statement -- and this is the problem...and it exists in the right as well as the left. The depth and inherent complexity of Halacha is lost. The reality is that there are divergent opinions and any singular opinion needs to be voiced with this recognition.

The reality also is that these divergent opinions cover the gamut of the spectrum of the halachic value spectrum presented above. The world of Halacha is not black-and-white, simply permitted or not permitted. The call to recognize the view of the other side must furthermore be coupled with the recognition of halachic complexity. Defining something as, in the words of Ramban -- menuval b'rshut haTorah, disgusting while technically permitted -- is also a valid halachic description of a behaviour and must be recognized as such within any dialogue on the subject. It is a reflection of the Divine complexity of the system.

What is further lost with the rejection of this complexity is the inherent dialectic demanded by the system. We are to be involved in a dialectic of sophisticated investigation of issues and concepts. This is, in my belief, part of the very nature of the Divine system for with the possibility of divergent conclusions, the possibility of a full investigation of ideas may arise. This can only emerge if viewpoints are then not seen with dogmatic blinders of: This is right; this is wrong, It is when I recognize that others have concluded differently than me in regard to various issues, that I can consider the true nature of life. In our world, all we sadly see -- from the right to left -- is dogmatic presentations of a monolithic halacha that embarrasses, to say the least, the whole system. That is the challenge of the day.

Rabbi Ben Hecht