The Oral Talmud: Episode 19 - The Elu v’Elu Episode
SHOW NOTES
“Opinions that are contradictory to one another, the opposite of one another are both the words of God.” - Dan Libenson
Welcome to The Oral Talmud, our weekly deep dive chevruta study partnership, discovering how voices of the Talmud from 1500 years ago can help us rethink Judaism today.
This episode is dedicated to beloved Talmud translator Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz who passed in 2020, in the days before recording this episode. After honouring his life, DAN LIBENSON and BENAY LAPPE return to learning the deeply radical daf Eruvin 13. (For background, listen to Episodes 12, 13, and 15.) The legend of Rabbi Meir asks us to think about the qualities of the Talmud’s ideal person, how they think and lead in the world. Today we explore how this question comes alive in the relationship between the early rabbinic Schools of Shammai and Hillel, in the famous “Elu v’Elu” story!
What is the relationship between translation, access, and the joy of figuring it all out? How important is it to notice which Divine Names the Talmud authors are invoking in particular stories? How do we deal with the indeterminacy of truth? Can it be that God actually wants us to hold opinions that are contradictory to one another? Is this text a lesson on the best way to convince people of our opinions or the best way to build lasting relationships with people we disagree with? How do we preserve dissent for the future?
This week’s text: “Elu v’Elu, These and These are the Words of The Living God” (Eruvin 13b)
Access the Sefaria Source Sheet to explore key Talmud texts and find the original video of our discussion. The Oral Talmud is a co-production of Judaism Unbound and SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva. If you’re enjoying this podcast, please help us keep both fabulous Jewish organizations going with a one-time or monthly tax-deductible donation the top right corner of this website.
Further Learning
[1] Reflections on the learning from 2020’s Queer Talmud Camp: Diaspora Edition from SVARA’s Associate Rosh Yeshiva, Laynie Solomon (on SVARA’s Website)
[2] A short obituary for R’ Adin Steinsaltz z’’l from Benay (on Facebook)
[3] On the topic of the Eruv “No Strings Attached: A History of the Eruv of Miami Beach” by Jerry Levine (on YouTube) and a bit of background on the food-based Eruv Tavshilin (also on YouTube)
[4] Ilana Kurshan, author of “If All the Seas Were Ink” about Daf Yomi (on her website), guest on The Oral Talmud: Episode 21
[5] The statement that members of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai did not refrain from marrying each other is on Yevamot 13b
[6] A philologist (from “love of word”) is a student of historical linguistics (Wikipedia)
[7] The history of the saying “The law is an ass” on Phrase Finder
[8] Justice Stephen Breyer on the On Point podcast, discussing his pragmatist viewpoints on Constitutional interpretation (what Dan called a Living Constitution practice - on wbur’s website)
[9] Elu v’Elu, also spelled Eilu ve’Eilu has a Wikipedia article written by SVARA-nik Hillel Gray
[10] Vanessa Ochs’s article “Ten Jewish Sensibilities” in Sh’ma (Dec 2023/Tevet 5764 – PDF from Stanford’s Berman Archive)
[11] The Lippman Kanfer Foundation’s article on Elu v’Elu (their website)
[12] Our interview with Daniel Boyarin is The Oral Talmud: Episode 16 - The Greatest Voices Are Anonymous
[13] For Rabbi Eliezer and the Oven of Achnai story listen to The Oral Talmud: Episode 3 - Misquoting God and Episode 5 - Excommunicating Dissent
[14] For more on the Bat Kol, explore pgs 10-14 of Oral Talmud show notes writer Olivia Devorah Tucker’s “Clothed in Holiness: Discovering Divine Presence”
[15] For Alan Dershowitz troubles in 2020, explore his Wikipedia page
[16] A list links to Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissents (on Washington & Lee University School of Law)
-
DAN LIBENSON: This is The Oral Talmud - Episode 19: The Elu v’Elu Episode. The Oral Talmud is a co-production of Judaism Unbound and SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva. I’m Dan Libenson…
BENAY LAPPE: …and I’m Benay Lappe.
DAN LIBENSON: The Oral Talmud is our weekly deep dive study partnership, in which we try to figure out how voices from the Talmud – voices from 1500 to 2000 years ago – can help us think in new ways about Judaism today.
This episode is dedicated to beloved Talmud translator Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz who passed in 2020, in the days before recording this episode. In this episode, we honour Rabbi Steinsaltz’s impact on our lives and then return to return to our learning through the deeply radical daf Eruvin 13. We’ll catch you up in our chazarah, our review during this episode, and you can listen/re-listen to Episodes 12, 13, and 15 for a deeper discussion.
Today our learning brings us to the Talmud-famous “Elu v’Elu” story, where we surprise each other and ourselves with some new conclusions about what the Talmud is trying to teach us through the relationship between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel. If you’re a fan of recurring lens of the American Legal System this is definitely an episode for you, as for anyone who finds themselves in deep disagreement with their fellow human being.
Each episode of The Oral Talmud has a Source Sheet linked in the show notes on a web site called Sefaria where you can find pretty much any Jewish text in the original and in translation. If you wish, you can follow along with the texts we discuss and share them with your study partners or just listen to our conversation!
And now, The Oral Talmud…
DAN LIBENSON: Today is August 7th, 2020. And, um, today, sadly, um, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz passed away. He is the, um, well, I mean, he's an, uh, spent his entire, he was 83 when he died. He was the, the translator. He translated the entire Talmud into modern Hebrew. And then from his modern Hebrew translation, uh, others translated an English authorized English version of that, which, um, is, is what Sefaria uses as their basic, uh, Talmud text online. So when we are using a translation of the Talmud for this show, uh, that's his translation with a little bit of tweaks that we made.
So he, he really an incredible scholar and, um. You know, I, I, I put actually in the notes for today's show that even though SVARA’s motto is that The Revolution Will Not Be Translated,” that there's still, uh, that that's not a hundred percent how we see it. And, and that, uh, there translation's important and, and I mean, there's no one really who's done more to make the Talmud, uh, widely accessible. And, and then for those who don't have the capacity to access it in the original, or at least for now, um, then, then he is incredible life's work.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. I, I, I really see our work at SVARA as being in his lineage because what he was about was access. He was about making sure those who had been locked out of the Beit Midrash, um, would have the opportunity to learn and add their voice to the conversation. Um.
Yeah, he, he, you know, as I said in my, um, post this morning, I never met him, but he felt like the friend - the teacher friend who was always there - um, who you could, you could go to after you had ex, after you had spent, you know, a ridiculous number of joyful, exquisite hours in confusion with your chevruta over a text to finally say, okay, we're stuck. Let's, you know, pull a volume off the shelf and peak at the smallest amount, just enough to get back on track, to go back to the joy of the figuring out. Um, and he was always there. So it's a, it's a sad day.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah, for, for me, uh, I mean, I have a little bit of a personal, um, not, not that I met him or anything, but when I was 14, our family moved to Israel and for whatever reason, we were put in Orthodox, the orthodox school system, I mean the religious school system.
And, um, I was 14, I was in ninth grade, and there was already people in my year who had been in the religious school system, had already studied some Talmud, uh, in earlier grades. And I hadn't studied any. And I, I basically knew nothing about what the Talmud was. And, um, and, uh, you know, it was, it was, uh, translated like into modern Hebrew, which I barely knew, but at least, at least it was something. And, and really, you know, if I hadn't had, had his work, um. I don't know what, what, what that would've been like for me. Uh, I was, I was the only kid in the class who was allowed to use the Steinsaltz. So it was interesting in, in light of what you talk about, about translating that in Israel too. Like you, you weren't allowed to use the modern Hebrew translation, but I was, because I was a new immigrant,
And, uh, what to me to think about is that, is that at that time, Steinsaltz was the age that I am now more or less. And somehow he translated the whole Talmud, or I don't think the whole, I think he hadn't done quite the whole thing at that point, but a a lot of, I mean, it's just incredible, uh, what he achieved at a young age as well.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. And I think because when I started learning Talmud and the volumes I have, um, what, what, what I peek at when I'm stuck is this Hebrew translation. Um, it doesn't feel so much like cheating uhhuh, and it's still, it still preserves because I'm not a native speaker of Hebrew. It still preserves that, that figuring out that the joy of the figuring out. Um, yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: Well I, I said to you that, um, it, I was thinking this morning, and maybe we should just like talk about translation and talk about Steinsaltz today, but, um, but we won't, we'll talk about that another time.
Uh, we wanna dive into a text today. We've had a couple of, uh, guests over the last few weeks, and then last week we had a, uh, kind of impromptu conversation about, uh, about Tisha b’Av, the Ninth of Av, which actually was useful in our project. Um, but we had, we'd had a last minute scheduling change. So this is the first time in about a month I think that we are really going back to, to studying a text.
It's, it's funny because in the early weeks of the show, we'd originally said we were gonna alternate weeks, and then for all kinds of scheduling reasons, it's ended up being clumps. So we have some weeks, a bunch of weeks when we're studying together and a bunch of weeks when we have guests. And, um, you know, like I keep saying on the podcast, it'll all be smoothed out. We'll change the order a little bit, but, um,
but I'm excited to get back into this, this studying with you. I mean, I'll just say personally it's the highlight of my time to, you know, I, uh, say week because that's not every week. But I mean, just to be able to like talk through a text with you is. It's like a joy. Um,
BENAY LAPPE: I feel the same way.
DAN LIBENSON: So I'm excited to do this. So, um, so today's text, so I, I guess I wanna remind people, since it has been a while, that we've been looking at a number of stories, a number of texts, and I guess not quite stories. Uh, there, there's a, you know, we started on this show with more texts that were in the kind of story genre, the agadah, the, the stories of the early rabbis in Yavneh, and in that sort of early period, we'll go back to stories of, of that nature, but we talked a lot about, uh, both the storytelling genre and the Talmud, and also. Well, who are the characters that they're telling these stories about?
Here? Uh, the, we're looking at a bunch of texts. They, they do have story elements to them, but they're, and, but, and they're not quite law. There's something in between. They're, they're sort of, uh, in the Venn diagram between story and more, let's say, formal processes and, um. And specifically we've been looking at a number of texts that in some fashion describe, you've put it how the rabbis see the ideal person. And I think it's, it's really how they see the ideal person who is engaged in this process of re-imagining Judaism what their task was. Right?
BENAY LAPPE: Or maybe the process that in turn creates this aspirational person who will create that liberatory aspirational world. So I think there's a feedback, there's sort of some sort of a photosynthesis cycle going on here between this is the way that we create a certain kind of person and what that person will then do and around and around.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. And, and just, you know, we, we looked at some texts especially about this idea that the ultimate person engaged with this is capable of, of even making something that the Torah explicitly forbids, uh, into something that's not forbidden. Specifically this idea of the creepy crawly thing that is impure by definition, that you're even able to make that pure through your reasoning, through your, through your thinking,
BENAY LAPPE: right! And let's remember that, that exact text or the parallel, really the duplication of that text comes immediately before the text we're about to learn. Today, I feel like we need to step back and stitch together the last two texts we've done because they are all on the same daf, the same double-sided page of Talmud is what we're talking about today,
DAN LIBENSON: right. And that is in the tractate called Eruvin, which is about, um. Sort of, I, I think, uh, what did we say? Did we talk about this? Uh, well, we said, well, you could call it something like loopholes or Yeah. Or, um,
BENAY LAPPE: legal fictions
DAN LIBENSON: legal fictions. Yeah. Legal fictions, you know, and, and so we think of an, Eruv as those who know what an a Eruv is, typically think of it as this like string that's tied around some area of space that somehow makes it possible that you can carry things on Shabbat that you normally wouldn't be able to carry.
But there are actually a number of different kinds of Eruvs. And so, and then you're like, well, what's, how does the a string, what's, how does the string uh, relate to like putting some food in a certain place that's a different kind of a eruv? And, um, the answer is that we're probably thinking of eruv in the wrong way if you think of it as strings – what it really means is legal fictions. a way. And, and, um, yeah. you wanna
BENAY LAPPE: If I connected the dots between overturning Torah in, in 150 different ways, and the string last time, I've forgotten it. Now. It's hitting me in a whole new way. I don't think I ever got it. I don't think you
DAN LIBENSON: made that connection. Yeah,
BENAY LAPPE: no, I, it's like the penny is just finally dropping for me.
DAN LIBENSON: Exactly. Why is this in Eruvin? Oh, of course. Like this is the whole fact date that is about basically overturning things in the Torah through cleverness.
BENAY LAPPE: Right. I never got that. Okay. Yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: But so for the folks watching at home, we're actually learning here, like this is in the lecture.
Um, the, um, and by the way, I, I will note one other thing that, uh, is just occurring to me is that in the, Daf Yomi the daily page of Talmud cycle, this is coming up in about three weeks.
So, uh, it happens to be, you know, I know you have mixed feelings, but, uh, negative feeling, but, uh,
BENAY LAPPE: we'll put a sticky on Daf Yomi one day when we talk about translation and other things.
DAN LIBENSON: We'll, but we are, we are actually talking about that - I forget if it's next week or the week after, because we are going to be talking to, um, Ilana Kurshan, who wrote a book about her study of the Daily Talmud page Daf Yomi. So it is gonna come up soon.
BENAY LAPPE: That’s gonna be fun.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. Um, but, but for those, uh, for those who are, who are doing it, um, uh, you know, transgress or not, uh, I am definitely doing it in the transgressive, uh. Because my teacher doesn't like it. Uh, the, um, but it,
BENAY LAPPE: you're sweet.
DAN LIBENSON: We're, we're, I think we're about a week away from the end of, of the tractate of Shabbat, which I'm gonna be very relieved about because it's been quite boring from my perspective. And, um, and going into Eruvin. So, so this is coming up, uh, relatively soon, so hope so. For those of you who are doing, uh, daf yomi then maybe this is a little bit of a, um, preview. So, okay. So let, and, and what we have been doing is a little bit of a preview, so let's, uh, take a look at,
so, Benay, do you wanna set this up in, in any particular way, or, or is that we've set it up?
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah - Well, for me, this page of Talmud has three blocks of ideas. I'm still not sure how the three blocks all relate or so, so let me set those three blocks up and then remind us that the previous page, um, is also connected. So the top of this dot, the top of this side of the folio page is the story of Rabbi Meir.
And we remember that Rabbi Meir is introduced as someone who God himself, God itself, knows is the greatest in his generation. And in spite of that, the law was never set according to him because it seemed that no one could ever, none of his colleagues could ever suss out what he really believed. And if the case he was making on a certain issue was really what he believed and therefore they should fix the law that way, or he was just pushing them in their thinking and arguing both sides, so on and so forth.
Um, but it acknowledges that the way he, um, destabilized every certainty, quote unquote, enlightened the eyes of the sages. So you were better off having a Rabbi Meir at your table, even though you couldn't really use him as a source for a specific, okay, so that's the first block of this text.
The second block are the, the two stories of his students, one of whom for everything that was like, yes, this way, this is the law, he had a thousand different reasons why that was the case. And the other student, the veteran student in Yavneh who could overturn the Torah in 150 different ways. And um, we had learned the parallel text of that. Um. A number of months ago, I think,
Then comes this third block and put a sticky on this third block because on the previous page in our last session together, we studied, you know what I like to think of as Rabbi Meir's curriculum. Like how did he become Rabbi Meir? Mm-hmm. How did he get to be this kind of a thinker? And we learned that first he went to Rabbi Akiva's Academy, and he just could not tolerate, literally “stand” what was going on there. He couldn't grasp it or he couldn't handle it. Then he goes over to Rabbi Yishmael's Academy and he learns his, you know, he learns the basics, Gamar Gamara.
Then he goes back to Rabbi Akiva, and now he can savar svara. Now he knows how to and can tolerate the project of radical innovation. Okay, so that, that's Rabbi Meir. Then he becomes who he is. Then he, we have a students, then we have this story today. So I think that's the context for this, and I think we should revisit the question of what does this story have to do with the whole Rabbi Meir narrative?
DAN LIBENSON: Great. Right And I will also just note, and I think this will come up in conversation later as to why, but I, I've mentioned before that I, I'm a lawyer. I was, you know, I'm a, I was trained in American law schools and I was a law professor for a while. And, uh, I actually taught law for three years at a Catholic law school that for various reasons, encouraged us to use religious works as in, in our courses.
And I actually, uh, used to, I, I taught contracts to first year law students. So really it's like the classic, you know, first year course of law school and on the very first day of law school. Uh, I would teach this text as part of, part of my opening to the first day of contracts. So, so we'll talk about it.
I, I, I think it, it's a little bit different maybe from a classical take on this text, but I just wanna note that it's, it's not only, uh, in terms of, of the kind of person that we imagine is the best kind of person to work on Jewish law. Like, I actually think that these qualities are, are applicable, uh, universally, far beyond, far beyond, I shouldn't say universally, but definitely far beyond.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: Okay. So let's, uh, let's start. Okay. Um, so I'll remind folks that we have a Safari source sheet. If you look at the, um, page for this show, which is, uh, OralTalmud.com. so it starts by saying, Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. We can translate those as the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. That would be the most narrow, uh, what you call an inside translation. Um, but I think that it, it's probably a better translation to say the School of Shammai, the School of Hillel, in terms think of those as like philosophical schools like for Greek philosophy.
Um, these were, these were not necessarily the people named Shammai and Hillel who were, uh, sort of proto rabbis that, uh, lived around the, the early, early first century. Uh. Late, late first century BCE, early first century CE and, um, the, but they, they had these, uh, schools of their thought that persisted longer than that.
And, um, the, the, the, these schools had different points of view. Typically, Shammai is a more, uh, conservative textualist type of, uh, point of view, uh, narrow narrowly deciding laws. And, and Hillel has a more sort of expansive, progressive view of, of how the law should be interpreted. So they would typically disagree.
“And, uh, these said, one side said–
BENAY LAPPE: oh, you know what, before we even move on, I think the important thing to notice about this opening line is the three years
DAN LIBENSON: uhhuh,
BENAY LAPPE: right? So it's one thing to say they disagreed is another thing to say. They disagreed for three years. And I think what we have to remember is with most people with whom we have a profound disagreement, we have it, and then the relationship is over.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm mm
BENAY LAPPE: But I think what's important about this line is that they stayed in relationship to one another throughout this ongoing disagreement. So I think, I think that's important just to notice from the get go. And I think the text is, is suggesting that kind of longevity of relationship in spite of profound disagreement.
DAN LIBENSON: And it's not on this page, I don't believe, but there's a, a famous, uh, statement in the Talmud that Beit Hillel, the House of Hillel, the, the School of Hillel, the School of Shammai, they would, you know, again - we don't like the way that this is put exactly - but they would marry their daughters to, to their sons, one another, whatever, something like that. You know? And meaning that they Yeah. Even though they on that,
BENAY LAPPE: but it Right. In spite of their, that that's kind of the, the, the, the marker of ultimate concession to, or, or willingness to stay in relationship. Mm-hmm. Right, right. Yeah. Okay. Great.
DAN LIBENSON: Okay. So, um, So, so they disagreed for three years.
And, um, and these said, one, one side said the halakha, the law of the tradition is in accordance with our views, our opinion. And these said, the other side said the halakha in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these, and those are the words of the Living God.
And this could be translated, it is Divrei Elohim Hayyim, and depending on what you consider the, you know, the, the adjective and the, uh, direct object, whatever the exact terms are, that you could translate it as the Living God. And you've, you've said before that it's important to kind of note that the Talmud uses different names of God in different times. And that you, you think that there's a, a, a relationship like when God is referred to, for example, as the Holy Blessed One, uh, that that tends to be an assert- You know, you have to kind of put that in relationship with texts that also use the Holy Blessed One. Right. And um, and here it's not using the Holy Blessed one, it's using a different name of God, The Living God, Elohim Hayyim,
BENAY LAPPE: yeah. Yeah. And also, also that. Not, not only should you imagine or or think about the other text where God has that name, but what might the editor be saying or suggesting when pointing to this particular conceptualization or aspect of God? If this is a God who speaks and the world comes into being, maybe there's some, you know, subtext here about our use of words. Right? We, we've seen that before.
Or if God is being referred to as the Merciful One, maybe this is a little bit of a hint of, you know, check your, check your rachmanus, you know, check your, check your mercy going on here. So, so that's one possibility, that this is not, this should be actually capital T, capital L, The Living God. That's the name of God. God. So what does that mean to be like Living? Maybe it's about being in process and constant change growth. I don't know, maybe there's something there.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm. I hadn't thought about this, but I suppose we could, it could also be translated as the God of Life. just, just a thought. I dunno if that takes us anywhere.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah, for sure. Or, or as you say, the living could be referring to the words.
DAN LIBENSON: Right. Than the living words with God. In other words, so, so, right. So one way to say these, both, both Hillel's views and Shammai's views are the words of The Living God, or both Hillel's words and Shammai's words are the living words of God,
BENAY LAPPE: right? So we have to sort of surface, well, what is, what's living? What does that mean? What does that add here? Um. Yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: Well, for me, the, the, the reason like I ch I, I, I have to, I admit that I, I'm, no, uh, uh, I'm no linguist or, uh, what's the word that Talmud scholars are, I forget that, you know, that, uh…
BENAY LAPPE: Philologist?
DAN LIBENSON: Philologist, yes! I'm no philologist. And so it may be that, that in Aramaic, there, there's some, it's clearly one, one or the other. I mean, this generally is translated. I generally have seen this translated as the words of The Living God. Um, and there may well be a, a strong justification for that in, in linguistics or philology.
I, I usually translate it when I teach it. As the living words of God, because it makes more sense to me. Mm-hmm. That the, the idea is that the words have, are alive. The words are not a dead letter, right? I mean, we talk about a dead letter. Living words is the opposite of a dead letter. And so when you think about law as a dead letter, that that means, I mean, that's a pejorative way of saying it, but the basic idea is that the law is the law. You know?
As, as a cer I think, I forget which American law person said it. The law is a ass, you know, like the law is just the law. The law is just there. We have to live with it. You could change it, but the law is a thing. It's, it's there. And as opposed to, and, in American constitutional interpretation, we have, uh, you know, we, we have, uh, one of the versions, I think, I think, uh, Breyer is Justice Breyer is, is seen in the school of the, the Living Constitution. The, the idea that the words actually do change their meaning in substantial ways over time, because they kind of, um, live within the larger world and they can, it can actually change.
Um, so that, that to me is, is I like that idea that the idea that the words have, have life and the words can change, and it's actually part of our task is to understand what these words mean now, you know, as opposed to the words of The Living God, which feels more like, you know, I don't know. It, it, it, it feels to me like it gives God more power. You know? It kind of says like, God is still around here. Yeah. And these words, we gotta, we gotta know that, that God is out there. God has some, you know? Right. That's kind of, but it,
BENAY LAPPE: but I think here the words that are being described aren't the words of our, you know, constitution, I don't think they're talking about the words of Torah. They're talking about the words that one another, uh, speak. Um, but I think the implication still holds. Mm-hmm. I, I think it's definitely suggesting what you're saying.
Um, so this is, we so have to just sit back on this line. This is, this is a, a line “Eilu v’Elu these, and those” has become, um, that, that phrase has become a foundational principle of the entire rabbinic project in rabbinic Judaism ever since this moment.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: And it, it reminds me of what, um, we talked about in our last episode, which I had learned from, from my teacher, David Kraemer, which is that the real rabbinic revolution was the idea that: whereas before we had one single text where we could go to find God's word. Now we have other places where we can go, including our own svara, our own moral intuition - but that ultimately none of us can ever claim to know God's will. Prophecy is over and now there is indeterminate truth. We can, we can make our best guesses and that's all we can do.
And it feels like this text is the, I I'm not sure if the word is articulation, embodiment, um, of that idea, but, but I think this is it. This is what becomes the, um, the Jewish statement that that's now going to be a core principle in our tradition. And that in turn is something that I'm always thinking about when I think about what a new Option 3 is, what some of our core principles, some, I used to think the core principles stay the same, but the way we play them out, our practices, our holidays, our you know, rituals change. But that's not exactly true either.
I think our core foundational values and principles somewhat, I don't think they changed a, oh, I'm not sure I'm, I'm working at it. But I think they changed and I think this moment in our history is a shift in how we deal with that indeterminacy of truth and the fact that we accept something like that. I don't know.
DAN LIBENSON: Hmm. I, I would point out that our, our friend of Vanessa Ochs, uh, has a, this idea of Jewish Sensibilities. That there are these kind of, you know, deeply ingrained ways that Jews kind of are and think, you know, and this, I don't remember if this is one of the ones she lists or, or the Lippman Foundation.
BENAY LAPPE: it is. I think it is.
DAN LIBENSON: There's also the Lippman Kanfer Foundation, which is built on her work and, and takes these, this sort of idea seriously and tries to take it into the world of philanthropy. You know, also has a take on these, what are the, what are some rep, main representative Jewish sensibilities. And this is definitely one of those, uh, so this,
so like you said, this, this idea has become extremely fundamental - that somehow, because it's, it's just to point out: Opinions that are contradictory to one another, the opposite of, of one another are both the words of God.
BENAY LAPPE: Right? I mean, that's the, that's the vexing paradox. It's not just divergent opinions. I, I think it's suggesting completely opposite. Right. And according to our rules of logic, incompatible and unable to both exist as true at the same time are now being said to, to actually both be either fully true and fully in contradiction. Or is it, and I'm not sure - each has a partial truth.
I don't know. What do you, what do you think?
DAN LIBENSON: I, I, I wanna go with they're fully true, right? Yeah. And, and I also think that what it means is that, like, I think that a, a really fundamental piece of this is to say that what the tradition is. Now or in the past is, is not necessarily the same thing as what God wants.
And in a way, this is, this is a, a stark example of that because it says very explicitly, God actually is fine either way, you know, God, these are both the words of God. In fact, maybe God doesn't want it decided one way or the other because they're both the words of The Living God. So God is not only okay with it either way, actually God would prefer both ways. Um, right. If, if, if in the, and if that's the, if that's the decision, you know, if that's the, the basis for your decision.
However, as we'll see, the tradition actually chooses one of, one of the ways, but don't, don't be, you know, don't, don't be speaking for God, you know, and, and that that's where like, it makes me think about like what at least Judaism here is aspiring towards in contrast to what you hear from - I think of it as certain kinds of evangelical preachers, but there's certainly plenty of Jewish rabbis that talk this way. That, that they, they're speaking for God and they know, you know, and, and, and you should do this because it's what God wants. But that's different here. This is saying, no, no, no. It may well be that you should do it, but that's the tradition. But don't confuse that, that that's what God demands.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah, and we heard that from, uh, Professor Boyarin as well. The idea that you really can't say what God, you, you absolutely can't say what God said. You can say what you think God said.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah,
DAN LIBENSON: but even that is a question here. You know, what you think, right? I mean, uhhuh it, it may well be, I mean, and that's the interesting thing. Like, uh, I remember also, you know, like there's this, uh, phrase I, I don't know if it's from the Talmud, it probably is, but in rabbinic this idea that there are 70 Faces to the Torah, right? Meaning, or that you can look at the Torah from like 70 different angles.
I remember when I was a Hillel director and I had a kind of, you know, the same kind of interpretive approach that I have now, which is kind of contrarian and, you know, and, and secular we could call it. Or you know, I often will read the Torah and say, well, let's just read it as if God is not all knowing or omniscient and, or let's just read God here as the character that's like the big boss or uh, whatever the natural course of things.
And I would say to my Orthodox students who felt uncomfortable without reading, I'd say, look. I'm not saying that I'm right, but I'm saying that maybe this is, there's 70 faces to the Torah. Like maybe this is one of them. Right. Maybe if you only are willing to read the text with a set of assumptions, like God is omniscient, um, you know, God is a being, et cetera. Like what if you're actually missing one of the 70 faces? And so let's at least give it a shot. And, and I'm not asking you to agree with that perspective. I'm just asking you to accept it for this hour so that we can read this text and see if anything interesting comes out of, out of that reading. And I think inevitably it does if people are willing to do that.
And, um, and I, and I think what's interesting about this text is that it potentially takes that idea even further and says, you know, it's not just like 70 perspectives. It's, it's like they're actually all the words of God. Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: And I think we, we shouldn't fail to. Dig into the phrase this, this Heavenly Voice, the Bat Kol.
Mm-hmm. So we have a, we have a, a relationship with this Bat Kol, and sometimes we listen to the Bat Kol and sometimes we disregard the Bat Kol. Right? Right. We learn the story of the Oven of Akhnai where the Bat Kol comes out and says to the sages: What's your problem with Rabbi Eliezer? He's right. And Rabbi Yehoshua basically says, sit down, we outnumber you, you told us to go with the majority. Right.
Um, so as we're about to see, they seem to listen to the Bat Kol here and one of my questions is, why do they listen to the Bat Kol here? And they don't listen to the Bat Kol elsewhere. Typically, they don't listen to a Bat Kol. Mm. It seems like they're about to. So let's leave that on the table.
DAN LIBENSON: Okay, that's a good one.
BENAY LAPPE: Alright. But, but did you fully flesh out why you bring this up on the first day? Or do you wanna save that?
DAN LIBENSON: I think I wanna save it. It's, it's related to what comes next.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay, great.
DAN LIBENSON: So they're both the words of, of The Living God or the living words of God, however, the halakha the tradition, the law is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Here it says definitively, it's almost always right. It's not always, it's almost always,
BENAY LAPPE: oh yeah. That almost is not in the original.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah, no, it's not in the original or the trans[lation], but I'm saying to you, there's, there are a few cases where it's not, but, but in the original it just says it, it it, it implies always. Right?
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. And, and it implies that according to God or ah, as represented by the Bat Kol, the halakha should always be according to Beit Hillel. But you're right, it's, it's interesting that actually the Rabbi don't always, usually they do follow the opinion, in fact, in and sort of quote unquote codify the opinion of Beit Hillel, but not always. So they're in that. In those way, in those times, they're actually going against the Bat Kol.
DAN LIBENSON: So that, that's actually interesting because that means this is not necessarily the exception to the rule that they don't follow the Bat Kol. They, they follow it a little, a little bit here, but not They follow a lot, but not completely. Um, okay. So, um, okay, so, so, okay. So this, this is actually,
I should have made a correction to the translation here and I didn't, um, because I think it's not quite right, but, uh, it says, um, the Gemara asks: since – oh, go ahead.
BENAY LAPPE: Yes. That, that's always been my question about, I didn't notice that. I also reviewed the translation and didn't notice that, but it's always been my question here at this moment in the text, is this next line the continuation of the Bat Kol, or is this the narrator of the story jumping in? I don't think it's clear at all. – So let's get this next line out.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. But, um. So I'm just looking at the, at the Hebrew there, it says v’chi um, sort of, “and therefore”, uh, or, v’chi may’ah’char you know, so, so it's sort of like, it's, there is a connection. There is a kind of a, a, a drawing, a connection, but,
But the part that I, um, feel is, is, is not quite right in the translation is where it says, um, that the, since, uh, since these, since both these, and those are the words of The Living God, why were Beit Hillel, why was the House of Hillel, the school of Hillel, privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? I don't know that “privileged” is the right way to translate this.
Um, it, the, in the, in the original it is, zachu which means like more than it can mean privileged, it can mean something like, “were worthy of” Right. And probably “were worthy of” is a better translation. And actually I would be comfortable with “were worthy of” based on what I have to say about it, but, but, um, it privileged is not necessarily wrong, but it's a good case.
It's a good example of the problematics of translation because if you, especially if you are translating, especially like I think that you can be a translator who is like, poetic enough that you find the way to translate something that it gets. A lot of nuance, if it has nuance in the original – Steinsaltz himself, by the way, did not do the English translation. So I think there's only a limit to, I don't wanna blame him here, even though it's his English translation under his name. –
But, um, but whoever translated it into English, I'm not sure that privilege is right. I, I, I think that, um, you know, uh, because, because I, because I don't think it necessarily has to do with privilege. When we think we say privilege, I think we have the idea that like, somebody's so good and so we're gonna give him like an award because he was so good. We like him so much. He was, you know, right. He, why he gets a privilege, um,
as opposed to sort of worthy of, or Right. That, that actually maybe he earned it, but, but not in a way that you earned it because he was so nice, You earned it because. And this is why I teach it in law school, because this is good legal. This is a good way for lawyers to behave. This is how you win cases. It's not because the jury says, oh, how nice you are. I want you to, it's because it actually works. So I, I, I, I would look for the translation that allows it to go either way. 'cause it might mean privileged, but it might mean something a little different.
BENAY LAPPE: Got it. So for you, merit doesn't really help. It's more like, it's more like earned.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah.
BENAY LAPPE: Like,
DAN LIBENSON: what did I say earlier? Now I can't remember, but
BENAY LAPPE: privilege?
DAN LIBENSON: No, before. Like what I, I came up with something on the fly and now I've forgotten it, but like, just a minute ago. But it was like, you know, were worthy of, or something.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. Worthy.
DAN LIBENSON: Is that what I said? But, but the idea is that, to my mind it's, I mean, what I have to say ultimately about this is like the School of Hillel was a better law school. Uh, and they taught better advocacy skills. And the reason why the laws decided according to Hillel is not because Hillel was chosen as the more meritorious, you know, better person, and therefore you make the law according to him.
I mean, that seems like, that seems like an arbitrary reason to like what, you know, God does so, so doesn't care that he, that, that the laws or, or, or whoever's making the decisions, so doesn't care. They're both the words of living. God says, we might as well give it to the nice guy. I don't like that. I, I think like, you know, it's, it's a more interesting to say, well, wait a second, why did these behaviors lead to the law being decided this way through, through natural course of things, not through some, you know, person deciding.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. So we haven't quite gotten the characteristics up, but you're saying the characteristics that we're about to see
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah.
BENAY LAPPE: That were in the folks in the House of Hillel led to that. Those, those characteristics, those, those human traits shaped their law such that the law came out better
DAN LIBENSON: or something like that. We'll get, we'll get through.
BENAY LAPPE: Alright, let's, let's take a look at the characteristics. Okay.
DAN LIBENSON: So, so the reason is that: they here, meaning the, the members of the School of Hillel, they were agreeable and forbearing. I think it's, you know, it's always hard to know if exactly the right translation of this. Um, is it, I think it's aluveen v’noh’cheen in the original. Yeah.
BENAY LAPPE: noh’cheen va’ah’loo’veen Mm-hmm.
DAN LIBENSON: So I don't know You wanna say anything about those words?
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah, let's see. Nocheen It's like it comes from the root noach which means to, “to rest” to. It's, it's, it's, it's like a kindness. Um, yeah. They were, they were kind, they were comfort. There's certain, like a sense of comforting about it.
DAN LIBENSON: Um, yeah. Modern Hebrew l’noach to rest, you know, it comes from this, but, so it comes from a, it's like, they're not, like they're on a low, they're not, they're not, they're not agitated. Right. They're, they're, or
BENAY LAPPE: agitating they, they, they don't, they, they're not like triggering or hurtful, um, something like that. Mm-hmm. Um, yeah.
And ah’loo’veen, for me, it has a kind of humility. Mm-hmm. Right? Yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: Um, for me, and I'm here, I'm, I'm, I'm definitely, um, impacted by Modern Hebrew here, so I'm not sure that I've totally got it and its original me, you know, but 'cause aloov is kind of really, really like, um. It's kind of got almost like a negative connotation, like a, like pathetic, uh, you know, just kind of, uh mm-hmm. You know, like, and I don't think that's what it's trying to mean here, but it's still in that, in that same, uh, register of, you know, low. Right. Uh, it's just like humble, you know? It's like humble and quiet, uh, right. Something like that.
And, and here's an example of what I would, I would talk about in law school is that I would say like, when you think about the typical lawyer that is successful as a lawyer, you know, I think a lot of people think of like Alan Dershowitz, you know, who's in trouble these days. But, um, but you know, you think of somebody who's yelling and, and you know, banging on the table and that kind of thing. And every once in a while there's a lawyer that succeeds that way.
But most lawyers who are successful are not anything like that. You know, most lawyers who are successful are quiet. Get their work done, you know? Um, say like, I, I'm just a country lawyer, you know, what do I know? You Right. You know, and, and it's just like, right. And win you over through their humility and then just say, well, I looked at the facts and I look at, you know, here's, here's what I see.
Um, and, and it's actually the exception that, maybe the exception approves the rule that these, these, you know, highly combustible lawyers, it's actually usually an ineffective technique. That that was one, that's one piece.
BENAY LAPPE: Mm-hmm. What you're raising up for me is if these character traits help one yield better, better law and come up with more, um, compassionate or considered, um, norms for our world. Um, there seems to be something that kind of freezes your mind about being combative and certain, and not humble. It, it's like that those traits prevent you from seeing, um, I don't know, bigger pieces of the truth. I can't quite find the words, but, so, um,
DAN LIBENSON: I mean, if you're aggressively lobbying and advocating for a position in that kind of typical, what, what, what you would imagine is the opposite of humble and quiet. Right. You know, aggressive, bombastic, you're not listening, you know. Proof, you know, and, and you're not, you're not open. You're, like, you say, you're not open. You're, you're there with a certain orientation.
And, and the Talmud somehow is saying here that orientation's not the orientation we want. Right. Or it's not the orientation.
BENAY LAPPE: That's right. That's right. And I really appreciate you saying listening. I think it's about, I think that's what it's about.
DAN LIBENSON: Well, that, and that's what comes next. So let's, let's move on.
So, uh, so there, uh, you know, again, here it's translated agreeable and forbearing or, or, uh, quiet and, um, quiet and humble. Uh, and then there's a, a bit of explanation. You're showing restraint when affronted. And, and so that's, that's Steinsaltz’s point of view.
“and they would teach both their own statements, their own views, uh, and the statements of the house of Shammai.” So, so they, so right. They, they would, so the, this is saying that the, uh, members of the House of Hillel would not only teach their own views, but they would also teach the views of the House of Shammai.
And the next third quality is that moreover, basically they would teach the positions of the House of Shammai first. So it's not only that they would teach both, they would first teach Shammai and then teach what they have to say about it.
BENAY LAPPE: Right. So my question at this point is, are they, I think that the, the kind of restrictive, slightly cynical read is that this was a great, it's a great stratagem for winning an argument. Mm-hmm. To lift up the other person's opinion just so you can more adequately knock it down.
But I don't think that's what's going on here. I don't think it's just a strategy. But I'm not completely sure, you know, why they were doing that. I don't know. What, what do you think?
DAN LIBENSON: Well, I think that part of it is a strategy. Like I, I mean, I, I totally agree with you that it's not only a strategy, but I think it's worth talking about it as a strategy and to say, look, you know, again, think about the opposite of what's being described here. You know, the combative, uh, bombastic lawyer who, who talks about, you know, this one position, “you can't see it any other way. No reasonable person would see it any other way. I can't even Ima[gine]” - Right. You know, that's not convincing because, uh, you know, it might be convincing to some people, but other people are like, wait a second, I see it another way. You know, and you're saying, you're saying that I'm stupid. Um, I'm not gonna go with you. Right. Um, so, so there's that so to say. Um,
BENAY LAPPE: but I, but I think that is what. Is conventionally convincing. I think most people are convinced by that. And I think this text is trying to say, we, we actually don't want a world- we, we wanna cultivate people who are not convinced by that.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. I'm not sure that that's temp as that that's typically convincing though. Like, that's what I'm trying to say. Like, I think that we, we think that that is convincing and sometimes it is. Look, I mean, we have some evidence of that in our world today, but I actually also think that there's a certain view of humanity here that that says, um, actually at the end of the day, like that's not so convincing. That may be convincing in the short term, you know? But that's not how you make, really make change stick.
And by the way, I, I say this as a critique of, of both sides in our political debates today. You know, like, I'm not sure that the, the left couldn't benefit from some of this, uh, advice. And to say like, actually we could be more convincing if we weren't so bombastic, even though we have a right to be, you know, like even though, right?
It's to say like, what, is there a way that we could, you know, say, Hey look, I, I hear you guys, you know, I understand what's at stake for you. I understand what you stand to lose from the revolution that I'm advocating for. So don't think that I don't understand you. And nevertheless, here's, here's what I think needs to happen.
Like, I, I actually think it's worth a try. Like, I, I have some, I have some, um, faith in, in, you know, some degree of a kind of a faith in humanity that says, like, actually I think that that would be a good, a good way. So, I don't know, you know, like I, I. Um,
But for sure the Talmud is saying that's, that's what we want. You know, we, we wanna build a world where that would be true, but part of me thinks it actually is the world. It is is the world that we have.
BENAY LAPPE: Hmm. So what's coming up for me is the question of whether they're ultimately getting at the best way to convince, or they talking about the best way to relate to one another and, and the stance we should have toward one another in relationship generally. And more specifically to people with whom we profoundly disagree?
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah, I, I believe it's both. I, I'll just, I'll just say one more sentence about the strategy part. 'cause I agree with you. It's the less interesting part except for law school, where I think it actually is interesting, uh, is to say like,
'cause just to make sure that here you are on the first day of law school, you've seen a lot of TV. Don't buy that stuff. That's not actually what makes it fair. Let me make sure that you understand that. Uh, it's, it's, it's to be, it's to be, you know, um, uh, humble. It's to, uh, not hide the ball of the other side's opinions. To actually confront it, not only to, you know, it's to admit that it's there. Not only to admit that it's there, but to give it its best argument first, and then you can, then you can shoot it down.
But don't, but, and, and do that, honestly. Right? Don't do it only as a stratum, it is a good stratum, but, but don't do it, uh, as a game. Do it because it's right. You know, there probably is right on the other side somewhere. And so do your best to articulate it and that will also win you the, um, you know, the, the honest kind of sense of where the, the jury or whoever's gonna gonna listen to you.
So I, I think that it's, that it actually, you know, and, and, and it's all three of the, right, the typical, uh, belief about how a lawyer should be or how a person should be convincing an argument is to be, uh, is to be aggressive. To not say anything about the other sides other than to slam it down. And, um, certainly not to make the, a full throated defense of the other side before you've even talked about your own side. And so, so if you think about the opposite of that, then, then I think it's actually is effective, uh, in, in, uh, in, in, in advocacy in general and in, in law and in other places.
But let's go to what you're talking about. 'cause I, I actually, I agree. It's more interesting. It's more, it's, you know, so fundamentally like about the world that, that is trying to be imagined here.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. I think for, for me, it speaks to some kind of profound empathy. It's saying, get into the other person's head and heart and hear them, really listen to them. That's, that's not only a strategy for winning, it's a strategy for, for being a more human, human being mm-hmm. And for helping them feel seen. And, um, I don't know. It feels like a,
It leads to a more authentic encounter through which I'm gonna grow and you're gonna grow it. And, and that's ultimately what we want. Right.
DAN LIBENSON: well, uh, you know, and I don't know that the Talmud, you know, sort of intends this. I don't know that it doesn't, I suspect that it probably doesn't, but when you think about it, uh If I articulate your position, your, your contrary position before I articulate my own, there are actually two things that can happen and often do happen in a real relationship.
I mean, think about a relationship with a, a spouse or, um, a partner in work or, or someone like that, that you're having a disagreement with. There is actually no third party to make the decision most of the time. So, so why do you potentially conduct yourself this way out of purity? Like, not, not because you're doing it as a stratagem, but because this is actually the best way to be in relationship with somebody?
Well, if I articulate your position and I say, you know, basically write classic like that, the, the, um, the kind of, um, you know, cliche version of that is all the active listening stuff that we're taught. “what I hear you saying is –”
BENAY LAPPE: That's that that was what was coming up for me. Yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: So if I, if I really say, wait, so what I hear you saying is this, um, and I actually am open and I'm actually thinking about it, I might say. Yeah, I think you're right, actually. And at the moment where I say, I think you're right, the position of the School of Shammai has now become the position of the School of Hillel. So the law is always according to the School of Hillel, because he changed his mind. Right? That's option number one, right?
And option number two is when I say to you, Shammai, um, you know, well, I, what I hear you saying is X, Y, and Z, and I take that really seriously. Here's how I would respond to it, and here's how I think of it. Well, maybe Shammai changes his mind. And then the law is also according to Hillel, right? Because, but it wasn't in contradict, it wasn't that Hillel was chosen or, you know, merited in the sense that he merited it because he was a good guy. It, the law was according to Hillel because they actually don't have opposite opinions anymore.
And I, and I think that's not, that's, that's worth considering.
BENAY LAPPE: I love that. I never thought of that. And I think there's a third option, as I always say. Three options. Three and only three. Three and only three.
Um, but the third option is that when you get into the other person's head, you, your position is likely to shift somewhat. So, so I think it's not just that Hillel expressed the other person's, you know, the in, in Hebrew, the, the verb here is v’shoneen “and they taught”, but literally it means to, “to repeat or Restate Or to review.” To review. I, I'm liking review to, to like look a second time. Oh, that's not bad. Uhhuh.
DAN LIBENSON: Uhhuh.
BENAY LAPPE: Right! Maybe it's to consider a second time, not just the first. Oh, this is not bad. It's not just they, they taught it, but they considered it and then considered a second time. What about that?
DAN LIBENSON: Uh huh because you're, wait, if I'm understanding what you're saying, that, that it's actually the, the shoneen which, which we should point out, comes from the, the root of, of the number two sha’na’yeem um, that, that it's not only that they taught it, they taught it twice, basically.
BENAY LAPPE: Well, no, that's not exactly what I was saying, but I was saying that it might not be taught at all. It might not be that, oh, Beit Hillel got the law fixed according to their opinion because they taught not only their own opinion, but the other guy's opinion – but they thought twice they, they, they gave a second.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. I love that. I love that. Like, like they, they went over it twice or something, right? They, they meaning, yeah, like you, you, you hear something and, uh, I'm trying to think like, I feel like it's, is giving me like
this, um, thing like that this happened to me lately and I'm not thinking about, like, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm trying to think of like when this was, but when you, you read something and you're like Doesn't make sense to me, but I have respect for the person who said it. So I'm gonna read it again because I, I, I, there must be something that I'm missing here and maybe there isn't,
BENAY LAPPE: Right! what if it's like, reconsider
DAN LIBENSON: uhhuh
BENAY LAPPE: shoneen, like, to, to go over a second? I have to reconsider. Okay. Like you said, wait a minute. I, I think I disagree, but let me reconsider. Maybe that's what's going on here.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm. And it, it means something. It it, it that has the valence of like, they respected each other that much. Mm-hmm. Or I mean, I guess I should say that the House of Hillel, like, I, I don't like, I don't like to make, like Shammai the villain here, you know?
But like, because I, but, but, um, because, but, but I, but I do think at, at the very least, it means that one of the qualities of the school of Hillel and this I, this I'm all in favor, right? Is to say like, have respect for your opponent. They are human beings, you know, and, um. And we're part, we're, we're part of this community together. We're, we're in relationship together. Let's, so if they say something that you disagree with, really, really, really listen like that, that, that is the community that we wanna live in. Right.
BENAY LAPPE: And what's coming up for me now is this text in conversation with the Rabbi Eliezer in the Oven of Akhnai text, where there's this profound disagreement in what happens over there? The person in the minority holding the minority view gets excommunicated.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: That's the, that's what this text is saying, don't do. Mm-hmm. Because what, what it's saying be, let's go back to teach, let's say shoneen is really about teaching. Mm-hmm. So it be, the House of Hillel was not only, not Excommunicating be Shammai, they're keeping this opinion that they wholly disagree with as part of the tradition. They're recording it, they're passing it down.
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: Um, and one thing we know, or, or one thing I've learned about why they pass down opinions with which they disagree is because maybe at some point in the future, someone is gonna look at that minority opinion or dismiss the opinion and say, “wait a minute, y'all missed something there. That's the one that we need to lift up right now.”
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. I'm holding two ideas in my, they're not two different ideas, but there's two ideas that sort of come to mind as you're talking. One is, is that, um, that it's interesting that, so, so if the idea here is that contradictory things are both the words of God. The living words of God, the words of The Living God. Then this question of like, do we listen to a Bat Kol or not? Is one of those questions, um, do we excommunicate the dissenter or actually have great respect for the dissenter and marry our daughters to them and, you know, and, and, and, and repeat their, you know, restate their re review and restate their opinions or not. That's that They're also both so that, that's, that's kind of a fascinating like. Place to hold at the end of this.
And then, and then that other piece about dissents, you know, it, it makes me think also about the, um, an American constitutional law where there are these great dissents that, that originally were dissents, they were minority views.
And eventually they, they, in a later, much later, that the Supreme Court has, you know, adopts them as the law and basically says, we got it wrong, you know, a hundred years ago and we're changing. But that dissent that was written, you know, Brandeis, uh, wrote some important dissents. And today Ruth Bader Ginsburg is, you know, known as the Great Dissenter.
And really the question is, what, what will be in 50 years and a hundred years? And if it turns out that it's not only that, like it turns out that they were right or you know, that society decided to go in that direction, but it's that, it's that they're actually the dissent that they wrote back then becomes significant. It, it's, it's, it's pulled forward.
Their words still matter. And so therefore it's still worthy and important to record those words and not just to say, well, you know, I feel okay because maybe one day my, my views will, will be, will be in the majority. I really believe that. I'll go to my grave believing that. No, actually it's that, that, that maybe your own words will become remembered again and, and pulled forward. And that's why you should write them. I mean, there's something in there that, that's very interesting to me.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah, that's beautiful. And I think this ties to why it's so important to get, you know, the queerest folk, the folks who haven't been in on the process in, because when they come in, that's when those dissenting opinions, those things which were passed down but not followed and didn't become the law, um, are rec, you know, something important in them that was not noticed and understood before as an essential truth, suddenly, you know, jumps out like a Donkey Story and, you know, becomes lifted up and the tradition gets bigger that way.
DAN LIBENSON: Maybe as we as to, in closing on this, on this specific episode and, and topic, although I think we we may come back to, to this, um, what make, what that, what you just said makes me think about is like,
How can the queer folks today write? You know, write, write down, uh, write meaning, so that, so that it's not just a process, but it's also a, a even if it's it's in descent, you know, how can, how can that stuff be memorialized so that it can be available to a future generation? Like that's an interesting sort of project to, to imagine.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah, we're working on that.
DAN LIBENSON: Alright,
BENAY LAPPE: so fun.
DAN LIBENSON: Great to see you.
BENAY LAPPE: Likewise. Thanks Dan.
DAN LIBENSON: Bye.
BENAY LAPPE: Bye.
DAN LIBENSON: Thanks so much for joining our chevruta today! We hope you’ve enjoyed learning with us… and with the Talmud. You can find links to the source sheets for all episodes in the show notes and on our website at oraltalmud.com. Your support helps keep Oral Talmud going. You can find a link on the website to contribute. We’d also love to hear from you! Email us with any questions, comments, or thoughts at hello@oraltalmud.com. Please, share your Oral Talmud with us – we’re so excited to learn from you. The Oral Talmud is a joint project of SVARA: A Traditionally Radical Yeshiva and Judaism Unbound, two organizations that are dedicated to making Jewish texts and ideas more accessible for everyone. We are especially grateful to Sefaria for an incredible platform that makes the Talmud available to everyone. It’s free at sefaria.org. And we are grateful to SVARA-nik Ezra Furman for composing and performing The Oral Talmud’s musical theme. The Oral Talmud is produced by Joey Taylor, with help from Olivia Devorah Tucker, and with financial support from Lippman Kanfer Foundation for Living Torah. Thanks so much for listening–and with that, this has been the Oral Talmud. See ya next time.
Watch on Video (original unedited stream)
