The Oral Talmud: Episode 22 - Hillel & Shammai: Beyond Elu v’Elu (Eruvin 13b)
SHOW NOTES
“Ultimately the only way that you actually take these lessons into your soul is through trying to implement it in your actual life. And often that's gonna be failure!“ - 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.
Dan & Benay return to the daf after a series of interviews, picking up where we left off in Episode 19, exploring where the editors of the Talmud went next after the famous “Eilu v’Eilu” moment between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel. While they were both decreed to be “Words of the Living God” (or some arrangement of those words), the halakha was said to be decided according to Beit Hillel because they taught the teachings of Beit Shammai before their own.
But the very next line in the Talmud - which is rarely ever read - seems to undercut the entire message of this practice! Were we making too big a deal about Beit Hillel? Did the editor of this part of the Talmud misunderstand something? Are they intentionally undermining the first narrative? What do we do when we encounter texts that appear to reverse the radical potential we had seen in them before? And what is going on when Talmud brings in aphorism and folk sayings? Are they really able to help us recognize when we’re messing up? How can we offer and receive the loving rebuke of tokhecha?
This week’s text: “Hillel & Shammai: After Elu v’Elu” (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 at oraltalmud.com. You can find a donate button on the top right corner of the website. (Find this episode by scrolling to the bottom of the page)
Further Learning
[1] Ilana Kurshan on The Oral Talmud, discussing Daf Yomi
[2] Jane Kanarek on The Oral Talmud, discussing pedagogy
[3] Marie Kondo, decluttering icon
[4] Rabbi Elezar’s cow is a central motif of The Oral Talmud: Episode 10 - The Obligation to Protest (Shabbat 54b-55a)
[5] More on the police shooting Jacob Blake of Kenosha, Wisconsin (on Wikipedia)
[6] For the picture for Benay’s Illustrated Mishna, check out the Oral Talmud video at 12min
[7] “Zoom” by Istvan Banyai (1998, video of the book on YouTube)
[8] The Oral Talmud discussed The Oven of Akhnai story in: Episode 3 - Misquoting God and Episode 5 - Excommunicating Dissent
[9] Articles on the Yeshiva Volozhin, The Vilna Gaon, and Reb Chaim Volozhin (wikipedia) and another use of the story Benay brought in “Detaching through Calmness” at bilvavi
[10] Beth Berila writing about “White Urgency to End Racism: Why Now?” in June 2020 (published on resilience’s website) and Tema Okun on “Sense of Urgency” in White Supremacy Culture
[11] “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People” by Stephen Covey
[12] Polonius’s monologue of hypocritical aphorisms to his son Laertes, from Hamlet Act 1 Scene III (on Genius with community annotations)
[13] More reflections on Dr. Eliezer Slomovic z”l “Ahavat Hinam (“Senseless Love”)” by Beth Huppin (on her WordPress)
[14] Na’aseh v’Nishma “We will do, and we will listen,” a curious order of verbs from Exodus 24:7, spoken by the Israelites at Mount Sinai, in receiving the Torah (first link goes to many Sefaria Source Sheets on the subject)
[15] The Talmud aphorism that “The place where someone who has transgressed and done teshuva stands; a tzadik gamor, a completely righteous person, can never stand at that level,” is on Berakhot 34b
[16] Gold Box Puzzles (Wikipedia)
-
DAN LIBENSON: This is The Oral Talmud - Episode 22: “Hillel & Shammai: Beyond Elu v’Elu”. Welcome to The Oral Talmud, 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.
In today’s episode we’re back on the daf, that is, we’re back to the page of Talmud itself, after a series of interviews about approaches to learning Talmud with Jane Kanarek and Ilana Kurshan! And we’re picking up right where we left off in Episode 19: The Elu v’Elu Episode, to learn more about the dynamics between the Schools of Hillel and Shammai.
We were curious to look further down that page, because people rarely ever read past the critical elu v’elu moment - and as you’ll hear, we found what comes after to be a rather befuddling example of why we were supposed to like the School of Hillel, potential undermining the whole message we had landed on! We’ll recap what was going on in the text so far, but we always encourage your own chazarah, your own review, by listening to Episode 19 if it’s faded from your memory – or, by studying the text with your chevruta – your study partner.
Benay and I also use this moment to reflect a bit on our conversation with Ilana Kurshan from last episode, and how we approach being in disagreement and holding strong viewpoints.
Every episode of The Oral Talmud has a number of resources to support your learning and to share with your own study partners! If you’re using a podcast app to listen, you’ll find links to these resources in our show notes: First, to a Source Sheet on a website called Sefaria, where you can find pretty much any Jewish text in the original and in translation. On each episode’s Source Sheet we include the core Talmud texts we discuss, draw out the central questions of each episode, and share a link to the original enedited video of our learning.
In the show notes of your podcast app, you’ll also find a link to this episode on The Oral Talmud’s website, where we post an edited transcript, and where you can make a donation to keep the show going, if you feel so moved. On both the Sefaria Source Sheet and The Oral Talmud website, you’ll find extensive footnotes for exploring our many references inside and outside of the Talmud.
And now, The Oral Talmud…
DAN LIBENSON: Hello everybody. This is Dan Libeson, and I am here again with Benay Lappe for this week's episode of The Oral Talmud. Hey Benay.
DAN LIBENSON: So what we're gonna do today is, um, that we're going back to the text, not to the text. We're going back to the page where we left things off two weeks ago. Um, so last week we interviewed Ilana Kurshan about the, actually maybe it was three weeks ago. 'cause last week we interviewed Ilana Kurshan about the, um, Daf Yomi and the week before, I think we had interviewed Jane Kanarek, uh, also about teaching Talmud in, in part.
So before that we were, we were looking at this text from the Tractate Eruvin page 13b. And what that's famous for is this text that we did that time. And so anybody that's interested in, in that, that's this famous text about Hillel and Shammai, the houses of Hillel and Shammai, the schools of Hillel and Shammai, that is their students, uh, disagreeing.
And why was the law the halakha, the tradition always decided, almost always in accordance with the views of Hillel. And, and it gives these three things that the House of Hillel would do. They were gen, you know, humble, and they would, uh. study both their own opinions and the other opinions, and they would state the other opinions before they stated their own.
And we had a whole long conversation about that, which we should repeat today. But just to remind you that that's kind of where we are. And then what ended up happening was that this, this rest of the page was not on our original, you know, we have a spreadsheet of all the texts that, you know, we are gonna, uh, definitely do on this show.
And every once in a while we realize there's another one and we add to it. And, and this stuff wasn't on there. But as I was putting the, the text up on the Sefaria source sheet, usually what I do is I read a little bit before, a little bit after, just to make sure that I have exactly where the text starts and ends. And as I kind of kept, I was like, well, I do have the proper end here where, you know, with those three characteristics or those three behaviors. But then I started reading further. I was like, oh, this is interesting, and this is interesting and this is interesting. So I, I sort of dumped them all into the source sheet, and we didn't get to it last time, but as we were looking at it, we were like, oh, let's keep going because, uh, let's see if we, if there are connections to be made here.
And, uh, and, and I actually think that, that connects a little bit with this question of how we learn Talmud and, and does context matter? You know, are these, are these, uh, stories or these episodes or these, not stories, but uh, you know, halakhic decision making, uh, sections, uh, are they, are they, um, how important is it, what context that they're in, how close or far they are from other, other texts?
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. And I have to confess that when you said, let's keep going, I'm like, no, no, no. That's not, that's not interesting. Mostly the, the criterion I use is have I learned it before? Have I learned it before? It's not interesting. I'm like, no, I don't see anything there. And just like Rabbi Elezar’s cow, I said, no, no, no, that's not, that's peripheral. It's just a little bit of context.
But, um, once I, I learned it last night on my own, I thought, oh wow. Oh wow. You're right. Dan is right again. And, uh, there really is something to learning these discreet famous sugyas in context. And, um, yeah, so I'm excited about this, this section we're learning today, which, uh, I just never paid attention to.
DAN LIBENSON: I mean, it's so interesting, you know, um, I can't remember if Ilana said this last week, or, or, um, or she said it on the air, off the air. Uh, but there was this idea that has also occurred to me in studying Daf Yomi that there's a lot of, a lot of stuff in the Talmud that, Uh, you know, reminds me of in biology and, and, and Ilana mentioned this, that of junk DNA, and that's not a very nice word. It's not actually junk. It's not junk in DNA and it's not junk in the Talmud. But the point is it's not expressed. It's not part of the what, what generally it gets expressed in our bodies, uh, on a day-to-day basis. And so it seems like junk, it seems like it's just filler, but sometimes it, it, it can become important.
There's also the idea of epigenetics, which is the idea that sometimes in certain circumstances there are genes that we have, but they're not expressed, but maybe due to some kind of trauma, they can, something actually changes and they do become expressed. And then that actually is heritable. And so, and that, and that's where some of the work today in biology is about like, well, maybe like trauma from the Holocaust really can be expressed biologically, you know, genetically, even though we know that that's not how genetics really works. That that, you know, there, there's mutations and those take, you know, millennia and millions of years or whatever. But epigenetics is this idea that it's already in our DNA code for some reason, but it can be expressed due to some kind of trauma and then that expression becomes heritable.
So it's interesting that the sugyot the stories, the pieces of Talmud that, you know, kind of are on your current list, you know, and on our current list it's like, well, where did those come from? You know, some combination of, of our teachers and things that we found, and especially you found over the years and are like, oh, this really connects to SVARA's point of view.
And then, you know, and then the question is though, how, how are texts added to that? And like, how do you, how do you do that process of, of scanning the corpus and saying, wait a second, there's something here that, that, yeah. You know? Right.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay. Another point for Daf Yomi for sure
DAN LIBENSON: No, no, I’m not trying to argue for Daf Yomi, but I will say, I will say, and then we should get into the text, uh, because my dad is always telling me that we should get into the text faster. Uh, that's, that's, that's his, uh, that's his, uh, peanut gallery idea of our show. Um, but, uh, I will say that, um, that, um, the, that.
One of the things that I've talked about in this whole, like Marie Kondo idea of Judaism, that we have to kind of declutter Judaism or else we can't innovate because if we're just, if we're just holding and carrying everything from the past, there's no room to innovate. So we have to stop doing things. It's part of the tradition to stop doing things, and it's the only way that we can really, you know, do the work that we've always done to make Judaism relevant for, for a new time.
Then the question becomes, but how do I stop doing things without this tremendous guilt? And I've argued that one of the ways that we do that is this idea of studying for its own sake. That we know that even if we stop doing something, we're gonna keep studying it, so that if it comes a time, even a thousand years later when that's relevant again, we wouldn't have forgotten it, we wouldn't have been doing it for a thousand years, but we wouldn't have forgotten it.
And, and I don't know that it's daf yomi, it doesn't necessarily have to be a page every day, but some way in which we kind of have that little, you know. Robot scanning down, you know, just keeping, reminding us, “wait a second. There's something.”
And that's like that, that what we, what we talked about, uh, many weeks ago. That, and it's relevant sadly again with the, with the killing of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin. That this i, that, that protest, uh, you know, that if you don't protest, then the sin is upon you. That was actually a text that, um, when, when you discovered, when people were discovering it, other people were saying like, this should be, you know, this should be one of the most famous texts in the Talmud. Like, why isn't it?
Well maybe it was kind of, uh, you know, hidden under the mm-hmm. The, the proteins and now it just got expressed again, right?
Benay: Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Dan: But somebody was studying it, you know, somebody knew about that text, right? If, if it had been completely forgotten, it wouldn't have been able to be remembered a few months ago.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: So
BENAY LAPPE: reminds me of my tile gauge thing. I'm a hardware store and office supply store addict
Dan: that's true.
Benay: It's true. And there's this, there's this, uh, wait, I might have one, well, I'll get it later. Anyway, what we push up in prominence in the tradition and what we push down, I think, um, it is always in our control.
And, and nothing ever totally leaves the tradition. And I think you're right, that the rabbis instituted this technology of learning about the things that we no longer want to do in order to assuage our guilt and stay in relationship to them. Um, so we don't have to gunk up, um, our, our, our practice with things that no longer work. Mm-hmm.
Alright tile gauges later. Okay, let's let, or else your dad's gonna get upset with us.
DAN LIBENSON: Um, okay. So, um, so let's, uh, look at the text and, um, and I, I think we're going to, um, spend our time a little, like only a little bit of time on this next piece, but, but, uh, I know that you, you have some things that you wanted to, to talk about with it. So let me just, um, go to the text here.
And what we see is that here is this the part that we studied last time about the, about Hillel and, and Shammai. And right after that comes, um, comes a, uh, a, uh, a little part where, where they say, um, and it, this has to do with one of the disputes of Hillel and Shammai. And it says, uh, as we learn, as in the Mishna, that we learned in the case of a person whose head and most of his body were in the Sukkah – So this gonna be just one of the disputes. This, that's the context.
BENAY LAPPE: Oh. Oh, okay. But lemme add one more thing, that's important to the context. The important part of the last piece of the Talmud that we were learning three weeks ago is the part that said “the law is set in accordance with Beit Hillel because they were, they were kind, they were gracious, and they, they were patient and they stated the opinion of their opponent Beit Shammai before their own. So I think it's this, and they gave, um, precedence in their discussion of their own point to the position of the other guy. Um, okay.
DAN LIBENSON: And so the case, oh, go ahead.
BENAY LAPPE: No, and then, and then we get this story, which I think is gonna be an illustration of that,
DAN LIBENSON: right? So the case that they're talking about is, um, a case that if you. If you can picture, and if you can't picture it, Benay’s gonna share an illustration in a second. But, um, it's a case where a person has his head and most of his body in the Sukkah, but the table is in the house and in a case like that, so the Sukkah is basically attached to the house and the, the table that you're eating on is in the house. You're supposed to sit and eat in the Sukkah sit, and it says to sit in the Sukkah. Uh, and um, so you are sitting in the Sukkah, most of your body is in the Sukkah, but the table and the food is in the house,
BENAY LAPPE: right? So, right. So the question is, if your table is in the house and you are mostly in the sukkah, are you eating in the Sukkah or, or since your table is in your house, are you actually not eating in the Sukkah and therefore not fulfilling your obligation to eat in the Sukkah?
So as, as soon as I, I heard this dispute, I went to my bookshelf and I have this really cool series of, uh, it's a children's book of illustrated Mishnayot and I went to Mishna from Sukkah, and sure enough, here's a picture of what the debate here. So here, here's this guy with his Sukkah attached to his house, and his table is inside the house and he's sitting in the Sukkah.
Mm-hmm. Okay. I think the chair is kind of funny because most likely they weren't sitting on chairs. I think, I think the gemara says they were, you know, leaning on cushions as they probably all were, um, not these little Western style chairs, but regardless that, that's, that's the dispute. Okay. Okay.
The question is, is, is he actually lay’shaving ba’sukkah, fulfilling his mitzvah of sitting and eating in the Sukkah?
Alright.
DAN LIBENSON: Okay, so, um, they, the House of Shammai, the School of Shammai deems this sukkah invalid, or this, this way invalid. If you, you know, and, and again, that, that picture that you showed, it's like, I've always pictured this as like a sukkah that's, that's too small to fit, uh, your table. And that, and the sukkah that isn't, that picture is actually quite big. So like why is that guy not having his table in? That's unclear. But,
BENAY LAPPE: um, and the Gemara actually goes into that. Okay. So I think that's a question, but at least in this picture, yeah. He could have had his table. Why isn't this table probably, I don't know, whatever.
DAN LIBENSON: Maybe it was like fixed to the floor. But anyway, um, okay, so, so the house, so the School of Shammai says that that would be invalid and uh, the School of Hillel would say that it's valid.
Benay: Right.
Dan: So then the School of Hillel said to the School of Shammai: Wasn't there an incident in which the elders of the House of Shammai and the elders of the House of Hillel went to visit a Rabbi? Rabbi Yochana ben HaHoranit - and they found him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukkah but the table was in his house? So there's a, a case where this actually happened.
Benay: Yeah.
Dan: And, uh, you know, and, and they both, and I think the, the idea is that they, they both were there and they both, I guess, you know, nobody, no, the house of Shammai people didn't freak out and say like, you're not, you're not, this isn't valid. You know, they, they actually seemed like they accepted it. That's the idea here. Right?
BENAY LAPPE: Right. So the first, the first understanding seems to be that Beit Hillel all saying, Hey, y'all didn't say anything then. Yeah. When you actually saw this thing happening, you saw this guy with his head and most of his body in the sukkah and his table, in the house. You didn't say anything. So that must have meant - we're gonna deduce that because you were silent, you thought it was okay, what he was doing. You didn't critique him. You didn't say: Hey, what are you doing? Yes. So must be okay. This must be a valid way to sit in your Sukkah and fulfill your mitzvah.
DAN LIBENSON: Right. And so the, the House of Shammai, uh, said to the House of Hillel people, you know, you, you, you're gonna prove it from that, you know, from, from there. Do you seek to do some proof? Those visitors too said to him: if that, if that was the manner in which you were accustomed to perform the mitzvah, you have never fulfilled the mitzvah of sukkah in all your days.
So is it that they're saying that: No, we actually did say something.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. It's, it seems to be that, um, you know what this is reminding me of, do you know this book called Zoom?
DAN LIBENSON: Sounds familiar.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. It's this, it's this seemingly children's book, um, which is a picture book in which you see a fragment of a picture. And then, and on the next page you have a, you pull out in perspective and then you see that the fragment was really part of a larger thing and now you completely re-understand that the fragment wasn't what it was, It's now this other thing. In the next page, you pull out further and the perspective makes you realize you had misunderstood the picture on the previous page. Now you understand.
So it, this is a common move of the Talmud that it, it gets you to go, oh, now I understand. And in the very next utterance it wraps you on the, on the knuckles and says, ah, no, you didn't take - You know - everything you had into consideration. Although in this case it feels a little unfair as it often does, and it, and it brings you a piece of information which you didn't have before. And the new information here seems to be that Bet Shammai is saying: No, no, no. We really did say something. And what we said was: Hey, if this is the way you think, you're fulfilling the mitzvah. You've never fulfilled the mitzvah because this is not valid.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. Well, and now the part that Steinsaltz adds here, and is this, is this, as you understand it? what the point is here that he says that because in the text it says, uh. What, you know, the, the hill, the House of Hillel people say to the House of Shammai people: wasn't there an incident where the elders of the House of Shammai and the elders of the House of Hillel came and X, X, Y, and Z happened? That they mentioned Shammai before they mentioned Hillel. So that's a sort of proof that that was how they conducted themselves. Is that-
BENAY LAPPE: Yes, I think that's precisely the, the whole point of this story, the Sukkah business is incidental. But for me, I don't know. This feels like a pretty shvach, like a pretty weak illustration. Of, I mean, it doesn't feel meaningful to me.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah, no
BENAY LAPPE: That I would, you know, that, that it reflects anything of my character or way of processing or giving consideration to your opinion by saying: Hey, remember that time you and I were da, da da. Does that mean anything different than, Hey, remember that time that
Dan: Me and you were
Benay: right. It's just like, I don't, I'm not buying it!
DAN LIBENSON: Well, it all, it feels like it, it undercuts in a way the the power of what we were talking about last time, right? Because last time we were talking about, oh, this idea that you mentioned the, the teachings of the other person before you mentioned your own, it's like, you know, we were taking it and I, when, when I would teach law school, you know, I would take it, I would say like, look, yeah, that's good lawyering! You, you, you make the best case for your, uh, for the person that you're, you're against. And then you, and then you show why, you know, you understand their best case and nevertheless, you think that they're wrong. You know, it's not that you just say: Hey, you know, you're a hypocrite because you came with me to the – you know, like, that's not the point there.
But if that's the, if that's the example that the Talmud brings to follow it right up, the question is there therefore either: is that actually the point, meaning we were, we were putting too much onto it before?
Or another possibility is that, you know, Hillel and Shammai like the original story, that there are two pieces here. There's the original teaching, which is that this is what the House of Hillel would do and they would state the opinion of Shammai before stating their own. That is the really, really deep teaching that we uh, talked about last time. But then a later interpretation of that which is illustrated by the story here, almost undercut the whole thing by saying like, it's just as simple as saying the person's name before saying yours. And they just - meaning that whoever wrote this next paragraph kind of misunderstood the original teaching. That's kind of what I wanna think.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. Or. We know that one of the moves of the Talmud is typically to bring a piece of agadata, some sort of narrative to problematize, destabilize, refine, uh, challenge a previously stated law.
Now, this is not exactly in that pattern because we don't have, this is really a piece of narrative on top of a piece of, of narrative, but there is the, the, there was the statement that the halakha follows Beit Hillel. It's sort of, of pseudo-halakhic text maybe.
So I'm wondering, is this story possibly a challenge to, or a, a kind of a wink wink somehow saying, no, they didn't do that. No, it wasn't important. I, I don't quite know. But how might, could this be undermining? I mean, maybe that, maybe that's what you were saying that
DAN LIBENSON: Well, no, what I was saying was that it was misunderstanding. I what? That you're saying that it's undermining, I think is really interesting. You know, that it's kind of saying like, actually Hillel, wasn't that humble?
Benay: Yeah.
Dan: You know, like, um, you know, actually, um, you know, or like, actually this is, this is a teaching, but that's not really the reason, you know? 'cause at the end of the day, Hillel wasn't all that humble either or something,
BENAY LAPPE: or something. I, I, no, no. I'm really, I'm really not sure. Mm-hmm. Um, yeah. But it sure seems like a very impoverished
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah.
BENAY LAPPE: You know, virtue.
Dan: Yeah.
Benay: In this story, um, it seems so minimal as to make me then insert, if, if I insert this understanding, like, this is really what it looked like to share the other guy's opinion before you own? it's like, yeah, like you said, may, maybe that's not really what was important in the story. I, I'm, I'm not sure.
DAN LIBENSON: But I think what's interesting about it though is that given, and you know, it actually connects in an interesting way to the story that we studied, uh, the Oven of Akhnai, that famous story that often also, it's also only the first part of it is read, and that first part basically says that we can ignore a voice of God, under certain circumstances, you know, and –
but the second part of the story is that. It, it, it didn't turn out so well in the end, you know? And, and maybe nevertheless, we, we, that that point holds that we, we don't have to listen to God's voice anymore and that we have the power. But actually it's not as simple as that. We actually have to not just dismiss the person who is our, you know, contrary.
And by the way, like think about the, that, uh, story in, in, uh, relation to this, uh, this text, how we read it last time about Hillel and Shammai. It's like, what if Rabbi Joshua had been nicer to Rabbi Eliezer and said, you know, I wanna state your opinion. You, you think that the voice of God came and told us that we should do this, but. You know, the reason why we're not is et cetera, and I'm not gonna excommunicate you. I'm going to honor you, or, you know, whatever. And then maybe Rabbi Eliezer wouldn't have, you know, been so hurt and caused such destruction, et cetera, and, um, you know, so, but, but,
But that story is often taught without the destruction part. And here, this, this, uh, ver, this, uh, part is often taught without this illustration that potentially undercuts some of the more radical places where you could take the first one. And I'm not sure. I'm not sure what to do with it. Right. I'm not sure that that's, I'm not sure, like in the same way that the Oven of Akhnai story, right, misquotes the Torah, right? And takes the part that they like and say, you know, it says: follow the majority, even though it says: don't follow the majority, you know, and they, but it says, it does say “follow the majority,” it just says “no follow the majority.” So they just erase the “No.” And they did quote it accurately, just it's like “...follow the majority.”
Here if you, if you only quote that first part of the Hillel and Shammai text, it's still an accurate quote of the Talmud. And if, and if we can actually understand it to be more powerful than maybe even the redactor of the Talmud understood it to be at that time, then I don't think that's actually doing violence to the text. I think that's saying: well that's the way that we, that's the way that we do choose and bring forward parts of the text at different times - and maybe in our time that's the part of the DNA that's gonna be really expressed. And that that other part that was kind of this illustration, this example that a little bit undercuts the radical potential of the, of the, of what's being taught, Okay. So we're gonna not express that at this point in time.
Benay: Mm-hmm.
Dan: You don't like it; it didn’t land on you well.
BENAY LAPPE: you know, I, I have to say, my brain is, my brain and my heart are still so occupied with our discussion with Ilana Kurshan last week, um, specifically, um, our post recording conversation. So I, I hope, I hope I'm not being overly TMI here, but, but, but what I, you know, I was so like, chomping at the bit to get into that conversation with somebody about Daf Yomi, because I'm such a Daf Yomi, um, what's the word? … I'm a curmudgeon about Daf Yomi. I'm not a fan at all of Daf Yomi and I was just so excited to like have it out.
And your reflection back to me. I took, I took as really gentle tokhecha, you know, compassionate critique. You say you didn't mean it that way, but, but what you said to me was, “I'm not sure where you were, you were all that Hillel-like”, and I've been thinking about that all week because it felt really true and it was like, yeah, wow. Isn't that funny that we were learning about Hillel and I love that text and here I am not embodying it.
And that was one of the questions that I brought to the conversation with Ilana is like that, that's my secret fear, my deepest, darkest fear is that learning Talmud doesn't actually make us better people.
Dan: Hmm.
Benay: And that learning that story about Hillel obviously didn't make me more Hillel-like, and…I'm kind of disappointed this, that, you know, to hear that with this story about the Sukkah, and this is an illustration, like I actually wanna be held to a higher standard. I wanna be more like the Hillel of the way we understood the story three weeks ago and not like this Hillel. Like I was this Hillel, but that wasn't much, you know, I, I really want the bar to be higher.
DAN LIBENSON: You know, like when you and I studied Daf Yomi last week, it wasn't very good. You know, that's not
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. It's like really was it, was it enough for me to say to Ilana: okay, you and I both love Talmud, but am I being Hillel-like? 'cause I said you before I? I dunno
DAN LIBENSON: Right, right. Well let's, let's read on in the text, because I, I wonder whether the next part of the text actually shines some light on, on this in the sense of the next part of the text I would argue kind of undercuts part of the text that we just read - which means that it strengthens the original interpretation of from, from a couple weeks ago. So let's, let's explore that.
Benay: Okay.
Dan: Um, okay. So, um, so here we go. So the sages taught in the, the sages taught the, uh, Bariata, which is a, um, wait, actually, sorry, I, I went too far. Um, so the next part, it says, um: this is to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy Blessed One, exalts him and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy Blessed One humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him.
So, uh, we can read the next one too, just to, but I think, I think it's a little bit different, but, uh, and it also important, so maybe we'll wanna make a distinction, but the next one, it says, and anyone who tries to force the moment.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: Uh, um, the moment forces him and, and I think it helpfully says, and he doesn't succeed. I mean, if you try to force something, it won't, it won't happen. And anyone who's, who's patient and yields to the moment, the moment the moment stands by his side, meaning the, the, the moment, uh, um, gives in, right?
Benay: Yeah.
Dan: Um, so the way that I, I, at least the first part, uh, like, um, that, that first part that says… and then now we're in the, in the realm of aphorisms. But I think that it's an aphorism connected to behaviors, right? Because there are a few behaviors that were described. The more gen- the more generic behavior: You should always teach the side of your opponent before you teach your own.
And then this particular story about being in a sukkah and, and how at least arguably Shammai talked, you know, the School of Shammai: if, if you've done it this way, you've never even, you've never even been in as sukkah! You know, like, that's not a very nice, you know? Right. And, um, and, and so it, it says, you know, that,
So then the aphorism in a way that, the way that says, well, and this is the message that, that you should be getting from this, is that: if you, um, if you, uh, if you act humbly, then you'll
BENAY LAPPE: Okay. As illustrated by citing your opponent's position first. Yeah. Or naming their name first. Okay.
DAN LIBENSON: Well And I, and I would say that naming their name first is not very humble.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: Right. So, so I would say like, again, uh, that, that, if, that, if I wanna read this aphorism now and say: anyone who humbles himself, the Holy Blessed One, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself the Holy Blessed One humbles him, then I would say like, you gotta be really humble.
I mean, I don't think that, that's just, you know, I said: you and didn't you and I do this last week? Instead of saying: didn't I, and you do this, you know, that that doesn't seem, I mean, if that - it just doesn't feel like that's a level of humility that merits, that the Holy Blessed One would exalt you.
Benay: Agreed.
Dan: So, so part of me feels like in a way, this part undercuts that very minor humility that we might see in, in the previous part where Hillel just mentions that: Hey, Shammai, didn't you and I go to see Rabbi HaHoranit?
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: And so, um, so, you know, and, and, and same like anyone who seeks greatness, greatness, flees from him, and anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. You know, again, it just feels like the, that, that feels like it's gotta be a more significant fleeing from greatness than simply mentioning your name first.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay. So, I know I'm being a little trippy and associative, but this thing about like, if you're too, if you're too, if you're forcing something, you, again, it remind, it reminds me a little bit of like how I was chomping at the bit to you know, prove that my opinion of Daf Yomi really is - and it remind, it also reminded me of this story that I had read in a book about the Yeshiva Volozhin. So I am just like wild about the Yeshiva Volozhin. It was a yeshiva that is sort of like the, the beginning of modern yeshivot. And it was in, it lived for about a century from about 1806 or so to 1890 something. And, and it was started by a student of the Vilna Gaon, Reb Chaim Volozhin.
And, and I remember this story and I went back to the book and I had actually like turned down the ear of the page and it's a story of Reb Chaim going to his teacher, the Vilna Gaon, and saying: I really, really wanna start this yeshiva. And he's so enthusiastic about how he wants to do it, and it's sort of this zen story where the Vilna Gaon just sits and listens and says nothing and doesn't give him his approval. And he's frustrated. He doesn't know why. And years pass. And finally, he, he goes back to his teacher, the Vilna Gaon, and in a very sort of calm manner, explains why he wants to make this yeshiva. And his teacher finally says: yes, now go make it.
And, and he says to him: why now are you giving me approval? Before when I was so like excited! He said: you know what? You were too excited. I wanna, I wanna read the quote. He says, um, here it is: When you first presented your idea, the Gaon explained, You were so enthusiastic that I feared that somewhere deep down lay some trace of personal interest, which would in due course lead to failure. Now that you have waited so long and have made your case calmly and with detachment, I see that your purpose is solely for the sake of heaven.
DAN LIBENSON: Hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: “Not only is your proposal itself a desirable one, but it is also motivated by the purest intentions. Therefore, your efforts will meet with success.”
So it kind of reminded me of this point that if you're like too much trying to push something, it that may reflect some subconscious self-interest that you haven't teased out.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah, no. You know, and Benay like I, this is probably gonna make you a little bit uncomfortable, but, but I wanna say that it's also true of me and, um, some, some select number of people that we know who are out there working in, in the Jewish community today, particularly in this kind of innovation sector of trying to create new things.
Some people have spent a lot of years, you know, in the vineyards before anything really happens. And, um, you know, a lot of, like in the funding world there, there's kind of this idea that, you know, you should get something funded quickly and, and as soon as something's working, it should be scaled up, you know? And, um, that's kind of, that's kind of such a strong force out in the Jewish community today that it almost feels like hard to resist it.
I feel like, you know, I, I've, I've known you, you know, as everybody thinks today about like, SVARA, that it's like such a big thing and so successful, you know, and, and I just feel like I remember those years when SVARA was basically you and you know, and I would even be like, what do come, why are you calling it SVARA? Like, it's just, you! like it, why do you have to give it a name? You know, like, and you're like, no, no, no. Like I, I, this is something bigger. This is a, you know, and, and
There were so many times when you could have given up and, and probably should have, for all kinds of rational reasons. And, and I actually think that, like, this is hard when you start to think about funding because I actually think there's some real merit in whoever kind of sticks with something for a decade where they're not making money, they're losing money. They're, they're, they're not, and they're not like, um. They're not, it's not like they're beating down the doors and they're selling and it's just failing. It's just like, they're just trying to go and go about their business and do their thing, and eventually they get discovered. You know? And it's like the classic overnight success that's been working for a whole career, you know?
And like, I, I really feel like that's, in a way, the story of SVARA, like what you just said about, about the, the person who founded the Yeshiva in Volozhin. You know, it's that, it's that, it's that, um, you know, you had a vision that, that I think was, was very analogous to what's going on probably 20 years ago. And, but, you know, you didn't force the moment and, um, and now it's happening, you know? So, I don't know. But I mean, it feels like this is, as we talk about this, it's, it's really registering for me.
BENAY LAPPE: Mm. And you know what? You, thank you. Um, and what you're bringing up for me is a critique that I'm hearing from Black folk saying: Stop the Urgency, the sense of urgency, white folk, is actually not a good thing. And that seems counterintuitive, right? It seems like, oh, now I'm wakey wakey. I, I realize now this thing that I should have realized before this, what's what's happening in our world? And I wanna fix it.
And what I hear them saying is, you know what? This, this sense of urgency is really, it's wrong. You really need to slow down. You need to do some learning and relationship building and all sorts of things. And then the work you do, you know, may be more meaningful. But, um, this, this don't, don't push the moment feels a little bit like, like that critique of urgency.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. You know, it, it, it also makes me think about in, in Stephen Covey, uh, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. One of the habits, I can't remember what the, what the name of the habit is, uh, but it's it, but one of his catchphrases about that habit is: with people slow is fast and fast is slow. You know, and what he means by that is that the fastest you can get somebody to move is actually very slow. And it's very much, it's pretty much exactly this point. It's saying. And if you try to force them, if you try to push hard, it'll actually make it all slower, because they'll, they'll get defensive, they'll get confused, they'll, you know, et cetera. And, and you know, it's just like, so, but -
It gets to this question of, of like, when you were saying about the Ilana, you know, conversation is like, and did I implement it? It's like, if it's an aphorism, you know, if it's just an aphorism, then it's, it, it's, it's like nothing. You know, an aphorism is, is nothing like “a stitch and time saves nine.” It's nothing, I don't know how to translate that into practice.
And that's why I think in Hamlet, the, uh, the character, the, the father of the friend, now I'm blanking on his name, uh, who just unloads this whole like, bunch of aphorisms to his son who's going off to like college, I think. And, and, um, he just like dumps these aphorisms on him. It's actually a comic moment in Hamlet because it's just silly because aphorisms on their own don't, aren't anything.
And, and if you're really trying to share wisdom with a child or with, uh, of another person, it, it's, it's about. How do you conduct yourself? How do you actually implement this aphorism in the real world? And that's hard to just like, unload on somebody the night before they're going off to college. Like that comes from a lifetime of modeling it and, and stories about how others did it and, and all of that.
And I, and I feel like on this page, what, what I'm trying, and again, maybe I'm trying to like. Like force something that's not there. And that would of course be an obvious violation of the principle itself. But what I think I'm trying to see on this page is a combination of aphorisms and in the, in that Hillel and Shammai, I might have reordered the page, I might have put the aphorism first, but maybe that's actually not a good pedagogical technique.
But, but I'm, but I feel like this, that Hillel Hillel would, would state the opinions of Shammai before stating his own. Like, that feels to me very practical wisdom. Like if you always, if you get into the habit of always conducting yourself this way in every conversation that you have, then eventually you'll be able to do it in the hardest of conversations. If you don't practice it in the easy conversations, because you don't need to, then when you get to the hard conversation, you're not gonna do it because you're not gonna, you know, be in the habit.
And I mean, that's where like, I think that a lot of times like. I think we see this a lot like, well, “when I was younger,” I think you, you heard this a lot in like the active listening space where people would, would, you know, people had learned that what you should say is, “so what I hear you saying is,” you know, and then they would, and it got to so much that you were like, this is driving me crazy. But actually it's not a bad technique because it is silly and not necessary like 90% of the time, but it makes sure that in the times when it would help that you're used to doing it. Right
BENAY LAPPE: Mm-hmm. .
DAN LIBENSON: And now I think people, I hear there are other language that I hear among like millennials and, and Gen Z folks for example, that that also kind of ring a little rough on my ears 'cause it's not sort of types of language that I learned to use, like “centering yourself” or, you know, um, there's, there's various like phrases like that.
But, but that actually, you know, when you look at and you say: oh yeah, if I always was conscious of this, then when I'm in a situation where it might really be a problem. I'm gonna do it right, or, you know.
So like that's kind of what I, I see going on in this page that it's trying to, trying to do that, trying to help you not just make this an aphorism, but I'm not sure it's doing it well.
BENAY LAPPE: Okay. So you know what you're bringing up for me, I had a teacher once named Eliezer Slomovic alav haShalom, and he was just an extraordinary human being, and he was a survivor of the Holocaust, and he was one of those people who, um, he was just so gentle and so kind, and when you would sit in his office and talk to him, he would, he would look at you the way they talk about gurus who look at their students, The students feel completely and totally, and just that experience of being in their presence transforms you.
When, when I knew Elzer, I understood that. Because that's what it felt like. It wasn't like he was mouthing: Oh, what I hear you saying. When he would hear you, you or, or, or look at you, you felt completely and absolutely seen, heard, understood much more deeply than whatever it was you were, you know, making visible about yourself and.
And that comes up for me because when you talk about the, the, the habit of saying what I hear you obviously, that only is meaningful if there is a really deep listening underneath it. And it isn't just a, a performative thing. I don't know.
DAN LIBENSON: But, but I think I agree with you and I, I wanna, like, I'm thinking about the way that one becomes this man, um mm-hmm.
Benay: Eliezer
Dan: Eliezer Slomovic
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: Because I, first of all, it's possible that he was like that from childhood. And there are people that are basically saints and, and that to me. That's not who the Talmud is for, you know, meaning it's, it's wonderful when you read something and you're like, oh, I am that way. You know?
Actually, I wonder if you then run into the, like, you should flee from greatness thing. 'cause like, if you think that you see yourself in something, you probably have to practice a little more humility, even if it's really humble.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. He would, he would ne never have thought what he was doing was anything.
DAN LIBENSON: Right. Right. Yeah. But let's say that you're not born that way. Yeah. Let's say that you're actually born like most of us, with an ego and with bad habits that you might have learned from childhood, from sibling rivalries, you know, whatever taught you bad habits. Mm-hmm. So how do you become the person who truly listens in a saintly way?
I think it may actually start with this, “So what I hear you saying business,” even when it's not really sincere and I think that there's this question and it definitely comes up in different Jewish conversations about like, should you practice - you know, it's a, it's a little bit like the na’aseh v’nishma, you know, should you practice before you've internalized the reason for the practice or, or is it okay to just do the practice for itself? And because that, if you do the practice and make it a habit, eventually it penetrates to your heart and eventually you actually become a person who loves to listen as opposed to a person who learned that you should say that: I'm listening.
And I think that I want to be, I want it, I want to be open to that avenue because I think that ultimately I want a world in which people can change. Like, I want a world in which people are not born how they are, which might come to the next text here, by the way. Uh, which I hadn't seen before. But, um,
BENAY LAPPE: I, I agree with you. Although I, at this moment, I'm feeling like we're. I that, that it's not that behavior, it's not the performance that gets you there. It's some, I don't know, maybe that performance can get you to the light bulb moment of: Oh my goodness,
Dan: that's what I'm trying to say.
Benay: I don't own the whole truth. And then that's what
DAN LIBENSON: that, that's what I'm trying to say. That that
BENAY LAPPE: okay.
DAN LIBENSON: That I think that it, it's very grating when people are saying those performative things. Maybe even this, I mean, maybe that's a way to understand this part, that, you know, where, where Hillel said: Hey, Shammai, you and I both went to the - and that, and how he gets credit for that, but maybe that's that early stage performative. I like that. That was what, that was. The younger Hillel did that, or, you know, the School of Hillel, it's the School of Hillel, so that's Hillel students, but, but actually Hillel, I mean, he really humbled himself, you know, whatever. Right. But, and, and, um,
Because I, I, I, I do think it, it grates on me no end when people just use those phrases, and I know that they're not really listening, and yet I think that the more humble, wiser part of me says, but if they're really doing that religiously, I think, I think it does get you to that or, you know, it can get you to that point where you really are, are sincere and then by the way, then you don't have to say it anymore. Then, you know, I don't think that people who are actually listening have to say, so what I hear you saying is, you know, they just kind of, it's they based on what they said. You, you understand that they heard that they knew what you were saying.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. Okay. Here's what's coming up for me now, being so like in the thick of really looking at myself after our, my conversation, our conversation with Ilana.
On the one hand, I'm looking at this text this week, and when I learned it I thought: oh my God, if I had learned this text before the conversation with Ilana, maybe I would've been - I would've approached that conversation differently and not been like: oh, okay. I can't wait to make my point. I can't wait to like show that she's wrong and I'm right! And, and, and I feel, I feel a little embarrassed about that.
And now I'm wondering, would I actually have been different after learning this text? Would I have recognized myself in it before I had actually fallen into the hole? And you had pointed that out to me. Probably not. I probably would not have seen myself in this text had I not already recognized something wrong.
But, but, but, but now, now seeing the text, I'm like, yeah, that's what I was doing. I was trying to push, I was trying to, you know, make myself look right and. I don't know. What were you gonna say?
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah, no, it's like, well, and, and some, that's why I think something like what you could call tokhecha, which is some kind of rebuke or calling out, calling in, you know, um, that you could say that that actually is a really valuable piece in all this if done right. If done lovingly and by a loving friend. Right? Because
BENAY LAPPE: yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: That experience of having messed it up, and I'm not saying you did in this case, but I'm just saying, you know, hypothetically the opinion, the, the, the experience of messing it up is actually a critical part of the learning process of then being able to see yourself in, in this text in the future time. And, and again, certain saints don't need that maybe, but most of us do.
And there are times when I've, you know, messed something up, uh, uh, you know, a different thing or whatever. I don't wanna get into the story that I have in my mind right now 'cause it actually puts me in a very bad light. And, um. But it doesn't because I learned from it, you know?
But, but, but I don't know that if I hadn't messed up in that particular case, that I would've really learned as deeply an important lesson that actually - I'm thinking about something from college. So we're talking about like 30 years now that I've had that lesson, and I've been a better person for it, a much better person. And maybe I would've only learned that 15 years ago, and then I would've hurt a lot of people over the course of 15 years. So, so I feel like there's something about that, that, you know, that that, that I, you know,
At the end of the end of the day, right, I want, I want the Talmud, I want Judaism to be a tool through which we become better people. Right? And, and I think what we're trying to, and, and I, and I appreciate that you've really kind of, um, put a, a, a, a frame on a lot of the text that we've studied over this last kind of period about the, this is where the Talmud is in different ways, articulating. The ideal kind of person that it aspires to beyond just the ideal kind of Talmud learner. It's like this is the ideal kind of human being, even when it's framed in terms of Talmud learning or Torah learning.
And I want that to be, I want that to be what the Talmud is about. And, um, and I, and I hope that it is, but I, but I do see that in here. It's like, yeah, you know, like there's, there's the philosophy, the aphorism, there's the, there's the implementation in the rule book. Okay, here's how you would implement it. But ultimately the only way that you actually take it into your soul is through trying to implement it in your actual life. And often that's gonna be failure. And when it's failure, either you'll learn because the failure is apparent.
And maybe that's this, uh, uh, you know, pushing forward the, the moment, right? And you and it, and it just fails and you learn that way. And maybe it's because a loving friend told you that it. You, you didn't do what you aspire to do or something.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah. Okay. And now here's what's coming up for me. Now, this question of: do aphorisms really work? So when, when I was hearing you tell that your own story, I thought of a, an aphorism elsewhere in the Talmud where it says: the place where someone who has transgressed and done teshuva stands, a tzadik gamor, a completely righteous person, can never stand at that level. Meaning you become a better person actually through messing up and going through that process of teshuva, than if you never messed up in the first place.
And what's coming up for me is that reading that aphorism really doesn't, it's not as - What it does is it gives me language to feel better about myself or to have a framework for what I just went through that says, yeah, that's a good thing. Don't, don't feel ashamed of what you did. That's actually a good thing. And the tradition sees that as the path toward growth. And now I have language for it and I have a perspective on it because of that aphorism. It's not that the aphorism was motivating, it's that it now frames what my life experience has made, made…
I don't know. You know what I'm saying?
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah, yeah. Okay, Let's go to the next part of the text piece
BENAY LAPPE: Okay.
DAN LIBENSON: Okay. Like in a way, like all of a sudden I'm seeing it in a new way because of this conversation. Which by the way, like we both study this separately. You know, we only get it, get it through the, the conversation. So that's part of Talmud study, the whole idea of chevruta.
And chevruta, by the way, the idea of, um, you know, it often gets translated as your study partner. But it comes from the root of chaver “Friend”. I mean, like, it really, and I think what we're talking here is like, it's really the friendship that, that allows certain things to come out. Right. In many cases. Um, .
BENAY LAPPE: yeah And if you, by the way, if you dig even further into the Root of “Friend”, it really means to connect or to, to tie. Yeah. ,
DAN LIBENSON: Right, right. So, um, so there's that, and, um, and um, you know, so, so there's just something that, so, oh, and, and you said, you, you talk about how when the Talmud talks about, um, gives different names for God. So sometimes it's the Holy Blessed One. Sometimes it's The One Who Created The Earth, uh, you know, Spoken, Created The Earth, whatever. And there's these different, and You say like, you gotta pay attention to that because when it uses this way of, of God's name, it probably is trying to position itself in a certain way and connect it to the other times when it uses that way of calling God. And, um.
And so a very simple level reading that you could give of the two stories that are here in this text about cases where Hillel and Shammai disagreed, or the Houses of Hillel and Shammai disagreed. You could say like, oh, those are just two cases that they picked. Or you could say, no, no, no. They picked those cases because they fit into the, into this, this conversation that we're having here. And they, they were actually, they were on what we're talking about. Like they actually, this is not us making this up. This is part of the structure here. I'm still a little lost with the Sukkah. Um, but,
BENAY LAPPE: oh, okay. But maybe the thing about the Sukkah is what you were bringing, you brought it out before, which is maybe the part of the Sukkah story that's relevant here is what we have Beit Shammai saying, which is: this is how you did your, your sukkah observing? You never really - I mean, that's kind of mean! Yeah. Maybe, maybe the attention really is like, the goal was to draw our attention to that part of the story. I don't know. Uh, I dunno.
DAN LIBENSON: No, look, that's why, that's why like, I love what we're doing here. 'cause we're learning. We're, we're like, we gotta make up a new words. It's like learning-teaching. It's not like we don't have the answers and we don't even, you know, but, and sometimes we have stronger opinions than others or preexisting. And, but, and sometimes that's bad, you know, because then we don't do the, the Hillel thing. But, um, but anyway, like, so anyone out there that has a take on this, we'd love to hear it on that part.
Okay. So let's, um, finish the, the text. 'cause I, this other part is fascinating. Like, why, why is it, first of all, the whole thing is fascinating. Second of all, it's like, why is this here?
Okay, so the sages, uh, the sages taught, uh, the Bariata, which, right, so a Bariata is something that kind of comes from the time of the Mishna, but isn't in the, actually in the Mishna:
Um, for two and a half years, the House of Hillel and the House, the House of Shammai, and the House of Hillel disagreed. So they have, you know, this is a long term disagreement. One side says, uh, ostensibly Shammai, it would have been preferable, had man or had human beings not been created then to have been created. And the other say those said, it is preferable for men to have been created than to not have been created.
So one side says it would be better if we were never born at all. And the other side says, it would be better. It's better that we were born. Ultimately-
BENAY LAPPE: Let's just, let's just stop here for a minute.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah.
BENAY LAPPE: This is very depressing. I, I dunno, this feels like the kind of feeling, like the kind of question that comes up for you when you feel, God forbid, suicidal. Yeah. I mean, it, it really is something that comes out of a deep sense of, of depression. Like, gosh, it's, it, it would've been better had I never been born. And, and not only it would've been better had none of us ever been born. That's a, a, it feels like it's coming from a place of real despair, so I'm kind of wondering what, what is going on there.
DAN LIBENSON: Absolutely.
BENAY LAPPE: Um, - okay
DAN LIBENSON: um - yeah, I mean, I remember when I, when I first heard about this text, I remember my dad. I mean, I, it's like actually, like, you're right. It's like, it's like one of these things that's sort of so shocking. It's like the, the binding of Isaac and this, it's like some of these stories that you hear and you're like, it sticks with you forever. Because I remember as a kid, my dad somehow told, told me this story, and I, and I just remember as a kid, I'm like, what kind of a question is this? You know, like, uh, but it stuck. It stuck. I've never forgotten it, you know? It, it, and um, and it,
And by the way, I mean, it's one of these amazing things where then you kind of stumble across it in its context and you say, oh, here's where it's from and this is where it was, so maybe why is it here? Uh, but yeah, no, I'm totally with you.
BENAY LAPPE: Right? It's, yeah, like, yeah. Okay. It's interesting.
DAN LIBENSON: I mean, by the way, this, this is a time, School of Hillel, School of Shammai is a time, more or less around the destruction of the 2nd Temple - So it's not a good time. I mean, it's a pretty bad time to be a Jew.
BENAY LAPPE: Yeah.
DAN LIBENSON: Um, I mean, you know, in some, in some ways it was a good time 'cause they created a new kind of Judaism, but it was a pretty, uh, depressing time to be a Jew. Okay. So, um,
BENAY LAPPE: and we don't know who who said which, which is interesting. I'm gonna guess Beit Hillel said: yeah, it's better that we
DAN LIBENSON: uhhuh
BENAY LAPPE: were created and Beit Shammai is saying: no, it's actually, it would've been better had, had people never have been created at all. Okay?
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm. Uh, which makes the next part a little interesting. 'cause if it was Shammai who actually said it's better to be not created at all. It then says: they were counted and a conclusion was reached, which means they voted.
BENAY LAPPE: I just wanna note on this translation, they were counted. It probably, there's a lot of dispute about what that means, counted, because the verb is very weird in Hebrew, but it, it probably means they voted. Yeah. Typically that expression: nim’nu v’gamru, it's like they took a vote, they decided they were gonna decide the answer to this question by, by a majority rule. Okay. Which is interesting,
DAN LIBENSON: which is a little interesting for two reasons. Like one is that because we learned that the law is always according to Hillel. So this is exactly a law, but it wasn't decided according to Hillel, necessarily, like in that way.
Benay: Right.
Dan: And Two: Two and a half years, and then they voted. It's like, it's like, what? You know, right. Like, was there like a filibuster? Like why, why did, uh, you know, why, why didn't they vote after like six months? You know, like, it just seems like a long period of time. Anyway. Um, okay.
So they, they voted and it was concluded that it would've been preferable had men not been created. It'd be better if, you know, human beings had never been created, but now that it ha they have been created, uh, people should examine their actions and some say. He should scrutinize his actions. So, um, so, so, you know, I, I, I mean,
Steinsaltz is interpreting that as, uh, the one case they say you should look at your past actions and correct them. And, uh, another say that it's more about looking at, at what you're planning to do in the future and making sure that you, you do the right thing. But either way, the point, we can talk about the, the, the differences, but either way, the point is that it would be better to not have been created at all. But since we're created, uh, we, we should sort of make the best of it.
BENAY LAPPE: Right. Right. Make the best of it, and at least try to be as good as you can be. It's like, uh, it's like we're never gonna be as good as would make it worth it to be even on the earth. Uh, again, sticky on that, I just, it's hard to wrap my head around that. Yeah. Um,
But okay, As long as we're here, one opinion says: At least do tshuva, like examine your past actions to be better. And the other opinion, and I think this is really fascinating, to think about these different approaches to what's the best way to get to be a better person by looking at what I did before or in the second opinion, he says, no, forget what you did before. Just focus on right now and what's in front of you. Focus on what you have the opportunity to do and examine whether the action that you have the opportunity to do is the right thing to do. Whether it's a transgression or a mitzvah - the the thing you can do is that what you should be doing? That's where you should be investing your time, not, What did I do last year?
And I think as we're coming upon, we're an Elul now coming on the High Holy Days and this process of spiritual introspection. These are very different approaches and I'm, I'm kind of fascinated by shifting from what is the typical way of looking at how to be a better person from, oh, what did I do last year? Who do I need to, right? What, what did I do wrong to, okay, how do I make better decisions moving forward?
DAN LIBENSON: Mm-hmm. And, and maybe it's obvious, but the way that I am thinking that this connects to what we've been talking about is that it, it's like, it's basically saying: look, there's this better way to be the, the, the Hillel way - humble stating the other opinions before your own teach, you know, examining, studying both your own views and your, your opponent's views.
But it's, we're not born that way. That's a hard, that's a very hard mature place to get to, and. Part of it is, you could say, it would be better if I didn't even have to go through this. You know, better not to be born at all or better to, if I could just live the nihilistic life that I would live. You know, it's just like, why do I have to do this is hard. This makes life hard. Um, but, you know, but there's a way. I mean, but like, but meaning like, but, but,
But if you're not that way by birth, you're not the saint. You gotta work at it. You know? And, and it's, that's, that's the work of life. You know? There's something, I mean, I, we, you know, we don't have enough time now and, and I don't know if we have enough time in a lifetime to, to fully get it. But I actually think it's like a really, there's something really here that, that's kind of, it is connected to the whole thing. And it's kind of fundamentally saying like. It's not like the School of Hillel people were better human beings than the School of Shammai people. It's like they worked on it and they got there. Something like that. And that, and that, that sort of feels like a connection with this last part to the first part.
BENAY LAPPE: I like that. Here's what I can say about this text: My mother is a puzzle maker. I'm not, doesn't make puzzles. She puts puzzles together. She loves puzzle. Puzzles. And she makes these puzzles, uh, that are called Gold Box puzzles. Have you ever heard of them?
Dan: No.
Benay: They come from, they're, they're, they come from this, uh, company in England. They're wooden puzzles and they come in a box without a picture on the cover.
DAN LIBENSON: Hmm.
BENAY LAPPE: And I feel like with this text, we have a gold box box puzzle and we've just dumped the pieces on the table and like, we haven't even found the corners yet. Mm. That's how I feel with, that's where I'm at with this text. So I just want, I just wanna say to everybody listening and to you, I feel like we haven't even begun to put the picture of this text together, but it's exciting and the pieces are on the table.
DAN LIBENSON: Yeah. Well, and that, that's what, so that, so what I would say to to you is like, I'm looking forward to our next conversation, probably not on the air about, about this. 'cause I think there's a lot for us to chew on here, you know, and kind of Yeah. Like something feels to me like there's something really important here that we should kind of keep digging out. And I'd love for Yeah. Folks that are watching and listening to, to do that too. And, and maybe this is one that we can have an ongoing, uh, an ongoing dialogue with, with folks that are, that are learning and learning together.
And, and, um, and, and yet, I I also just wanna say that, like, for me, what's, there is one piece where I kind of feel like we found a corner. You know, like for, for me, it feels like. There's something deep in here about the hard work of being the person that I wanna be and, and that the tradition wants me to be. And that, um, and that there, that, that the idea that it's not easy and that it can't be mm-hmm. It can't be learned through aphorisms and it can't be learned through like, just doing the halakha, you know, just doing behaviors without allowing yourself to truly be shaped and reshaped and to be conscious of that and open to rebuke and open to change like that
There's something here where, where it's, and, and that's where like, you know, I mean, I, to the extent that this is a, a, a bit of a, a, an end to that a bunch of, uh, texts where we're really looking at the ideal kind of person that the talmud's trying to, to create.
Like, I, I do think there's this temptation to look at these great people, Rabbi Meir genius, you know, Simchus could, you know, have 150 different, you know, ways, right? And it's like, but I, who I'm, I'm not a, I'm not that genius, you know? So, but, so I think it's, it's better to say that: no, this is the work! So that, that's kind of where I'm holding.
BENAY LAPPE: I like that. And, and the, the shift from, don't think it's about being right. Don't think it's about what you know, don't think it's about even, you know, being successful or effective at getting your agenda out there. That that also ultimately doesn't necessarily make you a better person and keep your eye on the fact that, that that's the goal.
Okay. Maybe we have a corner.
DAN LIBENSON: All right. I'm happy to leave it at a corner. So next week, we'll, uh, we'll, we'll, we'll roll onto a new topic and, um, and excited to explore that. So hope we'll see it.
Hope we'll see you all next week.
BENAY LAPPE: Great. Thank you 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)
