Do we, however, adopt the
restrictions of two [authorities who differ from one another]? Was it not in
fact taught: The law is always in agreement with Beth Hillel, but he who wishes
to act in agreement with the ruling of Beth Shammai may do so, and he who
wishes to act according to the view of Beth Hillel may do so;
[he, however, who adopts] the more
lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and the more lenient rulings of Beth Hillel is
a wicked man, [while of the man who adopts] the restrictions of Beth Shammai
and the restrictions of Beth Hillel Scripture said: But the fool walketh in
darkness.(Eccl. 2:14)
A man should rather act either in
agreement with Beth Shammai both in their lenient and their restrictive rulings
or in agreement with Beth Hillel in both their lenient and their restrictive
rulings?
Or page then gives a series of instances in which the
restrictions of both are followed – creating a more difficult environment – one
of walking in darkness.
One resolution of how it possible to say that the law is
always in accordance with Hillel, but one is permitted to follow Shammai (isn’t
that by definition illegal?) is to argue that this statement was made after the
“bat kol” – the Divine Voice which spoke from Heaven and stated that the law is
always in accordance with the School of Hillel.
And some (represented by Rabbi Joshua) don’t agree that a
Divine Voice should determine the law. Lo ba Shamayim, he – the law is
not in Heaven, it is in human hands!
No comments:
Post a Comment