2

"תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּמֶחֱצָה נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל. הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא נִבְרָא יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁנִּבְרָא, וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁנִּבְרָא יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁלֹּא נִבְרָא. נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ: נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא נִבְרָא יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁנִּבְרָא, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנִּבְרָא — יְפַשְׁפֵּשׁ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו...
"The Sages taught: For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for a man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they voted [were counted] and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created..." Eruvin.13b

Why would a philosophical, non-Halachic, argument require voting?

P.s. Are there additional examples of voting on philosophical issues?

Al Berko
  • 25,936
  • 2
  • 22
  • 57
  • https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/109378/how-did-beit-shammai-and-beit-hillel-arrive-at-the-conclusion-that-it-would-have/109379#109379 – Alex Jun 12 '22 at 01:42
  • R. Moshe Elazar Samet in the journal זרע יעקב vol. 25 pp. 374-376 addresses your question. – Deuteronomy Jun 12 '22 at 18:13
  • By the way, the translation here leaves out the halachic part. – Alex Jun 13 '22 at 23:09

2 Answers2

3

The Maharsha on Makkot 23b, D"H Taryag writes:

"...ואמר בזה דנמנו וגמרו ר"ל שבאו בזה למנין המצות שהלאוין הם יותר מהעשיים וע"כ הסכימו וגמרו לומר שלא נברא האדם בשביל עצמו ויותר היה טוב לו שלא נברא כי הוא קרוב להפסד מחמת הלאוין שהם רבים ורחוק לשכר מצד העשיין שהם מועטים ועכשיו שנברא לא נברא אלא לכבוד המקום..."

Translation: "...and it was stated by this that they counted and concluded, meaning that they counted the number of the commandments [and saw] that the negative commandments were greater [in number] than the positive commandments and therefore agreed and concluded that Man was not created for himself and it would have been better for him to not have been created because he is close to losing because of the great number of negative commandments and is far from receiving reward from the positive commandments for they are few, and now that he has been created, he has not been created but to honor Hashem..."

Therefore, the term "נמנו" (counted) does not necessarily mean that they voted but rather that they counted something else, i.e., they quantified a certain factor. In this case, after a drawn-out debate, they decided that the deciding factor would be the number of mitzvot and proceeded to count the mitzvot, and that's how they reached their conclusion.

And a few other examples of non-halachic issues settled by נמנו (whatever that might mean in context):

Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1:1:

"“He will stand before kings”—he will stand before kings of the Torah. “He will not stand before dark ones,” this is the group of the wicked. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: When [the Sages] voted, and concluded that three kings and four commoners do not have a portion in the World to Come, they sought to add Solomon to them. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “Do not touch My anointed ones” (Psalms 105:15)."

In light of the Maharsha, we might therefore change the translation to "they counted the number of kings and commoners". Otherwise, it would be strange that they voted and then suddenly remembered "Oh, hey, what about Shlomo?". The portion about Shlomo took place while they were counting out the number of wicked kings.

Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2:14:

"Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interpreted the verse regarding the kingdoms. “My dove, in the clefts of the rock,” as [Israel is] shadowed in the recesses of the kingdoms. “Show me your appearance,” this is [Torah] study. “Let me hear your voice,” this is a good deed. They already once voted in the house of Aliyat Arim in Lod and they said: ‘Which is greater, study or action?’ Rabbi Tarfon said: ‘Action is greater.’ Rabbi Akiva said: ‘Study is greater.’ They voted and concluded: Study is greater, as it engenders action. “For your voice is pleasant,” this is study. “And your appearance is lovely,” this is a good deed."

Again, how would voting be a deciding factor in what is greater, study or action? They must have quantified some factor (I'm not sure what that was exactly) and decided per that.

Beresheet Rabbah 98:8 (my translation):

"They counted and said: Hillel [is a descendant] of Shlomi(t)."1

In this case, per the corrected nusach (see footnote), they counted backwards Hillel's genealogy and concluded he was a descendant of Shlomit, Zerubavel's daughter (see also Yerushalmi Ketubot 12:3).

1 Nusach corrected per Rabbi Reuven Margolies's essay (in Hebrew) "The Genealogy of Rabbi Yehudah Ha'Nasi" - "לתולדות רבי יהודה הנשיא", Sinai 39, pp. 104-105.

Harel13
  • 25,676
  • 4
  • 58
  • 136
  • Exceptionally smart. Thank you! – Al Berko Jun 12 '22 at 07:57
  • For me, it doesn't make sense for several reasons: 1. It means that they didn't count before, so they couldn't claim their assertions to start with. 2. נמנו means עמדו למניין (they), proper Hebrew would be מנו וגמרו. Also 3. This phrase is used extensively throughout the Talmud with only one meaning - voting. It is illogical to use the same idiom with a different meaning. – Al Berko Jun 12 '22 at 08:02
  • @AlBerko 1. We don't know what their arguments were for 2.5 years (if that's even how many years they argued and it's not a symbolic number). 2. I agree with you that in modern Hebrew it should be מנו וגמרו, but the question is whether נמנו may mean מנו in Mishnaic/Talmudic Hebrew. 3. I gave you some examples where it seems to not to make sense if נמנו means voting. Since it's not a single instance, we can't just put it down to scribal error. I don't know whether it's illogical because I'm not an expert on Hebrew-Through-the-Ages. Have there never been terms with two closely-related meanings? – Harel13 Jun 12 '22 at 12:01
  • 1
    @AlBerko Presumably, the grammatical structure according to Maharsha is not “they [the rabbis] counted them [the mitzvot]”, but “they [the mitzvot] were counted”. See also Megillah 17a למה נמנו שנותיו של ישמעאל for a similar construct. – Alex Jun 12 '22 at 14:33
  • @Alex good point! That makes sense. – Harel13 Jun 12 '22 at 17:46
  • If it wasn't an idiom, of course. Your examples only support my question, that seemingly rabbis were voting regularly on any issue. – Al Berko Jun 12 '22 at 20:37
  • @AlBerko but that would make zero sense in say, the case of Hillel'a genealogy. – Harel13 Jun 12 '22 at 20:39
  • @Alex I understand Hebrew, thank you. This doesn't make sense to put in one idiom a subject and an object. Also, that would mean that they didn't know the number before they started to argue, which is unthinkable. – Al Berko Jun 12 '22 at 20:39
  • @AlBerko why is that unthinkable? – Harel13 Jun 12 '22 at 20:40
  • Not at all, why would you think that non-Halachic issues need no uniformity? Maybe Rabbis didn't distinguish at all between Halochos and philosophical issues as we do, and did vote on everything they argued. – Al Berko Jun 12 '22 at 20:41
  • BTW B"R is different as they SAID, not Paskened. This is why the argument continues: "עַד כִּי יָבֹא שִׁילֹה, נִמְנוּ וְאָמְרוּ הִלֵּל מִשֶּׁל מִי, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי מְגִלַּת יֻחָסִים מָצְאוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וּכְתִיב בָּהּ הִלֵּל מִדָּוִד. רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה מִן דִּשְׁפַטְיָה בֶּן אֲבִיטָל." – Al Berko Jun 12 '22 at 20:44
  • @AlBerko you ignored the changes to the nusach by Rabbi Margolies. I can link a PDF tomorrow if you want. By the way - no argument. שפטיה בן אביטל is not Hillel'a ancestor, he's Rabbi Chiya Rabbah's ancestor. – Harel13 Jun 12 '22 at 21:05
  • 1
    @AlBerko Why is it unthinkable? Consider https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/59977/only-613-commandments-cant-be/95024#95024 and https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/88586/reversal-of-the-number-of-positive-and-negative-precepts Apparently it isn't so easy to determine the number of positive and negative commandments. In fact, maybe that was (part) of what they were disputing. – Alex Jun 12 '22 at 22:12
  • @Alex I feel confused when half of the rabbis claim the number is הלממס and another half that it's arbitrary. – Al Berko Jun 13 '22 at 08:33
  • @AlBerko Welcome to Judaism 🤷‍♂️. – Alex Jun 13 '22 at 11:55
-1

Because those things can not be part of scientific knowledge, as we can not proof something which belongs to a different domain (matter), it only can have logical sense, and agree with ethics

lifeisaquestion
  • 306
  • 1
  • 6