במה דברים אמורים – Do Chazal knowingly distort the teachings of those that came before them?

Rabbi:

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions. My apologies for taking so long to respond – I wanted to first read through your piece on אוקימתות and also to have a specific case to address. Though I didn't get to the specific examples, here's some Q's/comments on your explanation of אוקימתות that you linked to.

re: your piece on אוקימתות:
The underlying difficulty with accepting intellectual dishonesty (for other goals) is exactly what was bothering me re: forcing a pshat in order to avoid machlokes, and I couldn't have worded it better. Your explanations about אוקימתות specifically gave me something to think about, and I look forward to "testing" it as I learn as it has great intuitive appeal. I don't have anything worthwhile to ask on אוקימתות, but did find that
(a) incorrect footnote reference? – in one of your footnotes (#3) you reference Rav Hutner's פחד יצחק on Chanukah so I learned through it a couple of times, and you summarized (שם) his approach as "כדי למנוע מהדיוטות להתערב ולנסות להבין את הדברים" however it seemed that although his approach was that it was intentionally made unclear it was not to keep it from the layman (הדיוטות) but rather to keep it exclusive to כלל ישראל and a private ברית – תורה (that even after written still requires an orally transmitted explanation) between us and Hashem (one that deserves sacrificing ones life for to keep it private).
(b) What do you mean by אזוטרית? – regardless of whether he explains the goal as to exclude layman or non-Jews, it is meant to exclude – why then do you describe it as "אזוטרית" – i.e. can you explain what you mean by "אזוטרית"/ esoteric?
(c) What is your issues with Rav Hutner's approach – i.e. you dismissed the existing approaches for the reason that it's illogical that the important purpose of Mishnah as Halachah would be sacrificed (as it requires clarity). This would address the reasons given of additional intentions re: "דרש" ו"סוד" or for mneumonic reasons. However, how does it address the explanation of keeping it oral (i.e. the אוקימתות are passed down orally and serve as a key to understanding to Mishnah) thus keeping the teaching private. If the intention is to keep it hidden, isn't the lack of clarify (without the oral key to unlock the meaning) understood/explained? (Note – I did not learn at Yeshivas Chaim Berlin, or know Rav Hutner zt"l, just appreciate his approach here, and how it also explains חסורי מחסרא and inconsistencies in the Mishnayos as well answering the question of "Comparing the Gemara to the Mishnah – you can see so much that is not clearly stated in the Mishnah and if they sought to prevent the Torah from being forgotten and thus allowed it's writing – you would think that כיון דהותרה הותרה and write down as much as possible, being as verbose as possible – why be "stingy" with the words (Rav Hutner points out more than even complete sections of law are left out of the mishnayos entirely) and risk the main objective of losing the accurate transmission אלא מאי it seems that they held that even after it was permitted, there was still a MAJOR need to leave things out – all addressed with a single approach (thus appealing via Occam's razor))

Speaking of Occam's Razor: you used it to answer my question on מחלוקת (or why there is a strong presumption that it doesn't exist) – namely that assuming less opinions would fall under that idea. However (a) I think that Occam's razor is based on a single (monotheistic) source (William of Ockham was a friar) such that (a) to explain the results of this single Source (if you assume that said Source values elegance or perhaps efficiency) then the approach which explains the observation with less assumptions (separate rules/powers/forces) is preferred, this (from what I understand) is also (b) when the various approaches make the same prediction – When explaining how a single power/creator got from point A to Point B – it was probably done in the simplest/most elegant way (why would He do otherwise if not needed) . However it wouldn't apply to explaining statements "created" by separate sources (thus failing the monotheisic – single creator/power assumption) which state opposite things (thus akin to explaining different observations)

Context is גופה the basis of the Q re: מחלוקת – Regarding, your main point/answer that written/spoken words must be taken in context and not only in their literal sense. I definitely agree with that, אדרה, that's the basis of my question – namely that if the context of post-Tannaic statements is a world of "ריבוי מחלוקת" (started with the talmidim of Shammai and Hillel) and that our eyes see ספרים stores filled with tons of different שיטות – thus the context should then change to a presumption of מחלוקת or at the very least, any presumption of uniformity should hold very little weight, and certainly not enough (on it's own) to force a pshat against what the actual statement was. Hence my example in Bava Metzia 10b – where it was discussing something said by Amoraim (though your explanation of אוקימתות can perhaps explain that Gemara where זה אומר קטנה אין לה חצר ואין לה ד' אמות וזה אומר קטנה יש לה חצר ויש לה ד' אמות – by learning that they even though each gave an abstract rule (intentionally leaving out the real world details/side issues) they were said in totally opposite language (she has vs. she does NOT have) implying that even though the אוקימתא can reconcile both to effectively saying the same thing – one had something more abstract that required the opposite language (though I don't know what that is)

Anyway, thanks again as not only appreciate you taking out the time for me, but I also gained greatly from your help

שבוע טוב.
קשה לי להתייחס בפירוט, בפרט אחרי כל כך הרבה זמן. אתייחס בקצרה.
כשכתבתי שזה מקרה אזוטרי התכוונתי נדיר.
ההסברים של הרב הוטנר נראים לי לא משכנעים, כי היחס של הגמרא למשנה אינו כזה. לא נראה ששיבשו את נוסח המשנה בכוונה, וגם לא סביר בעיניי שעשו זאת.
תערו של אוקאם הוא עיקרון הגיוני, ולכן לא משנה מה מקורו ולמה הוא שימש שם. אגב, באתר שלי יש טור חדש יחסית (308, https://mikyab.net/posts/67138) ובו דוגמה טובה לדיון כזה. אם תרצה כדאי שתקרא אותו.
אני לא חושב שריבוי השיטות והמחלוקות משנה את הלוגיקה של 'אפושי מחלוקת'. עד כמה שצריך עושים מחלוקת. לא במקום שלא צריך. ושוב, אני מדבר על מצב שבו יש הסבר אלטרנטיבי סביר. ברור שאם ההסבר ההגיוני יותר הוא שיש שתי נקודות מחלוקת אז אפשר לאמץ אותו.
בהקשר זה, אולי יעניין אותך לקרוא מאמר אחר שלי על הדיכוטומיה של ה"חקירות" הישיבתיות: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%99%D7%99%D7%91-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A7-%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%9F-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA
שבוע טוב.

thanks for clearing up those Q's on אזוטרית and Rav Hutner's approach.
I started reading the article about חקירות, seems interesting – looking forward
re: Occam's Razor- why is a solution that makes one assumption more "logical" than one that makes 2 assumptions? What is not "logical" about something that is inefficient, lacking elegance or the result of many (or an infinite) number of fundamental forces that cannot be "cut with a razor" into more primary/fundamental reason(s)? Isn't that a "problem" of being not "scientific", not monotheistic – both of which make assumptions that there is a ultimately single (or very very limited number of) cause of the natural world. Thus given that assumption, it's logical to favor the solution with less assumptions. However, I feel that "single source" assumption is violated when discussing different people's opinions (not the truth of their opinions, but rather the content of opinions itself). Since their opinions were formed out of different experiences, education, mental abilities , desire/perseverance to drill deeper – what's illogical to assume that to the degree that these factors differ, their resultant opinions will differ (and should not be forced together). Likewise, the RambaM in the הקדמה לפירוש המשניות
"כי שני אנשים שהם שווים בהבנה ובעיון ובידיעת הכללים שלמדים מהם לא תהיה ביניהם מחלוקת במה שלומדים באחת המדות בשום פנים, ואם תהיה תהיה מועטת
כמו שלא מצאנו מחלוקת בין שמאי והלל אלא בהלכות אחדות, לפי שדרכי למודם בכל מה שהיו לומדים אותו באחת המדות היו קרובים זה לזה, וגם הכללים הנכונים שהיו אצל זה היו אצל השני. וכאשר נתמעט למוד תלמידיהם וכו'
"
Doesn't this RambaM imply that to the degree that people differ מחלוקת is a logical outcome (and perhaps even to be expected), thus after תלמידי ב"ש וב"ה and all the more so afterwards – it's expected and logical that 2 Jews 3 opinions?

(by the way – I value your time, if at any point you don't feel the desire to continue this conversation, just say so (or perhaps a key phrase "יישר כחך" 🙂 and I'll understand and no insult taken, I've pursued this point ("logic" /Occam's razor) as it's the only point that you've made that I feel may be incorrect. but, I don't want to take up your time, and would rather save it for more important questions that I may have in the future.)

thanks,

לדעתי התער של אוקאם הוא אכן עיקרון הגיוני ולא רק כלל שימושי. כתבתי על כך כאן:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D
יתר על כן, גם במקום שהמחלוקת מרובה (שני יהודים שלוש דעות) עדיין יש עדיפות לפרשנות שממעטת אותה. כך למשל, גם במקום שבו יש שתי תיאוריות מדעיות מאד מורכבות, הפשוטה יותר עדיפה.