Q&A: Disputes in Torah-Level Laws
Disputes in Torah-Level Laws
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I have a small learning question, please.
In the first Mishnah in tractate Tevul Yom, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel whether scraps and loaves that are about to be separated shortly—whether in the meantime they are considered connected for impurity or not. Beit Shammai say yes, and Beit Hillel say no. In the latter clause it says that Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai that with regard to other impurities, both lighter and more severe ones, it is considered a connection.
My question is this: is it correct to learn the Mishnah this way—that if Beit Hillel disagree in the case of a tevul yom and say that it is not a connection, but concede regarding other impurities that it is a connection, then necessarily this connection is rabbinic and not Torah-level, because otherwise how could they disagree in the case of a tevul yom? Or is that not necessary, and one can say that in all cases we are dealing with a connection (or that it is not a connection) by Torah law, and there is simply reasoning to distinguish between a tevul yom and other impurities? That is, my question is whether one can infer from the structure of the Mishnah that it cannot be that this is a Torah-level connection, because how can Beit Hillel rule it pure here and impure there, and the dispute is only about where to make a decree—or whether there is no reason not to try to look for a reason for the distinction on the level of Torah law?
Answer
I don’t understand why you think there cannot be a dispute in Torah law. There are many disputes in Torah-level laws (for example, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding the resting of utensils, and many others). Therefore both possibilities exist here.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t see why there would be a preferred side here.
I asked you these questions because a lot of times when I learn Mishnayot I run into the difficulty of whether to try to understand the course of a dispute through reasoning—which is harder for me—or as a dispute about a decree, which is easier for me to understand and explain to myself. Sometimes I’m unsure how much time to “waste” trying to understand what the reason for a Torah-level dispute could be (a scriptural decree, or reasoning connected to the essence of the topic, or even external reasoning, like you once explained to me that a dispute in the laws of impurity and purity could be relevant to the laws of sekhakh in a sukkah), or whether to try to understand why these sages were concerned and made a decree (what resemblance there is to a prohibition that could cause a snowball effect) and those sages were not concerned. Maybe—and this is also a question—does every complex Mishnah need to be learned in this way each time? The thing is that it takes a lot of time, and I’m wondering whether there are rules that could make the hesitation easier and “save time,” or whether everything is open.
I can’t think of any rules on this issue. The question whether we are dealing with Torah law or not has to be examined through the sources for the law. If one side in the dispute has a verse or an exposition, then we are dealing with a Torah-level law. If not, then it is a rabbinic law. The fact that there is a dispute is irrelevant to that.
Following the previous question, is there one side that is more worth leaning toward—more likely that this is a dispute about a rabbinic decree rather than a Torah-level law?