Kohelet: Contradictions and disputes in halakha and reality
There’s the old joke – two Jews, three opinions. Living through the past year plus in Israel, this joke feels less humorous and more tragic. People make a similar joke with halakha. What’s the halakha? Makhloket (dispute)!
Halakhic disputes
Rav Kook explained that there are five main reasons for halakhic disputes: differing understandings of the Talmudic text, different versions of the text, favoring one Talmudic source over another, a dispute in the rules of deciding halakha (such as the rule is like the majority or the rule is like the latter authority), and a dispute about the logical reasoning.[1] Some makhloket involves several of these categories.
There is one glaring type of dispute missing in Rav Kook’s list: a dispute regarding reality. Such disputes certainly exist. For example, the Talmud Yerushalmi brings a debate regarding what types of foods can become leaven (chametz).[2] It posits that there’s a simple way to decide this makhloket – an experiment. Yet even after they tested their theories, the makhloket remained. Why? It seems they disagreed on the very meaning of the word chimutz – leavening.
Nevertheless, the accepted approach is that most Talmudic and rabbinic disputes are not viewed as disputes regarding reality, but rather some intrinsic aspect of the halakhic decision-making process. In other words, a dispute regarding reality is generally not considered a makhloket in the halakha; we may agree on the halakha, but dispute whether the halakha should be applied in a particular case.
For example, no one disputes that the mitzvah to preserve life overrides the mitzvah to fast on Yom Kippur. Furthermore, halakhic consensus is that in cases of uncertainty, we are stringent with the mitzvah to preserve life. Still, if an individual who is unsure if it is safe for them to fast relays their situation to different Torah scholars, they may get two different answers. While this may be the result of a halakhic dispute or a misunderstanding of halakhic tradition, more often the difference seems to rest on a different valuation of the trustworthiness of the individual and health professionals.[3] In other words – a dispute about reality.
Contradictory statements in Kohelet
The Talmud tells us the sages wanted to conceal Kohelet because its messages were self-contradictory.[4] One verse states: “anger is better than laughter,” another “I said laughter is the most praiseworthy.” The Talmud continues to bring more conflicting opinions on joy, wisdom, and women that can be found in Kohelet.
According to another, the words of Kohelet contradict the Torah:[5]
“Rabbi Binyamin ben Levi said: They sought to conceal the Book of Kohelet, because they found things that tended towards heresy. They said: Was it proper for Shlomo to say: ‘Rejoice young man in your youth, and your heart shall gladden you in the days of your youth?” Moshe said: ‘Do not stray after your hearts and after your eyes,’ and Shlomo said, ‘And go in the path of your heart and the sight of your eyes.’ Were the reins let loose?! Is there no justice and no judge?! Since he said, ‘And know that God will bring you to judgment for all this,’ they said, ‘Shlomo spoke well.’”
This rabbinic explanation does not negate the contradictions between Kohelet and the Torah. The Torah tells us not to be led by our hearts and our eyes; Kohelet tells us to follow the path of our heart and our eyes. The sages seem placated by the conclusion that God will judge us for all our actions, but this does not negate his previous statement, it just contextualizes and tempers it.
Indeed, one way to resolve these contradictions is to contextualize them, as Chazal do:
“There’s no contradiction. ‘Anger is better than laughter’ – the anger of the Holy One, blessed be He, upon the righteous in this world is better than the laughter that the Holy One, blessed be He gives evildoers in this world. ‘I said of laughter it is praiseworthy,’ this is the laughter the Holy One, blessed be He, gives to the righteous in the world to come.
“‘I praised joy’ – the joy of a mitzvah, ‘and to joy, what does it do?’ this is joy that is not from a mitzvah.”[6]
A short quote cannot encompass all of one’s thoughts on a subject. Without context, most statements are meaningless. In different contexts, the same words can have vastly different meanings. Interestingly, the midrash above actually takes Kohelet’s words out of context and puts it in the context of accepted rabbinic wisdom.
Within context, Kohelet is best understood as the search for truth. At times he thinks he finds it and makes absolute pronouncements such as “anger is better than laughter,” only to find a flaw in his reasoning that leads to the opposite conclusion, “I said laughter was praiseworthy.”[7] In other words, as Chazal stated, Kohelet is full of contradictions. But this is not a flaw, it is an inherent part of the wisdom of Kohelet. The reasoning seems similar to that of Walt Whitman, “Do I contradict myself, very well then, I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)”
Reality changes, as do we. Our beliefs should be based on our knowledge and experiences, they should grow with us. What does it say about us if we don’t occasionally reevaluate and adjust our world view? We can and should have absolute values and beliefs – truth, justice, peace, righteousness. But in reality there will be occasions these absolute values may contradict each other, when we will have to choose one over the other.
Contradictory values in halakha
For example, what happens when telling the truth will cause strife? Is truth more important than peace? This contradiction in values is evident in a halakhic dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel regarding the proper way to praise a bride. Beit Shammai believes one should praise “a bride as she is.”[8] One must always “distance yourself from lies,” and should not praise a bride’s beauty if she is not beautiful. Beit Hillel disagrees, ruling that one shouldn’t disparage the bride once the marriage has taken place, and therefore one should “praise her in his eyes.”[9]
According to some understanding of this dispute, the halakhic decision here prizes one value and halakha over another. Beit Shammai chose truth and believes that one is obligated to state the truth about a bride’s appearance.[10]
Others explain that both opinions are concerned over the tension between truth and peace, but they have different ways of resolving it. According to Beit Shammai, “a bride as she is” means one should find positive, true things to sing about the bride, but should not embellish.[11] In this case Beit Hillel counters that such specialized compliments, such as ”she has nice eyes,” make it clear people do not think the bride is altogether beautiful and praiseworthy.[12] Accordingly, the makhloket in halakha stems from a makhloket about reality. How much do people read into our words? Will my truthful comments embarrass someone or cause strife in a marriage?
Some maintain that Beit Hillel resolves this issue by praising all brides with the standard language, “kalla na’a v’chasuda,” “a pleasant and graceful bride.” Is Beit Hillel promoting lying? Shita Mekubetzet explains they are not, because even an ugly bride has beauty and grace. According to this opinion, Beit Hillel preserves both values of truth and peace, speaking vaguely so their words are truthful in one context, but will be interpreted as referring to another.[13] Meiri explains the opposite; Beit Hillel is not concerned about truth in this case. They rule that one should praise the bride exceedingly, even “beyond what is proper.”
Until this point we have examined this law in the context of a contradiction between values of truth and peace, or injured feelings. Indeed, Ritva explains that “anything that has an element of preserving the peace (mipnei darkei shalom) does not [violate the mitzva to] distance yourself from falsehood.”[14] Yet there are other contexts as well. Tur rules that praising the bride is an aspect of the mitzvah to bring joy to the bride and groom, adding extra weight to the argument overriding truthfulness.[15]
Those who insist on avoiding choosing one value over another end up compromising both. These people purposely keep things vague and speak of the bride’s beauty and grace. Their vagueness puts the peace at risk as the groom may pick up on their disingenuousness. Plus, we intentionally mislead the groom so he believes we are referring to the bride’s physical appearance, when our intent is the context of beautiful actions.[16] The bride contains multitudes, as do our words describing her.
Conflict resolution
There are so many disputes that surround us today. Some disputes concern matters of halakha and tradition and values. Sometimes, if we put things in context and go into details, we may realize we agree on many things and we can minimize the distance between the divergent positions. Other times our disparate positions are based on the same values, the same Torah. We disagree on how to apply the Torah because we have different understandings of reality.
Indeed, many of the most vociferous debates among Jewish people today are based on different understandings of reality, different evaluations of possible consequences. For example, most people in Israel agree that the end goal is peace and security, but they disagree on what will make these prayers a reality. They have a different opinion, perhaps vastly different, not because they are an enemy to the Jewish people or the State of Israel, but because they believe that this is the way to preserve Judaism and Torah, and ensure the security of the State of Israel.
Are they wrong? Maybe. Are they evil? Certainly not. How can we be sure “we” are right and “they” are wrong? We can’t. To maintain the peace we must act as Beit Hillel, humbly listen to the claims of the “other side” and maintain a pleasant relationship with them. We must understand that “these and those are the words of a living God.”
Making our peace with change and uncertainty
Kohelet is a book full of contradictions, but it is also a book full of uncertainties. One of the greatest minds repeatedly laments, “Who knows?”[17] Perhaps these contradictions are the reason Kohelet was included in the Bible and is read aloud on Sukkot. People tend to seek absolutes. As we get older we learn that such things are rare. Perhaps the only absolute is the One God. But in this world, under the sun, we live in a state of contradiction. Something can be good in one context, yet bad in another. True at one point, false at another.
“To every thing there is a time, and a time for every purpose under heaven.”[18] We don’t know the “time for birth” or the “time for death,” can we be certain of other proper times: “a time for seeking and a time for loosing… a time for silence and a time to speak; a time for love and a time for hate; a time for war and a time for peace?”
Kohelet reminds us that, even if there is nothing new under the sun, change is constant. The seasons change, so should we. If the omniscient God reevaluates us at this time every year, shouldn’t we also be reevaluating ourselves?
This is not to say that there is no need to search for truth or that there is no truth. It does mean we must have enough humility to know we don’t have a monopoly on the truth, and, like Kohelet, we must be willing to reevaluate our thoughts and convictions on an ongoing basis. It is not a fault to contradict oneself. In the right context, it can be a sign of strength and knowledge.
Kohelet comes to the conclusion that so much is uncertain. “The fool speaks much, a person does not know what will be and no one can tell them what will be in the end.”[19]
Nevertheless, Kohelet does not give up. Quite the opposite. Kohelet tells us to act within this state of uncertainty. “Someone who watches the wind will not plant, and one who watches the clouds will not reap. You do not know the way of the wind… in the morning plant your seeds, and don’t desist in the evening, you don’t know which will prove true …”
Kohelet advises us to enjoy life and follow our hearts and eyes, trust our gut and our assessment of reality. But all this within the context of the knowledge that God will judge our actions. Chazal ultimately came to terms with Kohelet’s contradictions.
The mishna tells us that the only disputes that withstand the tests of time are “makhloket l’shem shamayim,” “disputes for the sake of Heaven,” such as the disputes between the study houses of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.[20] The dispute remains, but regardless of our uncertainties, we still must decide the halakha. Halakha is like Beit Hillel in all but six cases. In general, we follow their opinion because they are respectful, pleasant, and they take Beit Shammai’s point of view into account.
And even they were wrong on occasion.
[1] Hartza’at HaRav
[2] TY Pesachim 2-4
[3] Although the sources overwhelmingly indicate one should trust the individual and the expert opinions, I’ve heard many halakhic responders who question whether this should apply to the modern generation.
[4] TB Shabbat 30b
[5] Vayikra Rabba 28:1
[6] TB Shabbat 30b
[7] See Shabbat 30b
[8] Dr. Michael Rosenak brings this example and discusses the educational importance of teaching the framework of values contradiction in several of his works, including his book “Roads to the Palace: Jewish texts and teaching.” A work I highly recommend all Jewish educators study.
[9] TB Ketubot 16b
[10] Shita Mekubetzet based on manuscripts of Yalkut Geonim.
[11] Rashi ad loc.
[12] For example, Tosafot s.v. “Beit Hillel omrim”
[13] Although this is misleading, which is also considered a type of falsehood, or geneivat da’at, “stealing knowledge.”
[14] Ritva Yevamot 65b
[15] OC 65:1
[16] See Massekhet Kalla 10; Chiddushei Aggadot Maharal on Yevamot 65b.
[17] 2:19, 3:21, 8:1
[18] Kohelet 3:1
[19] Kohelet 10:14
[20] Mishna Avot 5:17
