A FURTHER ELABORATION OF THE DIFFERENCES IN LEARNING BETWEEN THE ISRAELI AND BABYLONIAN SCHOLARS THE SCHOLARS OF BABYLONIA understood the drawback of depending solely on pilpul for decision-making. For it is well known that one who overemphasizes the use of pilpul destroys the source [the original meaning] of the laws. Such people, [whose main focus is on the creative and imaginative aspects of interpretation], find it difficult to spend a significant amount of time analyzing the Gemara and the received laws to determine their practical applications. They become accustomed to ascribing significance to those laws whose methodology they can readily understand, together with the rationale that the Gemara applied in deriving those laws.¹ Thus, they are likely [to depart from these established rulings] by emending or amending them. [The Sages of Babylonia], were accustomed not to derive any matter, unless impelled to do so because they were confronted with the “darkness” of doubts and thus needed to clarify and purify them. Tractate Yoma 57a states, “R. Yirmiyahu² said to Rava, ‘The [foolish Babylonian Torah scholars] dwell in a land of darkness. Therefore, they communicate laws of darkness.’” Rava [from Babylonia] lamented [that R. Yirmiyahu’s statement was true], and retracted his opinion [pertaining to the halachic matter that they were discussing]. As Rava said to R. Papa, “Not only do they consider us [the Babylonian scholars] to be dull, but they refer to us as the dullest of the dull.”³ [Rava was expressing] the realization of the [Babylonian scholars] that the straightforward arguments confidently presented by the Israeli scholars were in many instances more beneficial [in arriving at the truth] than what resulted from the pilpul of the [Babylonian scholars]. For [pilpul alone] is not as great a determinant of the truth [as received tradition].⁴ This was noted by Nahmanides in the introduction to his work, Milhamos ha-Shem.”⁵], do not boldly say that I consider all the answers I wrote in order to [defend R. Yitzhak Alfasi] against the questions raised by R. Zechariah of blessed memory, irrefutable arguments that will impel you to agree with them against your faulty opinions. Or [I believe] that you may boast of being the provider of the knowledge of any of my arguments to others, or that you will need to enter the eye of a needle in order to repel the power of my arguments. This is not so, for of everyone who learns our Talmud, know that among those involved in disputing the interpretation of the Talmud, none possesses flawless proofs, nor in most cases do they have decisive rebuttals. For in this art [of pilpul], there is no paragon among the various generations, as there is to be found among the mathematicians in the field of geometry, or among the scientists in the field of astronomy.” Therefore, [Babylonian scholars] respected the decisions of the scholars from the Land of Israel in practical matters. In many instances, when a halachic decision was not clear to them, the Babylonians would forward their questions to the scholars in the Land of Israel and would not deviate from their words.

footnotes: ¹ The literal translation is “on what were the law’s bases sunk.” This is similar to the wording in Job 38:6. ² An amora who lived in Israel and a contemporary of Rava, who lived in Babylonia. ³ The Talmud there considers what happens if the blood from the bull sacrifice became mixed with the blood of the ram sacrifice prior to the sprinkling being performed on the Day of Atonement. Rava opined that the blood should be sprinkled both above and below for both the bull and ram sprinklings. R. Yirmiyah argued that this cannot be acceptable, since by combining the sprinklings, the ram’s blood would precede that of the bull, which is not permitted. Rava accepted R. Jeremiah’s argument. ⁴ Although the Netziv does not use the word “tradition,” this word was inserted based on what he writes thereafter in the text. ⁵ “You who read my book [Milhamos ha-Shem

The scholars from the Land of Israel also understood that when the law was not straightforward and it was necessary to draw the light of decision out of darkness through debate and analogy, the Babylonian scholars were superior. This is brought out in Bava Kamma117b, pertaining to the discussion of R. Yohanan [an amora from the Land of Israel] and R. Kahana [who had moved from Babylonia to Israel]. R. Yohanan said to the disciples in Israel, “I [originally] believed that [superior learning] of the Torah was yours; but it is theirs [the Babylonian scholars’].” For there is no Torah matter that cannot be properly resolved when thorough analysis of the law is coupled with the assistance of God, may His Name be blessed. When a scholar from the Land of Israel who was proficient in the Oral Law moved to Babylonia and acquired their skills at applying pilpul, he bore much fruit as the need arose. [The advantage of combining the traditions of Israel with the pilpul methodology of Babylonia] is described in Tractate Menachos 42a: “[When] one of the scholars from the Land of Israel comes to Babylonia, [he] becomes equal to two of the Babylonian scholars.” The obvious reason is that the traditions that such a [scholar from the Land of Israel] possessed assisted him in applying pilpul to arrive at the truth, even in those circumstances where traditions were lacking.⁶ This transplanted scholar’s knowledge of traditions] would always lend weight to his arguments. If he stated that the matter was based on tradition, they, [the Babylonian scholars,] would concede, saying, “It is tradition. We accept [your argument].” In a converse situation, [when a Babylonian scholar emigrated to Israel], the Talmud in Kesubos 75a states: “When one of us [a Babylonian scholar] arrives [in Israel], he becomes equal to two scholars from the Land of Israel.”⁷ 75a states: “Abbaye said: ‘One of them [a resident of Israel] is better than two of us in Babylonia.’ Rava said: ‘But when one of us goes up to there, he is better than two of them. Take R. Yirmiyah, for example. When he was here in Babylonia, he did not know what the rabbis were saying. Yet when he went to live there, in the Land of Israel, he grew so that he would call us the foolish Babylonians.’” Once he became knowledgeable in the traditions he had acquired in the Land of Israel, he overflowed both in wisdom and in applying the method of pilpul to which he was already accustomed.

footnotes: ⁶ The more information one possesses, the more tools one has for making inferences. ⁷ The Talmud in Kesubos