If so, all of the laws that are mentioned in the Mishnah are divided into these five divisions. And they are explanations transmitted from the mouth of Moshe and they have a hint in Scripture or it is possible to bring a reasoning to reason like them; and 'laws of Moshe from Sinai'; and those which were extrapolated, about which a disagreement occurred; and ordinances; and decrees.

And the reason that required them to write the disagreement that occurred between two opinions is what I will say – that if the laws were written as they were determined without the disagreement, and the words of the sage that the law is not like were [just] pushed off, it is possible that someone who received the transmission of the opposite of the thing that was determined to be the law from the sage that disagrees with that opinion, or someone who leans towards his opinion, will come afterwards. And [so] a doubt will come into our souls: how did this man receive that thing x is forbidden, when the mishnah says that it is permissible – which is the opposite of this matter – and he is a man of truth?

And because of this, when these opinions are written, this breach will be sealed. As when the recipient [of such an opinion] will say, "I have heard that this and that are forbidden," we will say [back] to him, "You have spoken [well] and that is the opinion of x, but the many disagree with him," or "y disagreed with him, and the law is like the opinion of the one that disagrees, because [the latter's] reasoning is more correct," or "because we have found something else that supports him (Mishnah Eduyot 1)."

But the reason that required them to write the words of the individual [alongside those] of the many is because it is possible for the law to be like the individual. And therefore, it comes to teach us that when a line of reasoning is obvious (straightforward), even if it is [that of an] individual, we listen to him – even though the many disagree with him.

And the reason that required them to write the opinion of a man and afterwards that he recanted from that opinion – for example, when they said, "The House of Shammai said like this and the House of Hillel said like this and that, and the House of Hillel recanted to instruct like the words of the House of Shammai" – is in order to inform you of [the need for] the love of truth and the power of righteousness and faith.

As behold, when these honorable, pious and magnanimous men, who were outstanding in their wisdom, saw that the words of the one who is in disagreement with them were better than their words and [that] their investigation is correct, they conceded to him and recanted to his opinion. All the more so, when other people see that the truth is leaning towards the one with which they have a conflict, should [such a one] lean towards the truth and not stiffen his neck. And this is the [meaning of the] verse (Deuteronomy 16:20), "Justice, justice shall you pursue."

And about this the sages said (Avot 5:7), "Concede to the truth." They wanted to say [with this] – even though you can save yourself [in the argument] with rhetorical claims; when you know that the words of your fellow are true, [but] your claim upon him looks clear because of his weakness or because of your ability to distort the truth, recant to his words and abandon the fight.