"The compromise of a third [view] is not a compromise."
When there are two contradictory views, how do we achieve compromise?
In the case of a barrel of terumah that becomes defiled, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree. Beit Shammai think it must be poured out all at once, while Beit Hillel states it can be used for sprinkling.
Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yossi comes and makes a 'compromise', stating that in the field it must be poured out all at once, while at home it can be used for sprinkling (or alternatively that new wine must be poured out at once, while old wine can be used for sprinkling).
But the sages object to him that he hasn't stated a compromise at all. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel don't state anything about fields or houses, old or new wine. Rabbi Ishmael, in trying to create a compromise position has essentially created a new position out of whole cloth.
And this is okay.
It may not be the most ideal kind of compromise, that manages to base itself within the positions themselves, but Rabbi Ishmael manages to keep the thoughts of both parties, maintaining their view of the world, albeit restricted to certain spheres.
With peace talks resuming in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this seems an important lesson to bear in mind. As two parties sit around a table, with apparently irreconcilable goals and desires, how can any compromise be reached that is true to their ideals?
A true compromise will in fact be a new position, a third way that creates a new path for the region.
May we all live to see such a path.
No comments:
Post a Comment