Return to Question

So at least as far back as 1593 (date of publication of the sefer) this is the preferred approach. And of course much further back, as he brought only one example from the Gemara, as he says there is many more. Anyone who learns Gemara, has even come across the lengths that the Gemara will go to try to find some reconciliation, even if it essentially relegates one of the opinions to referring specifically to a very far fetched/ i.e. limited case which rarely ever occurs.

So at least as far back as 1490 (date of publication of the sefer) this is the preferred approach. And of course much further back, as he brought only one example from the Gemara, as he says there is many more. Anyone who learns Gemara, has even come across the lengths that the Gemara will go to try to find some reconciliation, even if it essentially relegates one of the opinions to referring specifically to a very far fetched/ i.e. limited case which rarely ever occurs.

So back to the question, WHY? if it seems abundantly clear that different people have different ways of looking that things, and we see tons of cases where (there is no choice but to accept) that there is debate. And we (the Gemara) even received the mesorah from the Tannaim (via the Mishnayos) that continually states machlokes. Why try to "force" the issue and create cases that aren't stated and qualify statements which were given (over) in absolute terms? It's not like doing so will restore a situation of a single homogeneous state where there is a single view/shittah on everything. Wouldn't these qualifications that are introduced be distorting the true intention, literally inserting something that the author never said?

So back to the question, WHY?

• if it seems abundantly clear that different people have different ways of looking that things
• and we see tons of cases where (there is no choice but to accept) that there is debate.
• And we (the Gemara) even received the mesorah from the Tannaim (via the Mishnayos) that continually states machlokes.
• And we (the Gemara) has admitted that now we live in a time of ריבוי מחלוקת (Sanhedrin 88b, Sotah 47b)

If so, when we encounter a case which is CLEARLY stated as 2 separate opinions - Why try to "force" the issue and create cases that aren't stated and qualify statements which were given (over) in absolute terms?

It's not like doing so will restore a situation of a single homogeneous state where there is a single view/shittah on everything.

More so, doing so could have a steep cost - as wouldn't these qualifications that are introduced be distorting the true intention, literally inserting something that the author never said?

There seems to be an implied "rule" (or at least strong desire) in Torah (derech halimud) to limit machklokes wherever possible and moreso what seems "at all costs" My question is simply - Why?

So back to the question, WHY? if it seems abundantly clear that different people have different ways of looking that things, and we see tons of cases where (there is no choice but to accept) that there is debate. And we (the Gemara) even received the mesorah from the Tannaim (via the Mishnayos) that continually states machlokes. Why try to "force" the issue and create cases that aren't stated and qualify statements given in absolute terms? It's not like doing so will restore a situation of a single homogeneous state where there is a single view/shittah on everything. Wouldn't these qualifications that are introduced be distorting the true intention, literally inserting something that the author never said?

There seems to be an implied "rule" (or at least strong desire) in Torah (derech halimud) to limit machklokes wherever possible and moreso what seems "at all costs"

My question is simply - Why?

So back to the question, WHY? if it seems abundantly clear that different people have different ways of looking that things, and we see tons of cases where (there is no choice but to accept) that there is debate. And we (the Gemara) even received the mesorah from the Tannaim (via the Mishnayos) that continually states machlokes. Why try to "force" the issue and create cases that aren't stated and qualify statements which were given (over) in absolute terms? It's not like doing so will restore a situation of a single homogeneous state where there is a single view/shittah on everything. Wouldn't these qualifications that are introduced be distorting the true intention, literally inserting something that the author never said?