Debate

There is considerable debate about deriving halacha as addressed in the following sources: Yerushalmi (Peah 2:4), Pitchei Teshuva Even HaEzer 119:5, Encyclopedia Talmudit (1:62), Teshuvot Yabia Omer (Even Hazer 8, 21:2) and Nishmat Avraham (3:17). Part of the debate stems from the difference in interpreting halachic texts which are straightforward and aggadah where the need to read between the lines is acute.

Archaeological Evidence and Bava Batra 73b-74a

The following story appearing on Bava Batra 73b-74a is an excellent example:

“That Arab said to me: ‘Come, I will show you the dead of the wilderness, i.e., the Jewish people who left Egypt and died in the wilderness. I went and saw them … I cut one corner of the sky-blue garment that contains the ritual fringes of one of them, and we were unable to walk.’ The Arab said to me: ‘Perhaps you took something from them? Return it, as we know by tradition that one who takes something from them cannot walk. I then returned the corner of the garment, and then we were able to walk.’”

“When I came before the Sages, they said to me in rebuke: ‘Every Abba is a donkey, and every bar bar Ḥana is an idiot. For the purpose of clarifying, what halacha did you do that? If you wanted to know whether the halacha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai or in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel—as to whether there are four or three threads and joints in ritual fringes—in that case, there was no need to take anything with you, as you should have simply counted the threads and counted the joints.’”

Several contemporary poskim (most prominently Rav Hershel Schachter) conclude from this Gemara that halacha may be derived from archaeological evidence. In our case, the rabbanim were willing to resolve the debate between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai about whether tzitzit has three or four strings. So, too, Rav Schachter and others argue that we can conclude from archaeological evidence that the techeilet is made from the murex trunculus snail.

An Alternative Interpretation

However, it is not clear that this is the Gemara’s intention. Rabbah bar bar Chanah tried recovering the meitei midbar’s tzitzit but was unsuccessful. He also made the astounding and inexplicable blunder of not examining their tzitzit. Why did Hashem not influence Rabbah bar bar Channah to make a better choice to help resolve an important halachic matter? Moreover, why did the Chachamim not hire the Arab to take them to see the meitei midbar, so they could inspect the meitei midbar’s tzitzit? Finally, why was it an Arab who did this exploration and discovery, instead of a Jewish Torah scholar who should have had a keen interest in doing so?

This battery of questions may lead to reading between the lines and concluding that the Gemara is teaching that halacha does not take archaeological evidence into account. Our points indicate that archaeological evidence is not part of the halachic tool chest. Chachamim’s conventional methodology leads us to halachic conclusions—not by seeking evidence of what earlier generations did. Arguably, if information was not passed down through the mesorah, it is excluded from the halachic discussion.

Archaeological evidence might be a type of “lo bashamayim hee,” (Bava Metzia 59b) where great evidence is marshaled to support a position, but such evidence is not admissible in halachic discourse.

Conclusion: The Perils of Mixing Aggadah and Halacha

Aggadah is an integral part of the Torah discussion, as evidenced by its inclusion in Shas. However, its method of communicating lessons differs from halacha, making it challenging to translate from the language of aggadah to that of halacha. Accordingly, we understand why considerable debate emerges when poskim support halachic claims from aggadic sources.

Rabbi Jachter serves as the rav of Congregation Shaarei Orah, rebbe at Torah Academy of Bergen County and a get administrator with the Beth Din of Elizabeth. Rabbi Jachter’s 18 books may be purchased at Amazon and Judaica House.