Jewish Law and Disagreement: Why Don’t the Sages Always Agree?

In the fourth chapter of the first wellspring, the Maharal continues his exploration of the nature and authority of the Sages’ decrees. What gives their enactments lasting authority? Are they simply practical rules created to maintain an orderly society, or do they reflect something deeper and more fundamental?

To answer this question, the Maharal examines a teaching of Chazal that compares the words of Torah to a goad, a firmly planted nail, and a living plant. Through these three images, he explains not only why Torah law is enduring, but also how disagreement among the Sages can reveal different dimensions of a single truth.

Are the Sages’ Decrees Simply Rules for Society?

The Maharal raises a possible claim: perhaps the Sages’ decrees are simply “rules of civility,” as they are called in every language.

One could argue that the laws established by the Sages resemble civil laws that people create in order to maintain an orderly society. After all, every country needs rules governing commerce, damages, family life, and public order.

If so, perhaps the words of the Sages are nothing more than a kind of “civil religion,” a useful system that could theoretically be replaced by another system according to the needs of the times. What, then, makes the Sages’ enactments more eternal than the laws established by the courts of any country?

Against this view, the Maharal cites the teaching of Chazal in tractate Chagigah 3b on the verse: “The words of the wise are like goads, and like firmly planted nails; the masters of collections were given by one shepherd.”

Just as a goad directs a cow toward the furrow, so too the words of Torah guide a person “from paths of death to paths of life.”

But a goad itself is movable. It can be carried from place to place. That is why the verse adds the comparison to “firmly planted nails.” The words of Torah are not movable and do not depend on temporary agreement. They are planted firmly in place because they correspond to the true structure of humanity and the world.

The Maharal writes: “Because they are according to reason, and reason requires them, they are strong, and no one can move them from their place.”

Human social law is primarily intended to prevent conflict between people. It is possible to imagine different systems that could accomplish the same goal. By contrast, the words of Torah are not merely a social compromise intended to prevent “people from swallowing one another alive.” They stem from Divine wisdom and correspond to humanity’s true nature. And that does not change.

Human law begins with the society that already exists and asks how to preserve it. Torah begins with a deeper question: What is a human being, and what path leads that person to life? That is why its teachings cannot simply be moved from their place and replaced by another system that produces a similar social outcome.

The Goad, the Nail, and the Planting

Chazal use three images, and the Maharal identifies a distinct quality in each one.

The goad directs. It pulls the cow away from straying and guides it back toward the furrow. In the same way, Torah does not merely give a person information. It straightens and directs a person’s life, leading them “from paths of death to paths of life.”

The nail is fixed. It is held firmly in place and does not sway. Torah similarly gives a person stability.

The Maharal cites the opening verse of Psalms: “But his desire is in the Torah of Hashem, and in His Torah he meditates day and night. He shall be like a tree planted by streams of water.”

A person attached to Torah is not uprooted by every passing wind. Opinions, crises, and pressures do not move that person from their place because they are connected to something fixed and transcendent.

But a nail remains exactly as it is. It does not grow or produce anything new. That is why the verse also describes the words of Torah as “planted.”

Torah is not only a firmly fixed nail; it is also a living planting. A plant remains rooted in its place, yet at the same time it “is fruitful and multiplies.” From a fixed root emerge new branches, fruits, and seeds.

The Maharal summarizes these three qualities: “First, the words of Torah direct a person from paths of death to paths of life. Second, they are like firmly planted nails and are not moved. Third, they are fruitful and multiply.”

Torah is fixed and does not change, yet it is precisely this permanence that allows it to develop. Every generation brings new questions. The Sages do not pull the nail from its place. Rather, they bring forth new fruits from the same root that address a changing reality.

How Can Opposing Opinions Both Come From Torah?

This leads to another fundamental question. If the laws of Torah are eternal, how can different sages arrive at different opinions?

The verse continues: “The masters of collections were given by one shepherd.”

Chazal explain: “These are Torah scholars who sit in groups and engage in Torah. Some declare impure, and some declare pure. Some prohibit, and some permit. Some disqualify, and some validate.”

But how can this be? If Torah was given by Hashem, how can upright sages reach opposite conclusions? If one says something is impure while another says it is pure, it would seem that one of them must be mistaken. If so, how can all of their opinions be described as having been “given by one shepherd”?

The Maharal begins with a human explanation. People differ in their intellects. Each sage perceives a different aspect of the matter. No two people grasp reality in exactly the same way because human understanding is limited and divided.

Yet these differences between the sages are not merely an accidental flaw in human understanding. They correspond to the structure of the matter itself, because the issue being discussed contains multiple aspects.

As the Maharal writes: “It is impossible for one thing not to have more than one aspect.”

Even something determined by halacha to be impure contains a certain aspect of purity, while something ruled pure contains a certain aspect of impurity. Each sage identifies one aspect and places it at the center. One emphasizes the side that requires prohibition, while another emphasizes the side that permits.

Both are examining the same matter, but each perceives a different dimension within it.

To explain this, the Maharal compares Torah to Creation.

The world was created by the “Master of all deeds,” and it is a complex world. A single tree contains different elements. It can be associated with the element of water because it contains moisture and growth, while it can also be associated with the element of air because that element operates within it as well. Both descriptions are true, even though ultimately one element is primary and outweighs the others.

The same applies to Torah law.

Hashem did not create a simple, one-dimensional world. Therefore, Torah, which relates to that world, does not necessarily describe every matter from only one perspective. Every case can contain different, and sometimes opposing, characteristics.

This is the meaning of the phrase “from the mouth of the Master of all deeds.”

The Maharal asks why Chazal did not simply say that the opinions were “given by one shepherd.” Why did they add that they were spoken “from the mouth of the Master of all deeds”?

His answer is that disagreement in Torah parallels the multiplicity found within Creation. The same Creator who made a world composed of different and even opposing elements and forces also gave a Torah in which matters can contain different aspects.

The sage who declares something impure is not inventing an aspect that does not exist; he is revealing its aspect of impurity. The sage who declares it pure is not distorting the law; he is revealing its aspect of purity.

Both have engaged with Torah because both have grasped a true aspect of reality.

If Both Sides Are True, How Is Halacha Decided?

This raises an obvious practical question. If multiple perspectives contain truth, how do we know what to do? Can each person simply choose whichever opinion they prefer?

The Maharal makes clear that disagreement does not eliminate the need for a practical decision. Life cannot function if a person follows the prohibiting opinion at one moment and the permitting opinion at another simply according to preference.

He therefore emphasizes: “With regard to practical halacha, there is no doubt that one is more primary than the other.”

In every complex thing, there are primary and secondary elements. A tree is composed of four elements, but one ultimately prevails and gives it its form. The same is true in halacha. Several aspects may genuinely exist, but one is more primary, and that is the aspect that determines the practical ruling.

The opinion that is not accepted as the final halacha does not therefore become worthless. It continues to express a true aspect of the issue.

A person who learns only the final ruling knows how to act. A person who studies all the opinions comes to understand the matter itself in all its dimensions.

In the Maharal’s words: “One who hears all the opinions has grasped the matter according to the differing aspects that the matter contains.”

This is the source of the importance of disagreement within the beit midrash. The goal of Torah study is not merely to arrive at the final ruling as quickly as possible. The Sages lay out the full structure of the law before the student: the side requiring obligation and the side granting exemption, the side of impurity and the side of purity, the side of disqualification and the side of validity.

A practical ruling must ultimately be reached, but a complete understanding emerges precisely through hearing and examining every aspect.

The Unity Within Disagreement

The Sages are called “masters of collections” because they sit together in groups and engage in Torah. They differ in their intellects and perspectives, yet they gather in one place. Their disagreement does not break apart the beit midrash. Rather, it contributes to its wholeness.

A single sage may perceive one side. A gathering of sages reveals the full range of perspectives. When the one who declares impure, the one who declares pure, the one who prohibits, and the one who permits sit together and clarify their reasoning, Torah emerges in its full breadth.

At the end of the discussion, one halacha is established, but only after the different aspects have been heard and weighed.

Invalid disagreement begins when each side seeks to deny the very legitimacy of the other. A disagreement for the sake of Heaven looks different. Each sage stands firmly behind his view and demonstrates the aspect of truth that he perceives, while all recognize that the opinions were “given by one shepherd.”

The unity of Torah does not require uniformity of thought. It requires that the different perspectives remain faithful to the same source and ultimately come together within the same system of halachic decision-making.