In today's Daf, we explore the concept of evolution and how Chazal (our sages) differ in their approach to the evolutionary process from a halachic perspective. The question arises: Does the changing nature of the world necessitate changes in halacha, or should we adhere to halacha based on historical scientific understandings?
Beit Shammai argues that halacha should remain unchanged despite shifts in the natural world, while Beit Hillel contends that halacha can evolve over time and adapt based on the insights of each generation, following the proper processes (such as those established by a Sanhedrin).
This perspective likely explains why we predominantly follow Beit Hillel. Halacha is intended to be dynamic, much like nature itself, as both were created by God and entrusted to humanity, reflecting the principle of "Torah lo b'shamayim" (the Torah is not in heaven) and regarding nature-"V'kivshuha" (and we must conquer it).
An interesting point to note involves the renowned Rabbi Eliezer Hurcanus, who was previously mentioned in this tractate. He is described in the tractate Avot as a "בור סוד שאינו מאבד טיפה," meaning "a plastered cistern that doesn’t lose a drop." This metaphor illustrates his role as a student who absorbed knowledge from his teachers like an encyclopedia, adhering strictly to tradition and the teachings he received.
Despite being educated in the yeshivot of Beit Hillel, Rabbi Eliezer chose to follow the rulings of Beit Shammai. He was steadfast in his commitment to tradition and resisted innovation, a trait that ultimately led to his excommunication. The Torah cannot thrive without innovation. Ironically, it was Rabbi Eliezer’s famous student, Rabbi Akiva, who was celebrated for his creativity and innovation, as the Gemara describes how Rabbi Akiva would interpret the crowns of the letters in the Torah.
Below is the Gemara from today's Daf:
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר נַחְמָנִי: אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר זְעֵירִי: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּבֶן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁבִּיאָתוֹ בִּיאָה, פָּחוֹת מִבֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה שֶׁאֵין בִּיאָתוֹ בִּיאָה. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּבֶן שְׁמֹנֶה, דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי סָבְרִי: גָּמְרִינַן מִדּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל סָבְרִי: לָא גָּמְרִינַן מִדּוֹרוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנִים.
"Rabbi Ḥiyya, son of Rabba bar Naḥmani, says that Rav Ḥisda says, and some say that Rav Ḥisda says that Ze’eiri says: All, i.e., both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, concede regarding a boy nine years and one day old that his intercourse is regarded as intercourse, disqualifying a woman from marrying into the priesthood and resulting in her liability for the death penalty, even though he himself is not liable to receive it. They also all agree that a boy less than eight years old is not regarded as having engaged in intercourse with respect to these halakhot. Their disagreement pertains only to a boy who is eight years old, as Beit Shammai maintains that we learn from earlier generations, when people could father children at that age, and we apply that reality to the present; while Beit Hillel contends that we do not learn from earlier generations."
