When Is a Proof Not (Really) a Proof?

Do Chazal want us to completely trust all of their derashos?

Image courtesy of DALL-E

I know that I’m not the only person who’s wondered what Chazal meant by some of their connections between derashos and ambiguous sources in Tanach. Was the connection simply the record of an ancient mesorah or something closer to a helpful illustration?

I write about a particularly strong example of the problem in the context of Sanhedrin 90b-92a, where no less than 18 separate (and sometimes conflicting) proofs are presented for the Torah origin of the principle of revival of the dead. In that article, I offered this theory:

Revival of the dead is an important Torah principle that had come under sustained attack from outside the traditional Jewish community. It’s reasonable to assume that loyal Jews struggled with the problem, seeking to clarify the matter for themselves and their families. The sages responded, each one presenting the kind of argument that he felt would work best for the Jews of his time and place. Knowing that the Jewish people faced a long and troubled future in exile, the Talmud collected all the proofs they had in the hope of satisfying as many subsequent doubts as possible.

But at the same time the rabbis realized that no proof could ever be 100% effective, 100% of the time. To make that clear, and thereby ensure that no intellectually disappointed Jew would ever reject the principle because of one perceived flaw, the Talmud included the four weaker proofs along with their counter-arguments, as if to acknowledge that they were aware that not everyone would be impressed with any one of these approaches. In one case, they even reused a “flawed” proof, saying that (so to speak) “this won’t work for for every audience, but it could someday prove useful for someone.”

I admit that there is some element of speculation in that theory. However, I recently came across a Yerushalmi (Eiruvin 59a) that seems to support my thinking:

דאמר רבי יוחנן כל מילה דלא מחוורא מסמכין ליה מן אתרין סגין

“Rabbi Yochanan said: anything that’s not clear to us can be supported from many sources”

Here’s how the Korban HaEdah explains that:

אין לך לתרץ אלא כי הא דאר"י כל דבר שאינו מבורר ומפורש עושין לו סמוכין ממקומות הרבה וכן דבר זה שלא להניח תפילין בשבתות וי"ט כל המ שנוכל למצוא לו סמך מקרא סומכין אותו

“We can’t explain [i.e., why we need two, overlapping proofs that tefillin should not be worn on Shabbos] except according to Rabbi Yochanan that whenever there’s something that isn’t clear and fully understood, we create supports for it from multiple places. So too here in the matter of not wearing tefillin on Shabbos or Yom Tov, where we can find a source in Tanach, we’ll use it”

Rabbi Yochanan is clear: Chazal prefer using multiple ambiguous and non-definitive “proofs” when we lack absolute clarity. To me that sounds like an interpretation we can reasonably apply to those sources in Sanhedrin.

This related article discusses a similar problem with understanding more recent styles of derush.