In the Talmud, it is written that, “These and those are the words of the living God.” This indicates that often in our disputes, both sides may possess elements of truth that are valid within their respective frameworks. The rabbi, in acknowledging both disputants, demonstrates the multifaceted nature of reality; what is true for one may not fully encompass the truth for the other.

____________

Simon-Shoshan, Moshe. ""These and Those are the Words of the Living God, but …": Meaning, Background, and Reception of an Early Rabbinic Teaching." AJS Review: The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies, vol. 45 no. 2, 2021, p. 382-410. Project MUSE, https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ajs.2021.a845274.

______________

In the early days of the Talmud (hundreds of years before the oral teachings were even written down), the two major opposing viewpoints in Judaism were known as Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, named for their respective founders. In the Talmud (Eruvin 13b), we read that:

For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. One party said: The law is according to our opinion, and the other party said: The law is according to our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed:

ֵאלּוּ ָוֵאלּוּ ִדּ ְבֵרי ֱא ִ˄הים ַחִיּים

“Both these and those are the words of the living God.”

Eilu v’eilu divrei Elohim chayim. These words are famous among Jews who study even a little Talmud. Two opinions can be in opposition and still be words of God. The Divine Voice continued:

However, the law is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel… for they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai, and they even placed the statements of Beit Shammai before their own.

Even though two opinions can both be righteous, at the end of the day a matter of law must be settled. According to the Talmud, the obligation on the successful party is to understand and give serious consideration to the opinion of the minority party. The Jewish view of history is not a series of winners and losers, but of opposing viewpoints arriving at a point of coexistence, preferably through peaceful means and mutual respect.

Your anecdote Karl Pfeifer is often associated with various rabbis, reflecting the wisdom and humor found in Jewish teachings.

Some rabbis linked to such stories include:

______________

You’re also right

Jewish Journal

September 27, 2011

There is a well-known story about a rabbi who was called upon to settle a dispute between two of his followers.  The first man poured out his complaints to the rabbi, and when he finished, the rabbi said, “You’re right.”  Then it was the second one’s turn.  When he finished, the rabbi said, “You’re also right.”  The rabbi’s wife, who had been listening to the conversation, said incredulously to her husband, “What do you mean, ‘You’re also right’? They can’t both be right!”  The rabbi thought for a few moments, and then replied, “You know, my dear, you’re also right.”

Stephen I. Ternyik The following story can be found in the Eruvin 13b:

For three years, the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai argued. One said, 'The halakha is like us,' and the other said, 'The halakha is like us.'

A heavenly voice spoke: "These and these are the words of the living God, and the halakha is like the House of Hillel."

A question was raised: Since the heavenly voice declared: "Both these and those are the words of the Living God," why was the halacha established to follow the opinion of Hillel?

It is because the students of Hillel were kind and gracious. They taught their own ideas as well as the ideas from the students of Shammai. Not only for this reason, but they went so far as to teach Shammai's opinions first.

Because if you care about the truth you will also accept the truth from your opponent and accept it as a truth from God and not just dismiss it because it came from your opponent. Furthermore a certain inner quality is needed: Kindness and gracious which also reflect certain qualities of God. But also the right wisdom to put certain ideas in the right place (they tought the opinion of Shammai first, because it was necessary in order to understand their teaching). Putting things in the right order und being able to make further developments is what enabled them.

So obviously at some point and after 3 years they were able to reach that point, to see that they are both right and how it fits.

Very good answers, thanks Stephen I. Ternyik & Carmen Wrede. But I'm also still looking for that elusive logic article that made use of a version of the anecdote....

Gabbay, Dov M. ; Schild, Uri & David, Esther (2019). The Talmudic Logic Project, Ongoing Since 2008. Logica Universalis 13 (4):425-442.

This reference could be of interest to you Karl Pfeifer

Karl Pfeifer Did the word "paraconsistent" appear in the text? Or is there any other keywords you remember, like for example a phrase which is not part of the story?

Carmen Wrede

It was an article or chapter specifically on paraconsistent/dialethic logic that had a version of the anecdote as an epigraph.

I am now wondering whether it might've been a variant that involved some sort of emir, satrap, or whatnot rather than a rabbi....

Karl Pfeifer The discussion of this specific story in philosophy and theology is not as seldom as one might expect. There is not one specific article, but indeed a handful which might be the article you are looking for. This is why it sometimes makes sense to rather remember a certain phrase which was also in the article or a certain combination of words, because I guess there was something important for you in that article beside the story itself.

Carmen Wrede

Yes, I know all that, but I'm usually quite successful in finding things others can't. And I expected I might not find the very same article (e.g. it might be deeply ensconced behind a paywall), although I'm rather surprised I haven't found even one on paraconsistent logic that mentions the anecdote (or a close variant). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

BTW, from Fiddler on the Roof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiF7BsC1Ig

Karl Pfeifer Yes, moral is a bit complex. Especially to hold it all in balance so none is excluded.

Hello, this is what I found:

https://www.kolhadash.com/shalom-from-rabbi-chalom

Perhaps you can contact the writer and ask for references to the quotation.

I found this

https://barrypopik.com/blog/how_can_they_both_be_right_youre_right_too

[quote]

The joke possibly originated with the stories grouped under the name of Nasreddin Hodja, a 13th century populist Sufi philosopher and wise man in what is now Turkey. The joke was popularized in New York City’s Jewish community by Yiddish author Sholom Aleichem (1859-1916) and the Broadway musical based on his writings, Fiddler on the Roof (1964).[/quote]

check Nasreddin - at Wikipedia

Damian Wayne Williams

A number of good sources plus explanations have been provided in this thread, but not the very one I was seeking, namely a version of the anecdote embedded as a quotation and/or epigraph in an article on paraconsistent (or dialethic) logic, i.e. I am also interested in the article in which it appeared.

The rabbinical anecdote used to explain paraconsistent logic is often referenced in discussions of logic and reasoning in Jewish thought, where contradictions in religious texts are used as a way to explore logical inconsistencies without leading to complete collapse. One possible source of this anecdote is in Talmudic literature, which contains stories of seemingly contradictory teachings or rulings that are not necessarily resolved but coexist.

To find this specific anecdote, you might try:

If you have specific details or keywords related to the story, searching in databases like Google Scholar or JSTOR may help narrow it down further.