A Benefit of Multiple Mentors

Artwork: Mentor of the Meek, by Jana Schirmer and Johannes Voss

A Benefit of Multiple Mentors

The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 19a) says: 

Rav Chisda said to his rabbinic students: "I would like to tell you something, but I'm afraid you will leave me and go elsewhere: A person who learns Torah from [only] one rav will never see a sign of blessing."

They left him and went [to sit and learn] before Rava, who said to them: "[Rav Chisda's statement] applies only to sevara (i.e. conceptual analysis), but with gemara (i.e. mastery of the facts passed down by oral tradition) it is preferable to learn from one rav, so that the [versions of the] text will not be inconsistent. 

I'm sure there are a number of explanation for why it is better to learn sevara with multiple teachers and why it is better to learn gemara with only one teacher. I wouldn't be surprised if there are also disagreements on what constitutes sevara vs. gemara.

But I will not be taking up any of those questions in this post. I am merely using this Gemara as a springboard to discuss one benefit of having multiple mentors in one's overall Torah development. That benefit may be summed up as follows: being told conflicting opinions by multiple authority figures forces the student to not make a decision based on authority. 

I'd like to illustrate and explain this through three examples. 

Example #1: Universals vs. Particulars

Throughout my learning in yeshiva my Gemara rebbi would always urge us during shiur, saying: "Think conceptually!" He would point out that we Brisker neophytes were prone to getting caught up in the particulars and losing sight of the underlying universals of the sugya. This easier-said-than-done advice became my mantra throughout my time in yeshiva.

Fast-forward seven years to last week Tuesday, when I got a call from my Mishlei rebbi. He mentioned to me that he's noticed a trend in my learning over the summer. He told me that I'm too quick to jump to the universals. He noted that even when my intuition is correct, and I succeed in defining the abstract universal, I tend to miss out on the benefits to be gained from pondering the particulars, which is especially important in Mishlei. 

When he said this, I laughed - not because I disagreed with his advice, but because it was the exact opposite of the advice my Gemara rebbi had given me!

And the thing is, both of them are correct. My Gemara rebbi is correct that the objective of learning is to understand the universals, and my Mishlei rebbi is correct that by jumping too quickly to the universals, I am missing out on the benefits of the particulars.

Had I only been told one piece of advice, it would have been very easy for my psyche to transform it into An Authoritative Rule, and I would have been tempted to slavishly follow it. But now my psyche is caught between two forces attempting to pull me in opposite directions.

Example #2: Starting with the Easiest vs. Starting with the Hardest

One of the most common inductive maneuvers in the Brisker derech is "defining a machlokess (disagreement)." For example, if there is a machlokess between Rashi and Tosafos on a particular halacha, our job is to precisely define the conceptual issue at the core of their disagreement, and to grasp the abstract definitions which resulted in each view.

My first Gemara rebbi in yeshiva - let's call him Rabbi RM - advised us to begin by defining the easiest side first. By "easiest" he was referring to the side that made the most sense to us. His reasoning was that it is easier to proceed from the known to the unknown. If you start with the easiest side, you can develop it and clarify it until you can define it precisely. This will create a foothold which one can then use to approach the more non-intuitive side.

This advice served me well until another Gemara rebbi - let's call him Rabbi SZ - advised us to begin with the most difficult side. His reasoning was that the easier side only seems easy because it is more in line with our preconceived notions. Beginning with the easier side is detrimental because it strengthens these preconceived notions, making it even more difficult to see things from a different perspective. Beginning with the more difficult side forces one to think outside of the box right from the get-go, thereby increasing the odds of discovering the underlying universal.

At this point in my development I felt beholden to learning the derech by sticking closely to the guidance of my rabbeim. The fact that two of my authority figures gave me opposite advice put me into a state of conflict.

I attempted to resolve this conflict as any authority-driven yeshiva bochur would do: by asking the Rosh ha'Yeshiva. Thankfully, he gave me the best answer I could have possibly received. After telling him the advice of my two other rabbis, my Rosh Yeshiva said, "I disagree with both of them! When it comes to thinking, forget the rules and just follow your intuition. The freer your mind, the better."

Ironically, my Rosh Yeshiva's advice was impervious to slavish obedience! His authoritative rule was to ignore authoritative rules!

Example #3: Learning from Multiple Mentors = Good vs. Bad

If you agree with what has been said up until now, then have I got a surprise for you. There is another statement of Chazal in Avos d'Rebbi Nosson 8:2 which says exactly the opposite:

Rebbi Meir would say: One who learns Torah from a single rav - what may he be compared? To someone who has a single field; he plants wheat in one part, barley in another part, olives in another, and trees in another. As a result, he will be filled with goodness and blessing. But when he learns from two or there [rabbeim], he may be compared to someone who has many fields; he plants wheat in one, barley in another, olives in another, and trees in another. As a result, he will be spread out among all the different [plots of] land, without good or blessing.

It is possible that these two sources reflect two different opinions. It is also possible that these two sources can be interpreted in a harmonious manner (e.g. by saying that Avos d'Rebbi Nosson is also talking about gemara, and not sevara - as Rav Chisda said in our Gemara).

But for our purposes, the result is still the same: we students are here at a crossroads, being given opposite advice by two different authorities. In order to move forward, we will have to work out how to proceed on our own, without blindly following one authority over the other.

That, in my opinion and my experience, is a significant benefit of having multiple mentors in one's Torah development.