(ו) רבי אליעזר אומר, משלמין ממין על שאינו מינו, ובלבד שישלם מן היפה על הרע. ורבי עקיבא אומר, אין משלמין אלא ממין על מינו. לפיכך, אם אכל קשואין שלערב שביעית, ימתין לקשואין שלמוצאי שביעית, וישלם מהם. ממקום שרבי אליעזר מקל, משם רבי עקיבא מחמיר, שנאמר, (ויקרא כב) ונתן לכהן את הקדש, כל שהוא ראוי להיות קדש, דברי רבי אליעזר. ורבי עקיבא אומר, ונתן לכהן את הקדש. קדש שאכל.
(6) Rabbi Eliezer says: one may pay from one species for another species, provided that it is from superior [produce] for inferior [produce]. Rabbi Akiva says: one may pay only from one species for its own species. Hence if a man ate cucumbers of the pre-Sabbatical year, he must wait for the cucumbers of the post-Sabbatical year and pay with them. From the place where Rabbi Eliezer is lenient [derives his leniency], from there Rabbi Akiva is stringent, for it says: “And he shall give the priest the Kodesh” (Leviticus 22:14). [This implies] whatever is appropriate for being Kodesh, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Akiva says: “And he shall give the priest the Kodesh” [implies] the Kodesh that he ate.
(ד) ולמה מזכירין את דברי שמאי והלל לבטלה, ללמד לדורות הבאים שלא יהא אדם עומד על דבריו, שהרי אבות העולם לא עמדו על דבריהם.
(ה) ולמה מזכירין דברי היחיד בין המרבין הואיל ואין הלכה אלא כדברי המרבין, שאם יראה בית דין את דברי היחיד ויסמוך עליו.
(4) Why are the opinions of Hillel and Shammai recorded [only] to be nullified? To teach the generations that one should not be insistent in his/her opinions, for the fathers of the world were not insistent in their opinions.
(5) And why do we record the words of an individual among the many, when the law is [according to] the words of the many? Because if the court sees [fit] the words of the individual, it may rely on them. But a court is not able to nullify the words of a fellow court unless they are greater in wisdom and number [than the fellow court]. If they are greater in wisdom but not number, or in number but not in wisdom, they are not able to nullify its words until they become greater in wisdom and number.
(ה) ולהגיד גדלתו שלהקדוש ברוך הוא, שאדם טובע כמה מטבעות בחותם אחד וכלן דומין זה לזה, ומלך מלכי המלכים הקדוש ברוך הוא טבע כל אדם בחותמו שלאדם הראשון, ואין אחד מהן דומה לחברו.
(5) "It was for this reason that man was first created as one Adam, to teach you [among other reasons] the greatness of The Holy One: For a person strikes many coins from the same die, and all the coins are alike. But the King, the King of Kings, The Holy One strikes every person from the die of the First Adam, and yet no one is quite like their fellow.
Shlomo Luria, Yam Shel Shlomo
All are the words of the living God ... The Kabbalists gave a reason for this; it is because all souls were present at Mount Sinai and received the Torah through 49 separate channels. All Israel saw the sounds with everyone seeing through their own channel according to their own power... So that one perceived complete impurity, one complete purity with a third perceiving a middle position. All are true ... they are all the words of the living God.
(ה) הרואה אוכלוסין אומר ברוך חכם הרזים שאין פרצופותיהן דומין זה לזה ואין דעתם [דומה זו לזו]
(5) [A person] who sees large crowds [of people] should say Baruch Chacham Harazim - Who is wise [to know] secrets, because their faces are not similar to each other and their minds are not similar to each other.
Abraham Joshua Heschel: Heavenly Torah
Adherents of plain meaning, who look for a clear bottom line in everything including matters of faith, upon seeing the mighty struggles of opposing views, will ask in agitation: How can Torah be learned in this way? If there are two mutually exclusive ways of interpreting a single statement, and each carries its own truth, do we not have dualism?
But the pillar of their faith need not fail. Is it possible to have a living Torah without the struggle of opposites, without disputes, without the many permutations of ideas?
God created ideas, Janus-like, in complements; what is sought is one, but the paths to it are two. Two modes of thought, vision and reason appear to us as separate and distinct, vying and competing with each other. But in truth, they are but two stakes of the same tent that support each other, with each unable to stand firm but for the presence of the other. Both share the same crown. One who stands outside sees an infringement of domains; one who stands within sees a blending of domains.
Sefer Ha-Ikkarim, Albo
If I knew God, I would be God