Rabbi Yochanan said: “Jerusalem was destroyed because the Rabbis decided cases by the exact letter of the law instead of going beyond the law when it made sense to.” (Bava Metzia 30b)
Tosfos -Yoma 9b indicates that Yerushalayim was destroyed because of seen’as cheenam (hatred without a reason). The fact that they only judged based on a strict interpretation proves that they were petty.
The commentator Eitz Yosef suggests their pettiness was what prevented litigants from being willing to compromise when it made sense and the Rabbis did not encourage them to do so.
The question arises whether one is permitted to bathe his body in either hot or cold water on Shabbos.
Rabbi Meir says that regardless if it is hot or cold, one may not wash his whole body. To wash one’s hands and face, he has to use cold water. Rabbi Shimon says that one may use either cold or hot water to wash his entire body on Shabbos. Rabbi Yehuda says that one may wash his entire body only with cold water. If one sees another bathe with hot water, he may not know if the person prepared the hot water before or during Shabbos. He may come to get the wrong impression that it is okay to heat up water on Shabbos.
The Rabbis accept Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion as law. Why? There is a general rule, as stated by Rav Tanchum in the name of Rabbi Yochanan who said in the name of Rabbi Yanai who said in the name of Rebbi: “Any place where there are two opposing opinions stated and a third one which is a compromise of the two, the halacha is like the third”. (Shabbos 39b)
The Gemara brings an exception to this rule by citing the case of the status of a rag used to plug up the water in a mikveh (ritual bath house) . Rabbi Eliezer says that the rag is capable of making one who touches it tamei (impure) regardless if it is left on a peg or left behind the door to plug up the water flow. Rabbi Yehoshua is the most lenient and says that regardless of whether the rag is used as a plug or hanging on a peg, it is not metameh (conveys tumah). Rabbi Akiva suggests a middle ground and says that it is metameh only if it is hung on a peg (for no use) but it does not convey tumah if left behind the door.
The law is not like Rabbi Akiva despite being his compromising opinion. The Gemara explains that this is not a good example of an exception because Rabbi Akiva later changes his mind and takes the more lenient opinion stated by Rabbi Yehoshua.
A man comes before Rav and relates that he found pitch or tar in a wine-press. He asks if he may keep it. Rav tells him that he may keep it as his own. Rav notices that the person is hesitant to accept his ruling. He tells him that he is so certain that he keep it and not try to find its owner that he may even give half of it to Rav’s son Chiya. (Bava Metzia 23b)
We have a rule that if someone finds what appears to be a lost item, he or she must make an effort to publicize if it has markings that will allow the true owner to identify the item and thereby reclaim it.
As Rava states on Bava Metzia 27b, a person will do this mitzvah even though it is not indicated directly in the Torah, because he hopes another person will show the same compassion and attempt to return something he may lose.
The Gemara wants to know how Rav is certain that the tar had been abandoned. The location of the item- a wine-press- deems it as something that surely must have been accidentally left behind by its true owner and readily identifiable. Rav Abba answers on behalf of Rav that the pitch is covered with weeds indicating that it has been abandoned for quite a while by the owner. In addition, even though the pitch is laying in a wine-press, the fact that it is a wine-press indicates that the owner never intended to retain it.
The owner of the wine-press doesn’t de facto take possession of the abandoned tar. There must be an agreement or understanding made at the time the person brings the tar that he intends to give over the residue to the owner of the press.
On Shevuos 31a, the Gemara notes that Rav is of the opinion that a person should avoid using a proxy to testify a claim against another. The fear is that a proxy will act in an inflexible manner on one’s behalf whereas the litigant himself may be willing to compromise. As Tosfos adds, the only valid time a proxy should be allowed is when the litigant is not legitimately able to come before the Bes Din.