#Dafyomi 32a-b - Thought for the Day

This thought is not particular to this day, but today's daf makes this point particularly well.

Critics of the talmudic process and of Jewish law (I am a critic of halacha (Jewish law) but not for this reason) find the talmudic reasoning frustrating, potentially even self-defeating or hypocritical. Within our current daf and in many other places, the Talmud will suggest that something is true, and all will seemingly agree to the truth of the statement, position or practice (in this case, that Moses spoke impudently to the Eternal), but there then develops a discussion over what the source of this position is.
The critic will ask - how is it possible that everyone can agree that Moses spoke impudently to the Eternal but no-one can agree on exactly what it was that was such an impudent statement? A more well known and up to date version of the same problem comes with the prohibition of electricity on Shabbat. When electricity was first considered prohibited for use on Shabbat, the reason given in most cases was connected to the fact that lights were the first electric appliance in use and so relied on the idea of creating light from heating a filament was a form of fire. But this would not hold for electrical appliances and fluorescent lights. And not everyone accepted that logic anyway, some claimed that the heating of the metal in the filament was a form of "cooking" (bishul) and others still that it was a form of shaping and fashioning iron (makeh b'patish).
L'kule alma (according to all opinions) electricity is forbidden on shabbat.
According to all opinions, Moses spoke impudently before the Eternal.
And yet we can't quite pinpoint why.
And this is why "law" is not a good translation of "halacha" and why law and lore are much closer than we think. In most cases, someone in tune with the heartbeat of their community can know whether a particular practice will fundamentally change that community's way of life. Those who seek to preserve a particular way of life will find a way to do so. It doesn't matter as much which way, as long as the way of life continues.
Someone who deeply knows the personality of Moshe having read and re-read his life's story, and knows the relationship between him and G?d, knows how he would have let himself talk to G?d in moments of crisis - we may not be able to pinpoint exactly why and when, but it is obvious that at some point Moses would have spoken from frustration and not just reverence.
The Talmud is not really trying to get to a bottom line - a legal directive - it is a discussion of people in love with their subject. And sometimes, in matters of love, you just know.