Eiruvin 92a, b

92a begins with a question about whether or not Rabbi Yochanan actually agrees with Rabbi Shimon's assertion; earlier, Rabbi Yochanan told us that a halacha was in accordance with an unattributed mischna in another comparable circumstance.  Rather than focus on the details of this conversation, which I find somewhat difficult and complicated to pick apart, I would prefer to discuss the conventions implied by this conversation.  

A baraita is commonly used to elucidate the meaning of a mishna.  However, a mishna is not required to accord with a baraita.  There is a strict code of heirarchy when it comes to the creation of meaning around sacred texts.  Opinions count, but not just anyone's opinions.  Instead, we follow a system that helps us to order our opinion.

Even today, some peoples' ideas matter more than others.  The words of learned rabbis who already have yichus are taken as greatly important.  On the other hand, the words of a girl - any girl - would be thought of as insignificant in comparison.  Although there are benefits to maintaining this heirarchy of thought, it is intriguing to consider what it would mean to Judaism if we were to pull away from these strictures and hear the voices of everyone.  This is being done in Reconstructionist and some Reform communities.  But how would this turn-around in practice and philosophy affect orthodox life?

Our daf continues with a new Mishna comparing small courtyards and/or roofs with large courtyards and/or roofs. In particular, the rabbis speak about courtyards and roofs that are adjacent to each other.  They tell us that a smaller courtyard/roof is thought to be subsumed into a larger courtyard/roof.  We are provided with a number of examples to prove the point.

I find this particular learning quite interesting, and I am glad to have the opportunity to know this halacha.  However, I wonder why the rabbis felt it so important to discuss these small details to such a great degree.  Was this simply a pedagogical approach -- share the conversation to help the student realize for him/herself what is the next step?  Was this a grand attempt at eternal life through saving unnecessary conversations?  Or, as many believe, was this a tool used by the orthodox to best understand each and every expectation?