Rabbi's Chayva's Chat

There’s a certain irony in the fact that one of the few things Jews agree on is that we like to disagree. The style of argument might vary by cultural context, but the practice of disagreeing is universal. It goes back to our formative rabbinic text, the Talmud.

The Talmud is a multi-volume collection of generations of rabbinic debate about biblical interpretation, law, ethical values, and stories, compiled between the 3rd and 8th centuries CE in modern-day Iraq (the Babylonian Talmud) and Israel (the Jerusalem Talmud). Each section of Talmud ostensibly provides commentary on the Mishnah (the 2nd century CE collection of rabbinic teachings), but since it is a record of rabbinic conversation, the discussion often goes off into tangential territory. Rabbis’ opinions are presented, sometimes in conversation with each other and sometimes simply recorded. Notably, however, these texts feel no obligation to establishing accord or a unified conclusion; both the Talmud and the Mishnah often present conflicting opinions.

Furthermore, the texts are explicitly conscious of this fact. The most famous rabbinic pairs often oppose each other: Hillel and Shammai, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. Tractate Ta’anit says that just as iron sharpens iron, scholars improve each other through scholarly disagreement. There is even a Hebrew word for this: machloket. It comes from the root ch-l-k, whose family of words include the noun chelek, a section, segment, or territory; and the verb chalak, divided or shared.

It would be easy to use the rabbinic legacy of disagreement to justify our every argument. Fortunately, the rabbis knew that not all disputes are justified.

Pirkei Avot, the tractate of the Mishnah focused on wise rabbinic sayings, lays it out clearly in 5:17:

Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korach and all his congregation.

Numbers 16: he and his compatriots rebel against Moses’ authority without offering respect or a proposed solution. Their dispute is personal and vindictive, and aimed to divide the community. In contrast, Hillel and Shammai almost never agreed, but Hillel would teach Shammai’s perspective as well as his own, and their family members married each other. They disputed matters of importance, and they always maintained a sense of respect and of being in community with one another. That is argument for the sake of heaven.

Our world is full of fraught topics - potholes, as we navigate relationships and our growing sense of community. May our guiding star for navigating tricky terrain be that disagreements should always be l’shem shamayim, for the sake of heaven.