A Dispute for the Sake of Heaven?

A Dispute for the Sake of Heaven?            

Rabbi Yitzchak Zweig

As Jews, we are no strangers to disagreement. However, Judaism’s view of disagreements is very enlightening and can certainly give us direction on how to cope with the polarization resulting from these political arguments and also presents us with tools to diffuse them.

In the classic work on Jewish values known as “Pirkei Avot – Ethics of our Fathers” we find the following statement: “Any dispute that is for the sake of heaven shall endure; a dispute not for the sake heaven shall not endure. What is a dispute for the sake of heaven? The disputes of Hillel and Shammai” (Pirkei Avot 5:20).

The disputes between the school of Hillel (Beit Hillel) and the school of Shammai (Beit Shammai) were legendary – there are over three hundred recorded disagreements. Yet regarding these arguments the Talmud (Eruvin 13b) makes a remarkable statement; “Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The law is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The law is in accordance with our opinion.

“A heavenly voice emerged and proclaimed: ‘Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the law is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.’” The Talmud then asks: “Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have to have the law established in accordance with their opinion?”

The Talmud answers that the reason the law follows Beit Hillel is that they were agreeable and forbearing; they showed restraint when affronted. Additionally, when they taught a subject, they would teach both their own opinions and the opinions of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.

According to the Talmud the arguments of the schools of Hillel and Shammai never devolved into personal attacks. They actually got along and had a deep respect and fondness for one another. The ultimate proof? The Talmud records that they often married into each other’s families.

Thus, the key to an “honest” dispute is trying to see the issues from another perspective. Whether one agrees

or not is not nearly as important as admitting that there might be another viewpoint.

It is often difficult to see things from another perspective, but the key is to try and accept the fact that there are other valid ways of looking at an issue. Each person will form their own opinion based on their personality, life experiences, and many other factors. As long as they are open to other people forming their own opinions based on their unique experiences, there is room for respectful disagreement.

Of course, this week’s Torah portion – Toldot - contains a lesson with a prime example of seeing things from another’s perspective. In this week’s Torah reading we find “Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebecca for a wife, the daughter of Besuel, the Aramean from Padam Aram and sister to Lavan the Aramean” (Genesis 25:20).

The famous biblical commentator known as Rashi wonders why the Torah feels it necessary to reiterate that Rebecca was the daughter of Besuel the Aramean and the sister of Lavan the Aramean. After all, last week’s Torah reading (just a few sentences earlier) clearly identifies Rebecca’s lineage and homeland. Why does the Torah repeat it again?

Rashi answers that the Torah is teaching us that even though Rebecca grew up with a wicked father and brother, and came from a place of wicked people, she didn’t learn from their evil ways.

Still this explanation requires further clarification. In last week’s portion we already saw that Rebecca was a kind and generous person, as well as one of great modesty. Why is it necessary to once again highlight the difference between Rebecca and her wicked relatives from a wicked place?

Furthermore, it is odd that the Torah repeats that both her father, Besuel, and her brother, Lavan that they were Aramean. Why is there a special emphasis on their Aramean nationality?

ancient compilation of discussions regarding all areas of Jewish Law. Yet the Talmud is primarily written in Aramaic, the language of Aram, instead of Hebrew, the language of the Jewish people. Why are our laws not written exclusively in our native tongue?

The Aramean language is one of understanding another’s perspective. As an example, the word chessed in Hebrew means kindness, yet Rashi tells us (Leviticus 20:17) that in Aramaic ,it means ‘shame’. How can the same word mean both kindness and shame? It’s all a matter of perspective; the giver feels that he is doing a kindness, but the recipient feels shame at having to accept charity. The Arameans focus on the other individual’s perspective – hence in Aramaic, chessed means shame.

This is why the majority of the Talmud is written in Aramaic. When we have an argument in law, we want each opinion to be sensitive to the other’s perspective before we decide on the proper approach. Only in understanding the other sides’ perspective can we properly distill our own perspective. This was precisely Beit Hillel’s approach and the reason we almost always follow their view.

Both Rebecca’s father and brother used this ability to become confidence men (“con men”). A con man enters the reality of the “mark” and knows exactly how to manipulate him to gain “confidence” and get his desired end result. This comes from an uncanny ability to see the world from another’s perspective.

The reason that Rebecca’s lineage is repeated in this week’s portion is because it becomes very relevant to the story line. The Torah is teaching us that Rebecca too had this ability. After all, it was her idea that her son Jacob enter into Isaac’s reality and, through a subtle subterfuge, receive the blessings that were intended for her wicked son Eisav. Thus Rebecca, being from Aram, had the innate ability of insight into another’s perspective, but she used it to make sure that her righteous son prevailed over her wicked son.

When we try to see issues from another’s perspective we validate them as people. Validating them does not itself mean agreeing with them, approving of them, or waiving your own rights. You can still take appropriate actions to protect or support yourself or others. You are merely accepting the reality of the other person. You may not like it, you may not prefer it, you may feel sad or angry about it, but at a deeper level, you are at peace with it.

That alone is a blessing, and usually your shift to acceptance of that reality can help resolve conflict and polarization. After all, God created every one of us differently – as the sages in the Midrash point out; “Just like their faces are different, so too are their viewpoints.” God didn’t create a world with a monolithic society.

The differences in opinions gives us a collective strength. God created a world in which we can come to appreciate our differences and still work together to build a better society.