Who Endures?

Who Endures?     Posted by Sefi Kraut on July 8, 2026

Being right, is the booby prize of life!

One of the best-known mishnayot ((Mishnah) is the core foundational text of Jewish Oral Torah, meaning "instruction by repetition" from the Hebrew root shānāh (to repeat or learn) in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) offers a deceptively simple distinction between types of disagreement:

“Any disagreement (mahloket) that is for the sake of Heaven (le-shem shamayim) – it will endure. And one that is not for the sake of Heaven – it will not endure.” (Avot 5:17)

מַחֲלֹקֶת לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם – ‘machlochet l’shem shamayim’

– ‘a disagreement for the sake of heaven’

Constructive disagreements endure. Destructive disagreements do not. At first glance, this mishnah seems straightforward. Upon reflection, however, one phrase jumps out as needing explanation: “it will endure (סוֹפָהּ להתקיים).” What, exactly, is the “it” that endures?

The fifteenth-century Italian commentator Rabbi Ovadiah of Bartenura (known as “the Bartenura”) offers two answers. The second explanation is more intuitive:

“Disagreement which is in the name of Heaven, the purpose and its desired outcome (סוֹפָהּ, lit. its end) is to attain the truth, and this endures, as they said, that from a disagreement the truth will be clarified, as was clarified in the disagreements between Hillel and Shammai…”

[Hillel and Shammai were two foundational 1st-century BCE Jewish scholars and leaders during the reign of King Herod, whose respective academies—Beit Hillel (House of Hillel) and Beit Shammai (House of Shammai)—shaped the development of Halakha (Jewish law)]

Attainment of truth is the intended outcome of a disagreement for the sake of Heaven. It is the truth that ultimately endures.

The Bartenura precedes this explanation with another, less expected take on what endures from mahloket le-shem shamayim:

“That is to say that the people involved in this disagreement will endure and not perish, as with the disagreement of Hillel and Shammai, for neither the students of Beit Shammai nor the students of Beit Hillel perished. But Korach and his congregation perished.”

According to this explanation, what endures is the participants in the disagreement. In a mahloket le-shem shamayim, the people engaged in the disagreement are not destroyed as a result of it. 

Why does the Bartenura start with this explanation – which actually fits less neatly into the text of mishnah? Perhaps he wants us to ask a question we might otherwise overlook: what does a disagreement do to the people involved?  

A destructive disagreement destroys the parties involved, the Bartenura stresses. A constructive agreement, a disagreement for the sake of Heaven, enables the parties involved to emerge intact.

This does not mean that the parties emerge unchanged. Nor unchallenged. Perhaps not even unharmed. Serious disagreements often leave relationships bruised. But there is a profound difference between a relationship that is bruised and one that is destroyed.

THE BARTENURA’S LANGUAGE SUGGESTS THAT THE HALLMARK

OF A HOLY DISAGREEMENT IS THAT NEITHER SIDE WALKS AWAY DIMINISHED IN DIGNITY OR EXCLUDED FROM THE COMMUNITY.

THE PARTICIPANTS, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM, SURVIVE. THEY MAY REQUIRE HEALING. THEY MAY REQUIRE TIME.

BUT THEY ARE NOT SACRIFICED ON THE ALTAR OF BEING RIGHT.

This approach also casts a well-known passage in the Talmud in a new light. The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) asks why the halakhah is generally established in accordance with Beit Hillel. Its answer is striking. It was not because Hillel’s students were sharper thinkers. Rather, they were נוחין ועלובין – gentle and humble – and they would teach the opinion of Beit Shammai before teaching their own.

Before presenting their own position, Beit Hillel first demonstrated that they had taken Beit Shammai’s position seriously enough to articulate it fairly. In doing so, they affirmed that Beit Shammai’s voice had a legitimate place within the conversation itself.

This is more than good manners. It is a way of preserving the relationship while pursuing the truth. It is a way of engaging in disagreement such that, even when the conversation ends without consensus, the participants do not leave feeling destroyed by the encounter.

As Tisha B’Av approaches, we naturally recall the rabbinic teaching that the Second Temple was destroyed because of sinat chinam (baseless hatred). Yet this mishnah and the Bartenura invite us to imagine not only what caused the destruction, but what might have prevented it. 

Judaism has never aspired to a world without disagreement. Interpretations of Torah abound and Rabbinic literature is built upon disagreements. Our tradition is sustained by generations of Jews learning in havruta, challenging one another in the beit midrash in pursuit of truth (not the pursuit by the one who wants to be right)

The Bartenura’s reading suggests that a mahloket le-shem shamayim is measured in two ways: by whether it brings us closer to the truth and by whether the participants remain whole in the process. Those are not competing goals. They are the twin aspirations of a disagreement conducted for the sake of Heaven.

On Tisha B’Av, we mourn a moment when those aspirations came apart – when disagreement no longer connected and strengthened the Jewish people, but fractured them.

THAT IS THE DEEPER PROMISE OF AN AUTHENTIC MAHLOKET LE-SHEM SHAMAYIM: NOT THAT DISAGREEMENT DISAPPEARS, BUT RATHER ALL THAT IS INVOLVED IN DISAGREEMENT – THE TRUTH, ITS SEEKERS, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP – ENDURES.

 My additions:

During my decade long involvement in the new age movement in the late 60’s, I attended several courses. One particular new idea riveted my attention and I have never forgotten this principle:

'that being right is the booby prize of life'.

If one party insists and will only settle on being right, then the other, must accept being wrong. Any disagreement between two people, should primarily focus on not damaging the relationship. You pursue a way of resolving the dispute while retaining friendship and respect for one another. There is a biblical principle involved here:

In Exodus 18, Jethro (Yitro in Hebrew),  journey’s to visit his son-in-law and to bring Moses’ family to him – his wife, Zipporah and his two sons, Gershon and Eliezer. Yitro observed as Moses sitting all day judging the people:

Exodus 18:13-14

The next day, Moses sat to judge the people, and they stood around Moses from morning till evening. ¹⁴ When Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he did for the people, he said, “What’s this you’re doing to the people? Why sit by yourself, alone, with all the people standing around from morning until evening?”

Jethro suggested that Moses appoints men of good reputation and standing within the camp of Israel to assist him with the task of settling any disputes that might arise within the camp of Israel.

Exodus 18:24-26

So Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. ²⁵ Moses chose capable men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. ²⁶ They judged the people all the time. The hard cases they brought to Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves.

But, notice Jethro’s words to Moshe

Exodus 18:22b-23

Make it easier for yourself, as they bear the burden with you. ²³ If you do this thing as God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all these people will go to their places in shalom.”

How are we to understand this. If the dispute is rather intense, how could both parties go their way in shalom. I did some research and came upon a teaching by a great sage who went by the acronym, NETSIV.

Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (1816–1893), widely known by the acronym Netziv, was an influential Lithuanian Orthodox rabbi, Talmudist, and long-serving head of the renowned Volozhin Yeshiva (which I visited when my father and I journeyed to Lithuania in 2001. Max Raysmam (Mordechai) was 89 at that time and he desperately wanted to visit the country of his birth before his passing which occurred at age 94)).

The Netziv arrived at a counterintuitive interpretation of this puzzling phrase ‘go their way in shalom’. In his commentary Ha'amek Davar (specifically elaborated in Harchev Davar on Exodus 18:23), the Netziv (Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin) addresses Jethro’s assurance to Moses regarding delegating the judicial system:

"...and all this people shall also go to their place in peace."

The Netziv raises an insightful question: Moses was the one who was exhausted from judging the nation alone, not the people. Why, then, would a system of appointed lesser judges cause the people to leave in peace? He answers by drawing a profound distinction between absolute justice (din) and peaceful compromise (pesharah / mediation):

Moses' Prophetic Justice: Because Moses operated with divine inspiration, he pursued absolute, unyielding truth. He knew instantly who was guilty and who was innocent, which left no room for negotiation or compromise (pesharah). In applying absolute justice, one party wins entirely, and the other loses entirely, often leaving the courtroom harboring lingering resentment, anger, and bitterness.

The Human Courts suggested by Jethro, offers a potential solution to this predicament. Lesser judges lacked Moses’ prophetic insight. They were therefore forced to listen patiently to both sides. Because the absolute truth wasn't immediately transparent, these human courts naturally facilitated equity and mediation, encouraging both parties to give a little and take a little i.e. to compromise!

The Netziv concludes that when people settle disputes through compromise, both sides leave feeling satisfied and at peace. They felt that their position was heard and the magistrate acted fairly and equitably. Therefore, by moving away from exclusive, rigid justice and toward shared human leadership, the community could truly "go their way in peace". The principle was to listen to the story of both parties and then arrive at a truthful but amicable compromised solution.

Arriving at such a conclusion might be elusive but it is one worth pursuing. For surely, as followers of Messiah, we are instructed to “love one another even as I have loved you” (John13:34).

We do not need to wait for the Messianic Era to experience the fruits and the benefits of the Ru’ach – The Holy Spirit - adjudicating on our behalf. .We can break the bars of dissent but following our Master’s instruction to be humble and to be willing to lay down our will and our rights for the sake of another child of God.

John 15:13

No one has greater love than this: that he lay down his life for his friends”.

There are three Greek words for ‘life’ found in the new covenant.

1. Bios (Βίος) - refers to biological or physical life, material existence, and one’s daily living, livelihood, or routine. From this, we get ‘biology’. Bios is used when describing physical sustenance or earthly goods.

2. Psuche (Ψυχή) - refers to the psychological life—the soul, mind, emotion, breath, and will of a person. Psychology.

3. Zoe (Ζωή) - refers to the highest form of life: the uncreated, eternal, and divine spiritual life of God. John 10:10 - "that they may have life and have it abundantly". Zoology.

What we are instructed to be willing to lay down in John 15:13, is not our physical life but rather, our will, even our rights.

Are you and I willing to do so? Remember, being right is the booby prize of life!