Does Jewish tradition value makhloket as a goal unto itself? What does it mean to exist in makhloket vs. to allow disagreements and arguments to lead us to the best possible conclusion/action? What boundaries do we place on disagreement and what are considered valuable opinions?
(ה) וְלָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד בֵּין הַמְרֻבִּין, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הֲלָכָה אֶלָּא כְדִבְרֵי הַמְרֻבִּין. שֶׁאִם יִרְאֶה בֵית דִּין אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד וְיִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵית דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן. הָיָה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה אֲבָל לֹא בְמִנְיָן, בְּמִנְיָן אֲבָל לֹא בְחָכְמָה, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דְּבָרָיו, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן:
(5) And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number.
- For what purpose do we record minority opinions/preserve makhloket?
(ה) אמר רבי סימון: בשעה שבא הקב"ה לבראת את אדם הראשון, נעשו מלאכי השרת כיתים כיתים, וחבורות חבורות, מהם אומרים: אל יברא, ומהם אומרים: יברא, הדא הוא דכתיב (תהלים פה): חסד ואמת נפגשו צדק ושלום נשקו. חסד אומר: יברא, שהוא גומל חסדים. ואמת אומר: אל יברא, שכולו שקרים. צדק אומר: יברא, שהוא עושה צדקות. שלום אומר: אל יברא, דכוליה קטטה. מה עשה הקדוש ברוך הוא? נטל אמת והשליכו לארץ, הדא הוא דכתיב (דניאל ח): ותשלך אמת ארצה. אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה: רבון העולמים! מה אתה מבזה תכסיס אלטיכסייה שלך? תעלה אמת מן הארץ, הדא הוא דכתיב (תהלים פה): אמת מארץ תצמח. רבנן אמרי לה בשם ר' חנינא בר אידי ורבי פנחס ורבי חלקיה בשם רבי סימון אמר: מאד הוא אדם, הדא הוא דכתיב: וירא אלהים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד, והנה טוב אדם. ר' הונא רבה של צפורין אמר: עד שמלאכי השרת מדיינין אלו עם אלו, ומתעסקין אלו עם אלו, בראו הקדוש ברוך הוא. אמר להן: מה אתם מדיינין, כבר נעשה אדם:
Rabbi Simon said: "When the time came for the Holy One Blessed Be God to create the first human being, the angels of (Divine) service broke up into opposing groups. Some among them say: 'S/he should be created.' Some among them say: 'S/he should not be created.' This is what is written: 'Kindness and truth met; righteousness and peace kissed.' (Psalms 85:11)
Kindness says: 'Let humans be created because they will bestow kindnesses.'
Truth says: "Let humans not be created because they are entirely (made of) lies.'
Righteousness says: 'Let humans be created because they will do righteous acts.'
And peace says; 'Let humans not be created because they are entirely dissension.'
What did the Holy One Blessed be God do? God took truth and flung him to the ground. Thus it is written: 'You will cast truth to the ground.' (Daniel 8:12)
The angels of (Divine) service said before the Holy One Blessed be God: 'Master of worlds! Why do You despise Your seal of truth? Let truth rise from the ground as it is written: 'Truth will grow from the earth.' (Psalms 85:12)
Rabbi Hunah the rabbi of Tzippori said: "While the angels of (Divine) service were arguing with one another and occupied with one another, the Holy One Blessed be God created the first human."
God said to them: "Why are you debating? The human is already created."
(יז) כָּל מַחֲלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלוֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלוֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:
(17) Every argument that is [for the sake of] heaven's name, it is destined to endure. But if it is not [for the sake of] heaven's name -- it is not destined to endure. What [is an example of an argument for the sake of] heaven's name? The argument of Hillel and Shammai. What [is an example of an argument not for the sake of] heaven's name? The argument of Korach and all of his followers.
קרח כו'. לא הזכיר צד השני שהם משה ואהרן כמו שזכר בחלוקה ראשונה ב' הצדדים. לפי שבכאן אינם שווים שמשה ואהרן כוונתם לשמים היתה. ולא היתה בהם שום בחינה שלא לשם שמים. מד''ש:
Korach, etc. : It did not mention the second side [that opposed Korach], which are Moshe and Aharon, like it mentioned two sides in the first disagreement. This is because they [the two disagreements] are not equal—for Moshe and Aharon, their intention was for heaven. And they did not have any aspect within them that was not for the sake of heaven. [Their intentions were] for the sake of peace.
(א) כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים סופה להתקיים כלומר שאנשי המחלוקת ההיא מתקיימים ואינם אובדין, כמחלוקת הלל ושמאי שלא אבדו לא תלמידי בית שמאי ולא תלמידי בית הלל. אבל קורח ועדתו אבדו.
ואני שמעתי, פירוש סופה, תכליתה המבוקש מענינה. והמחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים, התכלית והסוף המבוקש מאותה מחלוקת להשיג האמת, וזה מתקיים, כמו שאמרו מתוך הויכוח יתברר האמת, וכמו שנתבאר במחלוקת הלל ושמאי שהלכה כבית הלל. ומחלוקת שאינה לשם שמים, תכלית הנרצה בה היא בקשת השררה ואהבת הניצוח, וזה הסוף אינו מתקיים, כמו שמצינו במחלוקת קורח ועדתו שתכלית וסוף כוונתם היתה בקשת הכבוד והשררה והיו להיפך:
(1) "Every controversy that is in the name of Heaven, the end thereof will endure." That is to say that the people of controversy are destined to endure and not be destroyed, as with the dispute between Hillel and Shammai that were not destroyed. Neither they nor the students of Hillel and Shammai. But Korach and his band perished.
And I heard the explanation of “the end,” –'its purpose and desired outcome.' The controversy which is in for the sake of Heaven, the purpose and aim is to arrive at the truth, and this continues to endure, as they said that 'from a disagreement the truth will be revealed,' as was revealed in the disputes between Hillel and Shammai - that the law was like the school of Hillel. And a controversy which is not for the sake of Heaven, its purpose is to achieve power and the love of victory, and its end will not endure, as we find in the dispute of Korach and his band, whose aim and end-goal was a lust for honor and power--and their end was the opposite.
- What lines are drawn in the above texts? What do we say makes a makhloket problematic? Whose voices do we include or exclude?
Debate vs. normalization: if the value of makhloket is in fact premised on arriving at action, we must exclude those opinions whose proposed actions would be unconscionable.
Disagreeing vs. debating: if our goal is to arrive at the best version of the truth and/or the best course of action, we exclude those voices that attempt to spark debate for purely intellectual/theoretical purposes and divert our energies.
The Gemara cites other expositions that deal with Torah study. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend” (Proverbs 27:17)? This verse comes to tell you that just as with these iron implements, one sharpens the other when they are rubbed against each other, so too, when Torah scholars study together, they sharpen one another in halakha.
(יז) לֹֽא־תִשְׂנָ֥א אֶת־אָחִ֖יךָ בִּלְבָבֶ֑ךָ הוֹכֵ֤חַ תּוֹכִ֙יחַ֙ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶ֔ךָ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂ֥א עָלָ֖יו חֵֽטְא׃ (יח) לֹֽא־תִקֹּ֤ם וְלֹֽא־תִטֹּר֙ אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֔ךָ וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ כָּמ֑וֹךָ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֽה׃
(17)You shall not hate your kinfolk in your heart. Reprove you kinsman but incur not guilt because of him. (18) You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the Lord.
א"ר אושעיא מאי דכתיב (זכריה יא, ז) ואקח לי (את) שני מקלות לאחד קראתי נועם ולאחד קראתי חובלים. 'נועם' אלו ת"ח שבארץ ישראל שמנעימין זה לזה בהלכה. 'חובלים' אלו ת"ח שבבבל שמחבלים זה לזה בהלכה (זכריה יא, יג).
רש"י
ובני א"י נוחין יחד ומעיינין יחד ומתקן זה את דברי זה והשמועה יוצאה לאור:
Rabbi Oshaya says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And I took for myself two staves; the one I called Graciousness, and the other I called Binders” (Zechariah 11:7)? “Graciousness”; these are the Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael, who are gracious to one another in discussions of halakha. “Binders [ḥovelim]”; these are the Torah scholars in Babylonia, who injure [shemeḥabbelim] each other in discussions of halakha.
Rashi [11th c. France] adds: The scholars of Eretz Yisrael look into the matter together, and this one corrects the other politely, and the law comes to light [as a result].
Reverend Martin Luther King, 16 April 1963 "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"
My Dear Fellow Clergymen:
While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely.".... I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Danya Ruttenberg, "Do We Have a Moral Obligation to Break Bread with Trump Supporters?"
The Talmud (Eruvin 13b:10) teaches, “Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God.”
In other words, the schools of both Hillel and Shammai hold true, holy, God-infused positions, whether on principles of what’s kosher or how to light Hanukkah candles or issues around marriage.
And this is where the analogy to today begins to break down.
I believe that engaging in overt racism, child abuse, family separation and religious discrimination, and permanently kneecapping the poor and stripping the planet of any real chance for survival, is not coherent with acting according to the words of the living God.
I refuse to call a disagreement about the direction in which we light the Hanukah menorah analogous to whether or not it’s permitted to perpetuate human rights abuses. Hillel and Shammai both walked the way of Torah, and their work was about figuring out how to live that path in the world.
They both knew that the Torah commands us to protect the non-citizen in our midst 36 times. Thirty-six. They knew that the Torah teaches that every human is created in God’s image. They knew that the Torah commands us to care for — and to set up systems to protect — the poor, to love our neighbor as ourselves and even to not cut down trees unnecessarily.
There is no disagreement of equals if one side denies the humanity, human rights, safety and freedom of the other side.
The reference to Hillel and Shammai, and the request for hugs on all sides, flattens positions, allows the Overton window to move and lets those engaging in actions that violate international law set the terms of the conversation.
Rabbi Ruti Regan
"Anti-hate outreach is *not* about open-mindedness, being nice, or meeting as equals. It's about creating a context for interactions that forces someone to reconsider their worldview if they're going to keep interacting — and also supporting them through that process.
...If you want to do anti-hate outreach, you have to be able to resist the impulse to validate all the sincerely held emotions you will encounter. Hateful ideologues have a lot of feelings that are not valid and do not reflect reality. Remembering that can be easier said than done...In order to do effective anti-hate outreach, you have to be able to see someone as a real person with real feelings, without losing sight of the abhorrence of their worldview. This is *especially* difficult for privileged people who aren't the targets of the hateful ideology in question. It's very easy to fall into a pattern where the hateful person's feelings feel more real to you than those of the marginalized people they're hurting.