(יז) כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם.
אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי.
וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:
A. Every debate that is for the sake of
heaven -- will endure. But if it is not for the sake of heaven -- it will not endure.
B. What is an example of an debate for the sake of heaven? The argument of Hillel and Shammai.
C. What is an example of an debate not for the sake of heaven? The debate of Korach and all of his congregation.
In our polarized world, we live together with people with whom we have significant differences. It is critical to determine when and how to enter into debate.
1. In Pirkei Avot, the defining criterion is described by the phrase "for the sake of heaven." What phrase would better distinguish the two kinds of arguments in your life? Why?
2. What would be an example of each kind of argument?
(יז) 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:
(17) Every argument...: ...And I heard the explanation of “its end” is its purpose that is sought from its subject.
A. And the argument which is for the sake of Heaven, the purpose is to arrive at the truth--and this* endures. As it says, "From a dispute the truth will emerge." This is like the argument between Hillel and Shammai - that the law was like the school of Hillel.
B. And the argument which is not for the sake of Heaven, its desired purpose is to achieve power and the love of victory-- and its end will not endure. As we found in the argument of Korach and his congregation - that their aim and ultimate intent was to achieve honor and power, and the opposite was [achieved].
1. According to Rabbi Bartenura (15th c. Italy), what are the necessary conditions for the kinds of debates that we should enter into?
2. Do you agree? What values do you think need to be present in order to respond to opposing ideas with debate?
3. What are some examples of your life on campus where you encounter opposing worldviews? How might Source 1 or 2 help you navigate your response?
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים מַזְכִּירִים עֲוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אָדָם, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: קִיר נָטוּי, וְעִיּוּן תְּפִלָּה, וּמוֹסֵר דִּין עַל חֲבֵירוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם!
Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Three matters evoke a person’s sins, and they are: Endangering oneself by sitting or standing next to an inclined wall that is about to collapse, expecting prayer to be accepted, as that leads to an assessment of his status and merit, and passing a case against another to Heaven, as praying for Heaven to pass judgment on another person causes one’s own deeds to be examined and compared with the deeds of that other person. This proves that prolonging prayer is a fault.
כל מי שאפשר למחות לאנשי ביתו ולא מיחה נתפס על אנשי ביתו
באנשי עירו נתפס על אנשי עירו
בכל העולם כולו נתפס על כל העולם כולו
Anyone who is able to protest the people of their home, and does not, is punished for the sins of the people of their home.
Their city, are punished for the sins of their city.
The whole world, are punished for the sins of the whole world.
Protest, like marriage, means re-imagining relations to self and other. The Taksim Square Book Club - in which demonstrators in Istanbul stood silently and read books - used reflection as a riposte to state brutality. The ethical imagination is at the root of this.
...
It is impossible to explain social and political transformations without linking them to personal hopes and aspirations. Politics, like love, involves an attachment to others. The I makes no sense without the you, nor the self without the other. Without a sense of others – and of our difference from them – we have no sense of self, because the not-me is a constitutive element of self.
--Henrietta Moore, "Protest Politics and the Ethical Imagination", 2013 (both photo and text)
1. How does Moore's argument impact our sense of what protest is?
2. Do you agree with Moore? Why or why not?
3. How does this new understanding sit with our reading of the Jewish sources above?