Save
Copy
Add to Collection
Export to Google Docs
ShareA model of disagreement: Beit Hillel
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. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements 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.
Rabbi Amy Eilberg, From Enemy to Friend (110-112)
“In order to understand this text’s often quoted ‘punch line,’ however, it is essential to grasp that this was no trivial difference between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. The two schools were engaged in a years-long, passionate debate about a matter of Jewish law that was of great importance, both theoretically and practically…
But for our purposes, the final part of the text is even more important. The Talmud asks, if both sides of the debate are equally correct in their content and logic, why is the law according to the House of Hillel?...The startling answer is that the law is set according to the House of Hillel in this matter (and presumably, in many other cases in which these schools’ viewpoints diverge) not because of superior analysis, but based on the House of Hillel's tone and style of communication, their way of carrying themselves in the midst of conflict.
The text tells us that the students of the House of Hillel, like their mentor Hillel, were ‘gentle and humble’ in their conduct, even as they engaged in debate with their colleagues. Not only did they articulate their own view gently and respectfully, in order not to offend or demean those on the other side, but they affirmatively taught both their own view and the view they rejected, to communicate that both views contained an aspect of truth. Not only this, but when they taught the two perspectives on the issue at hand, they taught their opponents position first, to explicitly acknowledge its value and to give honor to those who thought that way. Only after teaching their opponents’ view-with understanding and appreciation-did they proceed to explain why their own opinion was more compelling."
Disagreement for the Sake of Heaven
(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:
(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 Korah and all his congregation.
Arguments for the sake of truth
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks offered the following takeaway on the story of Korach and his followers (in Bamidbar/Numbers 16):
What the entire episode shows is the destructive nature of argument not for the sake of Heaven — that is, argument for the sake of victory. In such a conflict, what is at stake is not truth but power, and the result is that both sides suffer. If you win, I lose. But if I win, I also lose, because in diminishing you, I diminish myself… Argument for the sake of power is a lose-lose scenario. The opposite is the case when the argument is for the sake of truth. If I win, I win. But if I lose I also win — because being defeated by the truth is the only form of defeat that is also a victory.
