Arguing is OK ... Sometimes

Rabbi Joel Fleekop

Saturday, June 20, 2009

If you put two Jews in a room, you are sure to have three opinions.

Though just a joke, there is some truth behind the statement. We are an opinionated people, or more accurately, a people that values different opinions. As Jews we are encouraged to question and challenge, a tradition best captured in the pages of the Talmud. Though it contains midrashic stories, commentary, and legal decisions, the Talmud -- rabbinic Judaism’s preeminent text -- is in truth a collection of ancient debates.

From the Babylonian sages of the 4th and 7th centuries, whose words are recorded in the Talmud, to American Jews of the 20th and 21st century, Jews love of debate has persisted. In their article, Safe Treyf: New York Jews and Chinese Food, City of New York University sociologists Gaye Tuchman and Harry Levine argue that one of the reasons Jews are so drawn to Chinese food is that family style dining, common in many Chinese restaurants, affords an opportunity for discussion: the chance to argue the benefits of one food or another.

Whether in a traditional yeshiva, a Chinese restaurant, the halls of academia, or anywhere else you find two Jews, one is liable to stumble upon a debate.

True to the stereotype, many Jews like to discuss, to debate, even at times to argue. Thankfully, our religious tradition has no objection to passionate discussion. At times – as for judges on a court – thorough debate is even required. But Judaism does, importantly, differentiate between two types of arguments.

Mishnah, Pirkei Avot 5:17 teaches,

“Every argument for the sake of heaven will in the end be of permanent value, but every argument not for the sake of heaven will not endure. Which is an argument for the sake of heaven? The argument between Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai. And which is an argument not for the sake of heaven? The argument of Korach and his followers.”

In his commentary on the Mishnah, Meiri, a 13th century Cantalonian rabbi elucidates what makes the disagreements between Hillel and Shammai – B’shem Shamayim – for the sake of heaven, and why the arguments raised by Korach were Lo b’shem shamayim – not for the sake of heaven. Meiri explains, “When Hillel and Shammai debated, one of them would render a decision and the other would argue against it, out of a desire to discover the truth, not out of cantankerousness or a wish to prevail over his fellow. In contrast, Korach and his company come to undermine Moses . . . out of envy and contentiousness and ambition for victory.”

The notion that Hillel and Shammai were working toward the same goal while Korach was working to undermine Moses is supported by their personal interactions.

The Talmud, Masechet Eruvin explains that Hillel and his disciples were careful to impart not only their own interpretations but also those of Shammai. Furthermore, the rabbis teach that despite their disagreements – including over how to interpret certain rules regarding marriage -- the disciples of Hillel and those disciples of Shammai often married one another. They were able to see past their differences because they shared a mutual respect and a mutual goal – to better understand the words of Torah and the teachings of Judaism.

In sharp contrast is the behavior of Korach in this week’s Torah portion. According to Midrash Bemidbar Rabbah, Korah’s challenge to Moses’ leadership was not about what he thought was best for the Israelites but rather what was best for him. As the midrash explains, Korah was angry at having been passed over by Moses for a leadership position and thus sought to undermine him. Motivated by a personal vendetta, Korach’s goal in arguing and challenging Moses was to bring glory to himself and disparage his foe – a goal that is surely not for the sake of heaven.

Like Hillel and Shammai before us, we thankfully live in a world of disagreement and debate. It is the through the willingness of individuals to challenge and argue that we are blessed to develop new ideas, new technologies, and new cures. Through debate our leaders arrive at the important decisions that shape our nation and people in all walks of life find ways to improve our world.

But like those of Korach’s generation, we are also challenged to live in a world of disagreement and debate. As the tragic events of the past few weeks – the murder of Dr. Tiller and the killing of Stephen Tyrone Johns at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC remind us – people all too often put being right above doing right. Seeking victory in debate, rather than truth, leads to gridlock in the halls of government. And the desire to win all too often leads to family feuds in which loved ones fight for so long they no longer remember what they are fighting about – only that they are right and their brother, sister, father, or mother is wrong.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes, there are, “two kinds of conflict: argument for the sake of truth and argument for the sake of victory.” May we be blessed with the discernment and self awareness to know the difference. May we be drawn to passionately engage in arguments for the sake of truth and may we have the wisdom to avoid arguments for the sake of victory.

If you put two Jews in a room, they may have two separate opinions – maybe – as the old joke suggests, even three. How many opinions any one person – any one of us has -- isn’t really that important. What matters, as the rabbi’s teach, is that we voice those opinions for the sake of heaven. As we go forward, O God, may all of our discussions, debates, and even our arguments be sacred and may they bring healing, and holiness to our world.

Shabbat Shalom