Dear Family of Friends,
In last month’s column, I introduced you to two rabbis from the Talmud: the literal-minded Shammai, who lit his Hanukkah menorah with eight candles on the first night, removing one each subsequent night to commemorate the decreasing oil, and the more subtle Hillel, who began with a single candle and increased the number by one each night as the miracle grew.
These two rabbis – and the schools of thought they founded – were famous for their disagreements. What one declared permissible, the other forbade; what one deemed ritually pure, the other deemed impure.
And yet, they were also known for living together despite their differences. Even though they disagreed on certain details regarding marriage and permissible relationships, they nonetheless allowed their sons and daughters to marry each other—each group being careful to fulfill the ritual needs of the other (Yevamot 14a). In the tractate Pirkei Avot (“The Wisdom of the Fathers,” 5:17), they are presented as the epitome of legitimate conflict: one that is “for the sake of heaven.”
In another famous passage, the Talmud relates:
For three years the school of Shamai and the school of Hillel disagreed. One group said, ‘The law follows our opinion,’ and the other said, ‘The law follows our opinion.’ Until one day, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: ‘Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the law is in accordance with the opinion of the school of Hillel.’(Eruvin 13b)
The Talmud then asks the obvious question: if both opinions were “the words of the living God,” why should the law follow one side and not the other? The answer is not that the school of Hillel had better arguments. Rather, it was in the way they made those arguments. They were “agreeable and forbearing” in debate. When they presented their opinions, they always represented the arguments of the school of Shamai alongside their own and treated those opinions with honor and respect.
In these days of polarized debates, when our thinking is often shaped by echo chambers of like-minded schools of thought, the example of moderation set by the schools of Hillel and Shamai feels positively radical. We would do well to emulate them – ensuring that our arguments are truly “for the sake of heaven” rather than for the sake of our own group’s dominance, and treating our adversaries with forbearance and respect, even as we press our case.
With blessings of Shalom, peace, in our homes and in our communities,
~Reb Josh
