It can't be (only) about you
You might be right, and they might be too :)
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.
Lessons:
There is truth in other opinions
Listen, don't just wait to speak
Patience and understanding other's positions will strengthen yours
These lessons transcend any particular argument (the text speaks generally)
There is strength in acquiescence
Honor the other person's arguments
Arbitrator
Face to face
1. Why do you think the Divine Voice favored Beit Hillel's opinion?
2. How do you think Beit Hillel's approach impacted their arguments?
3. How might Beit Hillel's approach to disagreeing affect their relationship with Beit Shammai? Do you think Beit Shammai ultimately agreed with Beit Hillel?
4. When do you find it easier/more difficult to act like Beit Hillel?
5. Are there limits to this approach?
6. How do you suggest disagreeing when the Beit Hillel way feels unrealistic? What are a few guidelines you'd want to be followed when disagreeing with one another?
Focus on Facts (as we understand them at least), not People
The mishna comments: Although Beit Hillel prohibit the rival wives to the brothers and Beit Shammai permit them, and although these disqualify these women and those deem them fit, Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel refrain from marrying women from Beit Shammai. Furthermore, with regard to all of the disputes concerning the halakhot of ritual purity and impurity, where these rule that an article is ritually pure and those rule it ritually impure, they did not refrain from handling ritually pure objects each with the other, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel frequently used each other’s vessels.
Lessons:
Those who disagree can still be in community together (even as they disagree on the nature of that community!)
In disagreeing, separate the facts/positions from the people who hold them
Community is a higher priority than right and wrong
The power of knowing the person you disagree with, their story, their sensitivties, etc.. "You can't hate people if you know their stories."
Aim to Revise and Refine, not to Prove and Win
כאשר החל ראש הפילוסופים לחקור ולעשות מופתים בענינים עמוקים מאוד אמר מתנצל דבר זה ענינו שאין ראוי למעין בספריו שייחסהו במה שיחקור עליו לעזות או היותו משתבח ומתפאר והורס לדבר במה שאין ידיעה לו בו אבל ראוי לו שייחסהו לזריזות והשתדלות בהמציא והעמיד אמונות אמתיות כפי יכולת האדם: וכן נאמר אנחנו ...ולא יגזור בתחילת דעת שיעלה בליבו ולא ישלח מחשבותיו תחילה וישליטם להשגת האלוק אבל יבוש וימנע ויעמוד עד שיעלה ראשון ראשון:
When the chief of philosophers (Aristotle) was about to inquire into some very profound subjects, and to establish his theory by proofs, he commenced his treatise with an apology, and requested the reader to attribute the author's inquiries not to presumption, vanity, egotism, or arrogance, as though he were interfering with things of which he had no knowledge, but rather to his zeal and his desire to discover and establish true doctrines, as far as lay in human power... We take the same position...He must, however, not decide any question by the first idea that suggests itself to his mind, or at once direct his thoughts and force them to obtain a knowledge of the Creator, but he must wait modestly and patiently, and advance step by step.
Lessons:
Part of being in Jewish disagreement is being willing to abandon initial assumptions
Disagreement as Genuine Curiosity
בֶּן זוֹמָא אוֹמֵר, אֵיזֶהוּ חָכָם, הַלּוֹמֵד מִכָּל אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קיט) מִכָּל מְלַמְּדַי הִשְׂכַּלְתִּי כִּי עֵדְוֹתֶיךָ שִׂיחָה לִּי. אֵיזֶהוּ גִבּוֹר, הַכּוֹבֵשׁ אֶת יִצְרוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי טז) טוֹב אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם מִגִּבּוֹר וּמשֵׁל בְּרוּחוֹ מִלֹּכֵד עִיר. אֵיזֶהוּ עָשִׁיר, הַשָּׂמֵחַ בְּחֶלְקוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קכח) יְגִיעַ כַּפֶּיךָ כִּי תֹאכֵל אַשְׁרֶיךָ וְטוֹב לָךְ. אַשְׁרֶיךָ, בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה. וְטוֹב לָךְ, לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. אֵיזֶהוּ מְכֻבָּד, הַמְכַבֵּד אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל א ב) כִּי מְכַבְּדַי אֲכַבֵּד וּבֹזַי יֵקָלּוּ:
Ben Zoma says: Who is the wise one? He who learns from every peron, as it says, "I have acquired understanding from all my teachers" (Psalms 119:99). Who is the mighty one? He who conquers his desire, as it says, "slowness to anger is better than a mighty person." (Proverbs 16:32). Who is the rich one? He who is happy with his lot, as it says, "When you eat [from] the work of your hands, you will be happy, and it will be well with you" (Psalms 128:2). "You will be happy" in this world, and "it will be well with you" in the world to come. Who is honored? He who honors the created beings, as it says, "For, those who honor Me, I will honor; and those who despise me will be held in little esteem" (I Samuel 2:30).
משה בדאי הוא דאמר מר למד לשונך לומר איני יודע שמא תתבדה ותאחז
Moses spoke in accordance with the principle articulated by the Master: Accustom your tongue to say: I do not know, lest you become entangled in a web of deceit.
Rabbi Melissa Weintraub and Dr. Eyal Rabinovitch, "Slowing Down the Conversation"
In a context as polarized as Israel, we open the space to meaningful communication across disagreement when we show others we “get” them or at least are sincerely trying to. When we focus instead on making our case – no matter how compelling and substantiated – if we haven’t demonstrated to our interlocuters that we “get” them, it simply won’t land. Rather than listening to find flaws, we [seek to] listen to help others articulate what matters most to them. We listen to identify the concerns, values, emotions, and stories that drive them. More generally, we alter our intention from winning an argument to seeking out comprehensive understanding. When I demonstrate that I have both the desire and willingness to understand you as you wish to be understood, when I prove to you that I see you as you wish to be seen, I maximize the likelihood that you will listen to me in return.
• What’s one insight that you’ve gained from this conversation? • What is one thing you want to change in your life based on this conversation? • What’s one obstacle to you making that change, and how can you overcome it? Who might you need help from in order to make this change? • What could we do together as a community based on what we talked about today?
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase “enemies in the gate” with regard to Torah study? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: Even a father and his son, or a rabbi and his student, who are engaged in Torah together in one gate become enemies with each other due to the intensity of their studies. But they do not leave there until they love each other, as it is stated in the verse discussing the places the Jewish people engaged in battle in the wilderness: “Therefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, Vahev in Suphah [beSufa], and the valleys of Arnon” (Numbers 21:14). The word “vahev” is interpreted as related to the word for love, ahava. Additionally, do not read this as “in Suphah [beSufa]”; rather, read it as “at its end [besofa],” i.e., at the conclusion of their dispute they are beloved to each other.
10 take-home lessons
1. Think about *why* you are voicing your disagreement and what's at stake (is it your ego? or beyond yourself?)
2. It is good to disagree! The best disagreements will not be resolved for a very long time
3. Know the counterarguments and consider the truth in another person's opinion. Pluralism and complexity are in Judaism's DNA
4. When disagreeing, focus on listening, rather than waiting for your turn to speak. Practicing patience and attempting to understand the other will make the disagreement more cooperative while strengthening your own position
5. Those who disagree strongly, even on fundamental issues, can still be in community with one another. Community is more important than being right
6. Reconsider your initial assumptions. A disagreement does not have a "winner" or "loser" based on who learns something new and whose thinking remains unchanged
7. There is something to learn from everyone and everything, even those who may hold positions you find disturbing
8. There is strength in naming our own uncertainty
9. If the debate isn't going anywhere,
9. Debates can turn friends into enemies. Don't leave the debate until you are on loving terms.
10.
The Place Where We Are Right
BY
PARKER J. PALMER (@PARKERJPALMER), COLUMNIST
Here’s a poem I re-read frequently. As short and simple as it is, it helps me remember that nothing new can grow between us when we speak to each other from “the place where we are right.”
More important, the poem leads me to ask what I think is a question worth pondering: How might things change if we began our political conversations not from our certainties, but from our “doubts and loves”?
Many of us who differ politically love the same things — our children and grandchildren, our country, the natural world. Many of us who differ politically harbor the same doubts — that what’s being done (or not done) to care for the things we love is the best or the right thing to do.
Yes, we differ on what ought to be done. But what if instead of starting by arguing over solutions — over “the place where we are right” — we began by sharing our loves and doubts? I suspect that our political conversations would be much more productive because they would proceed from common ground.
Hey, it’s worth a try! One thing I’m certain about is that the other way isn’t working!
Yehuda Amichai is widely regarded as Israel’s greatest modern poet. If you read “The Place Where We Are Right” while remembering the political context in which it was written, the poem’s power multiplies.
The Place Where We Are Right
by Yehuda Amichai
From the place where we are right
flowers will never grow
in the Spring.
The place where we are right
is hard and trampled
like a yard.
But doubts and loves
dig up the world
like a mole, a plough.
And a whisper will be heard in the place
where the ruined
house once stood.