תנו רבנן הרואה אוכלוסי ישראל אומר ברוך חכם הרזים שאין דעתם דומה זה לזה ואין פרצופיהן דומים זה לזה
The Sages taught: One who sees multitudes of Israel recites: Blessed…Who knows secrets. Why is this? God sees a whole nation whose minds are unlike each other and whose faces are unlike each other.
According to this text, what is the awesomeness that this bracha is appreciating?
How have you seen these differences be a blessing in your work?
How have you seen these differences be...not a blessing... in your work?
(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 disagreement that is for [the sake of] heaven, it is destined to endure. But if it is not for the sake of heaven it, is not destined to endure.
What is an example of a disagreement for the sake of heaven? The disagreement of Hillel and Shammai.
And what is one not for the sake of heaven? The disagreement of Korach and all of his congregation.
What do you think it means for a disagreement to be "for the sake of heaven?"
What might it mean for it to "endure?" Why might this be a desirable outcome?
If you want a blurb about Hillel and Shammai: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hillel-and-shammai
If you want a blurb about Korach: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/korah-a-summary-of-the-parsha
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 (eilu v'eilu) are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel.
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? They were agreeable and forbearing, they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements.
What does it mean for both opinions to be “words of the living God” and only one opinion to be held up as halachah/Jewish law?
How does the text value content vs. style of a machloket/disagreement?
What it would it look like to practice this in your disagreements? What do you think would happen? What might be hard about this?
(ב) זו מחלוקת קרח וכל עדתו. לא הזכיר צד השני של מחלוקת שהם משה ואהרן כמו שזכר בחלוקה ראשונה ב' הצדדים לפי שבכאן אינם שוים שמשה ואהרן כוונתם לשמים היתה. ולא היתה בהם שום בחינה שלא לש"ש.
(2) THE DISPUTE OF KORACH AND HIS FOLLOWERS. The mishna does not mention the other party in the dispute [that opposed Korach]—Moses and Aaron—as it does in the first section because in this case the two parties are not comparable, for Moses and Aaron acted for the sake of Heaven and had no other motives at all.
What happens when one party is acting l'shem shamayim/for the sake of heaven and the other is not? How can we respond and maintain the intentions that Moses and Aaron had?
What are the cases where "eilu v'eilu" doesn't apply? What do we do in those moments?