Controversy for Heaven's Sake The Value of Mahloket in the Jewish Tradition

Every controversy that is in the name of Heaven, the end thereof is destined to result in something permanent; but one that is not in the name of Heaven, the end thereof is not destined to result in something permanent. Which is the kind of controversy that is in the name of Heaven? Such as was the controversy between Hillel and Shammai; and which is the kind of controversy that is not in the name of Heaven? Such as was the controversy between Korach and all his congregation.

It has been taught; R. Yose said: Originally there were not many disputes in Israel, but one beit din of seventy one members sat in the Hall of Hewn Stones, and two courts of twenty three sat, one at the entrance of the Temple Mount and one at the door of the [Temple] court, and other courts of twenty three sat in all Jewish cities. If a matter of inquiry arose, the local beit din was consulted. If they had a tradition [thereon] they stated it; if not, they went to the nearest beit din. If they had a tradition thereon, they stated it, if not, they went to the beit din situated at the entrance of the Court, and he [who differed from his colleague] declared: ‘Thus have I expounded, and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have they taught.’ If they had a tradition thereon they stated it, and if not, they all proceeded to the Hall of Hewn Stones, there they [i.e. the Great Sanhedrin] sat from the morning tamid until the evening tamid; on Sabbaths and festivals they sat within the hel***. The question was then put before them; if they had a tradition thereon, they stated it; if not, they took a vote: if the majority voted ’unclean’ they declared it so; if ‘clean’ they ruled even so. But when the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who [the disciples] had insufficiently studied increased [in number], disputes multiplied in Israel, and the Torah became as two torot.

R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel: For three years there was a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the former asserting, ‘The halakhah is in agreement with our views’ and the latter contending, ‘The halakhah is in agreement with our views.’ Then a bat kol issued announcing, ‘The utterances of both are the words of the living God, but the halakhah is in agreement with the rulings of Beit Hillel. Since, however, both are the words of the living God what was it that entitled Beit Hillel to have the halakhah fixed in agreement with their rulings? Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beit Shamai, and were even so humble as to mention the actions of Beit Shammai before theirs.

Though these forbade what the others permitted, and these regarded as ineligible what the others declared eligible, Beit Shammai, nevertheless, did not refrain from marrying women from the families of Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel refrain from marrying women from the families of Beit Shammai. Similarly, in respect of all questions of ritual cleanliness and uncleanliness, which these declared clean where the others declared unclean, neither of them abstained from using the utensils of the other for the preparation of food that was ritually clean.