Makhloket — Constructive Conflict: Disagreeing without Hate

Reflective Questions

(1) "Be of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace and pursuing peace": They explained in Avot DeRabbi Natan how Aharon loved peace: When he would see two people quarreling, he would go to each one of them without the knowledge of his fellow and say to him, “Behold how your fellow is regretting and afflicting himself that he sinned against you; and he told me that I should come to you so that you will forgive him. And as a result of this, when they bumped into each other, they would kiss each other. And how would he bring people closer to the Torah? When he would know about someone that he committed a sin, he would befriend him and show him a friendly demeanor; and that man would be embarrassed and say [to himself], “If that righteous man would know my evil deeds, how much would he distance himself from me? And as a result of this, [that man] would change for the better. And this is what the prophet testifies about [Aharon] (Malachi 2:6), “[A Torah of truth was in his mouth, and injustice was not found on his lips;] In peace and integrity he walked with Me and he many he brought back from [intentional] sin."

Focus on the word haskeyt הסכת:

Its root S-K-T [סכת] sounds like sheket שקט "Quiet." Most medieval commentators find no related word in Tanakh and assume its meaning from context: "Silence!" as translated here. What is the implication of "be quiet" before "listen"?

But Rabbi Ovadia Sforno (Italian, c. 1475-1550) suggests that it means "visualize." He refers to the word sikkut סכות in Amos 5:26, where it appears with the word tselem צלם "image." He may also be relying on 10th century Spanish-Jewish scholar Menachem ben Saruq who connects sikkut סכות to massechah מסכה, "cast" or "molten" (e.g. a manner of creating idols such as the Golden Calf, Ex. 32:4, Isaiah 48:5). So as an alternate understanding, what is the implication of "visualize to yourself" in connection with "listen"?

Rabbi Neil Fleishmann, The New York Jewish Week, June 8, 2010

The Rabbis of the Mishnah say, “An argument which is for the sake of Heaven will have a positive outcome, and an argument which is not for the sake of Heaven will not have a positive outcome.” The paradigm presented of a sincere argument “is the dispute between Hillel and Shamai. And what was not for the sake of Heaven? The dispute of Korach and his men” [Avot 5:20].

The Rabbis fail to mention Moshe, Korach’s antagonist, as they had mentioned Hillel’s opponent, Shamai. Why do they write asymmetrically, as if Korach was disagreeing with his own group?

The most common answer is that a major indication of Korach’s insincerity was the infighting amongst his followers. Korach and his men each had their own motives and fought not only against Moshe but among themselves, as well. Another popular explanation is that since Hillel and Shamai were both genuine, it makes sense to list them each as members of a sincere dispute. However, in the case of Korach against Moshe, it was only Korach who was insincere. Moshe was not engaged in an artificial fight and therefore his name is not mentioned here.

Perhaps the reason why Moshe is not listed as the other side of Korach’s fight is because from Korach’s point of view Moshe’s perspective did not exist. When someone is engaged in a fight that they just want to win rather than wanting the truth, they close out the other side.

This applies in every phase and arena of life. Most people want their political party, sports team, religion, sub-group within religion, and sub-group within sub-group of religion to emerge victorious, period. As a teacher, my experience is that many of my students just want a higher grade, while a select others truly wish to understand why I saw fit to take off points. The truly spiritual and sincere person who wishes to fulfill God’s will, fights honestly for the truth. Within that fight for truth he acknowledges the possibility of his own error and grants truth even when it rests on the other side of the party line.

When I was 17 and studying in Israel, I was primed to meet with the rabbi of the shul in which I grew up. He had been sent by my parents to convince me to go back to America. I was ready to explain why I was planning to stay in Israel, even against my parents’ will. On my way to the rabbi, I told a friend, “I’m off to an argument and I hope I win.” My friend said that he was sure I would not win. I was incredulous. Yet, he made a strong point, saying, “If you have a discussion you can get somewhere, if you have an argument you never win.” This Mishnah explains that an argument can be won if it is a sincere discussion with ears attuned to the other side.

When Moshe responds to Korach, he makes curious use of the same words that Korach said to him [Numbers 16:3-7]: “Rav lachem — it is enough for you.” Moshe tried to show Korach, by repeating Korach’s own phrase, that there was another side to the story. Korach could not, would not, allow himself to hear his own words echoed back to him from a different vantage point. This is often the case if someone is not open; they are unwilling to allow the other side the same right that they have to an opinion.

The sincerity of Hillel and Shamai trickled down to their students. The Mishnah in Yevamot [13a] says that although their two schools disagreed about major elements of Jewish law, the communities of Hillel and of Shamai were friends with each other and did not hesitate to marry one another. The Gemorah says that the reason why we follow the view of Beit Hillel is because they would study the opinions of Beit Shamai even before they delved into their own viewpoints [Eruvin 13a].

In a related note, the Talmud is sometimes puzzled by a statement made by a rabbi that didn’t seem to fit with his just stated standpoint. The Talmud’s resolution of this apparent inconsistency is that sometimes, in his earnest search for truth, a rabbi would enter the thinking of his opponent and speak l’divreihem — from the point of view of the other side.

The lesson of Parshat Korach is that when we conflict with others we must do it solely for the sake of Heaven. This applies to ethical, political, and religious issues of global import. It would serve us well to wisely take note even when we differ with others over seemingly mundane matters. What is the litmus test by which we can gauge if we are voicing our opinion for the sake of Heaven? Whenever we disagree with others we should truthfully answer one simple question, “Do I hear the other side?”

Balashon - Hebrew Language Detective, 25 Aug 2019 - David Curwin

http://www.balashon.com/2019/08/sababa-and-machloket.html

In 2017, I discussed the root חלק, meaning to divide. It is the root of the word machloket מחלוקת, meaning "division, dispute, disagreement."

This word appears in a well-known mishna (Avot 5:17) -

Every machloket that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the machloket that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the machloket of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the machloket that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the machloket of Korah and all his congregation.

The word machloket in this English translation originally appeared as "dispute" and "controversy." However, Safrai*, in his commentary, says that this understanding is difficult. Disputes "for the sake of heaven" should be easy to resolve by good arguments, whereas disputes not for the sake of heaven, where personal and external factors are involved, will not be settled by claims of logic.

So Safrai, quoting Melamed**, writes that the word machloket here does not mean "dispute", but rather "division", i.e. the different groups (on either side of the debate). This was the meaning in Biblical Hebrew (it appears frequently in Divrei Hayamim [Chronicles]), and is parallel to the word miflaga מפלגה - also meaning division (the root פלג means divide as well), and is the word for "political party" in Modern Hebrew. Therefore, Safrai concludes, that groups that are organized for a positive purpose ("for the sake of heaven") will endure.

*Ze’ev, Shmuel, and Chana Safrai, Mishnat Eretz Yisrael [The Mishnah of the Land of Israel], a socio-historical commentary. 35 of approximately 45 volumes have been published in 2019.

**Ezra Zion Melamed, 1903-1994, Persian Jewish biblical and Talmud scholar

As we conclude the conversation, here are a few final questions to consider.

From "How Do We Disagree?" by "Ask Big Questions"

www.9adar.org/resource/how-do-we-disagree/