(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 dispute 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 controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korach and all his congregation.
Questions for Thought
1. What is the definition of "an argument which is for the sake of Heaven?"
2. Have you ever had an argument which was "for the sake of Heaven"?
3. What does it mean for an argument "to endure"?
4. What was so special about Hillel and Shammai?
כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאַנְשֵׁי הַמַּחֲלֹקֶת הַהִיא מִתְקַיְּמִים וְאֵינָם אוֹבְדִין, כְּמַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי שֶׁלֹּא אָבְדוּ לֹא תַּלְמִידֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְלֹא תַּלְמִידֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל...
וַאֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי, פֵּרוּשׁ סוֹפָהּ, תַּכְלִיתָהּ הַמְבֻקָּשׁ מֵעִנְיָנָהּ. וְהַמַּחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, הַתַּכְלִית וְהַסּוֹף הַמְבֻקָּשׁ מֵאוֹתָהּ מַחֲלֹקֶת לְהַשִּׂיג הָאֱמֶת, וְזֶה מִתְקַיֵּם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ מִתּוֹךְ הַוִּכּוּחַ יִתְבָּרֵר הָאֱמֶת, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּמַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי שֶׁהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. וּמַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, תַּכְלִית הַנִּרְצֶה בָּהּ הִיא בַּקָּשַׁת הַשְּׂרָרָה וְאַהֲבַת הַנִּצּוּחַ, וְזֶה הַסּוֹף אֵינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּמַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וַעֲדָתוֹ שֶׁתַּכְלִית וְסוֹף כַּוָּנָתָם הָיְתָה בַּקָּשַׁת הַכָּבוֹד וְהַשְּׂרָרָה וְהָיוּ לְהֶפֶךְ:
Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name, it is destined (literally, its end is) to endure: That is to say that the [parties to] the argument are destined to endure and not perish, as with the argument between Hillel and Shammai, [whereby] neither the students of the School of Hillel nor the students of the School of Shammai perished...
And I heard the explanation of “it is destined.” It refers to the purpose that is sought from its subject. And [with] the argument which is for the sake of Heaven, the purpose and aim that is sought from that argument is to arrive at the truth, and this endures; like that which they said, "From a dispute the truth will be clarified," and as it became elucidated from the argument between Hillel and Shammai - that the law was like the school of Hillel. And [with] argument which is not for the sake of Heaven, its desired purpose is to achieve power and the love of contention, and its end will not endure; as we found in the argument of Korach and his congregation - that their aim and ultimate intent was to achieve honor and power, and the opposite was [achieved].
Question for Thought
1. Can the Bartenura's approach to "for the sake of Heaven" be applied to any areas in your life?
2. Why do you think an argument which is "not for the sake of Heaven" doesn't reach its end goal, while one which is "for the sake of Heaven" will reach its end goal?
3. Without mentioning any names, have you ever seen or been part of an argument which was "not for the sake of Heaven?" What was the end result? Did the intent of the argument play a role in leading to that end result?
Every argument, etc. [This is] to say about that which it said, "Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name, it is destined to endure" - the intention is that they will endure in their argument forever. And [so,] today they will argue about one thing and tomorrow about another; and argument will endure and continue between them all the days of their lives. And not only this, but [also] 'length of days and years of life will be added to them.'
Questions for Thought
1. Rabbeinu Yonah has a unique take on this mishna, doesn't he? Is he saying that "argument" is a good thing?
2. Do you think there is a place for Rabbeinu Yonah's interpretation in modern political discourse?
The next sources will give us some insight into the relationship of Shammai and Hillel. It is in the context of a significant argument between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. The exact details of that argument are not needed for the point of seeing how the House of Shammai and the house of Hillel interacted in spite of the many differences of opinion between them. It is from the Talmud, and is followed by the commentary of Rashi which should provide greater insight into what the Talmud means to say. A more thorough explanation of the context is provided in the endnotes.
(They) did not refrain - even though the children of the co-wife who performed levirate marriage in accordance with Beit Shammai's opinion, according to Beit Hillel are considered mamzeirim (bastards)...Beit Hillel did not refrain from marrying into Beit Shammai, because Beit Shammai would inform Beit Hillel which children came from such a relationship, and Beit Hillel would (be able to) avoid them.
Questions for Thought
1. Take note of the issues which were relevant to these disputes between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai. Can you think of modern equivalents of these issues, whether in the realm of Judaism or the secular public sphere? What would it mean to conduct oneself similarly in regards to these issues?
The types of arguments (perhaps "discussions" is a better word?) we have is based on the attitude towards the other person which we bring to the table. What attitudes will tend to lead to good outcomes, and which will lead to the kind of negative outcomes we've been discussing?
Read on for some insights into our attitudes towards others, especially when it comes to learning.
(א) בֶּן זוֹמָא אוֹמֵר, אֵיזֶהוּ חָכָם, הַלּוֹמֵד מִכָּל אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קיט) מִכָּל מְלַמְּדַי הִשְׂכַּלְתִּי כִּי עֵדְוֹתֶיךָ שִׂיחָה לִּי.
(1) Ben Zoma says: Who is the wise one? One who learns from all people, as it says, "I have acquired understanding from all my teachers" (Psalms 119:99).
Questions for Thought
1.What does this mishna tell us about the definition of wisdom?
2. How would one apply this in real life?
בן זומא אומר איזהו חכם הלומד מכל אדם. אמרו חכמי האומות כי היודע כל החכמות אם אינו אוהב החכמה אינו חכם אלא טפש הוא אחר שאינו אוהב החכמה כי היא הדעת. אך האוהב אותה ומתאוה אליה אע"פ שאינו יודע כלום הרי זה נקרא חכם שעל כל פנים תשיג אל החכמה האמיתית ודעת אלהים תמצא. ועל זה אמר בן זומא איזהו חכם הלומד מכל אדם שכל כך אוהב החכמה ומתאוה אליה ששואל לכל אדם ואף מי שאינו יודע כי אם דבר (אחר) [אחד] ילמד ממנו ואז יצליח דרכו ואז ישכיל. ועל זה נקרא חכם שנאמר מכל מלמדי השכלתי שכן אמר דוד ע"ה שלמד מכל אדם ולא היה אומר זה אינו יודע כמוני כי מכלם למד והשכיל. משל לאדם שהפסיד כלי קטן והלא מכל אדם מבקש אותו:
Ben Zoma said, "Who is the wise one? One who learns from all people: The sages of the nations of the world have said one who knows all of the wisdoms [yet] does not love wisdom is not wise, but a fool, as he does not love wisdom, which is knowledge. However, one who loves and desires it - even though he does not know anything - behold, this one is called a wise man, because, one way or another, he will reach true wisdom and find knowledge of God. And about this Ben Zoma said, "Who is the wise one? One who learns from all people" - as so much does he love wisdom that he asks [it] from every person. And even from the one who only knows one thing does he learn; and then his path becomes successful and he will become enlightened. And because of this he is called a wise one, as it says, "I have acquired understanding from all my teachers" (Psalms 119:99). As so did David, peace be upon him, say - that he learned from every person; and he did not say, "This one is not as knowledgeable as I." Rather he learned from them all and became enlightened. There is a metaphor [relevant to this] about a person who lost a small vessel - would he not seek if from every person?
Questions for Thought
1. What does Rabbeinu Yonah mean by, "One who knows all wisdoms, but does not love wisdom is not wise, but a fool?"
2. What is the mindset of someone who learns from absolutely anyone, even someone less knowledgeable than them?
3. Have you ever known someone who embodies this trait, at least in part?
ואפשר לומר דודאי מכל הענינים והמקרים מכללן ופרטן ומכל אשר יעבור וקרה לו איזה מקרה יש ללמוד חכמה ומוסר. דאם בא לאיש העושה דבר טובה יש ללמוד ממעשיו אם הם טובים וממדותיו וכיוצא. ואם בא לו לזה האדם איזה צער או הפסד יש ללמוד כיצד נמשך לו ההפסד אם מעשיו גרמו או מדותיו או התחברו לרשעים ולהתרחק מכל הגור׳ להזק הזה. וגם מבעל מלאכה ואומנו׳ יש ללמוד לראות שקם בהשכמה ובזריזות להביא טרף לביתו וק״ו למי שיש לו לב לעבוד בוראו שיעשה כן להזדרז מאד ... וכיוצא אין שום דבר קל טוב או רע שאין ללמוד ממנו ...
וז״ש איזהו חכם הלמד מכל אדם קטן וגדול בעל שכל ופתי חכם או סוחר בעל אומנות או משרת כי בחכמתו כל אדם שיראה יתבונן בעניניו ומקריו וילמוד אם לטוב ולמוטב. וז״ש מכל מלמדי השכלתי כלומר יותר מכל מלמדי שלימדוני השכלתי ובהסתכל בבינ׳ הלב למדתי יותר מכל אדם ומכל מקרה. וזה נאה לקרותו חכם:
It is possible to interpret (as follows): Certainly, from all matters and occurrences that a person encounters one can learn wisdom and proper ethics. For if (we see) a person has a good outcome from their actions, we can learn from their actions that they are good. If (we see) a person have pain or loss, we can learn how that loss came about: whether is was their actions, or their character traits, or their connection to bad people, and (we can learn) to avoid the things that caused that damage.
And from a business person or tradesperson we can learn by seeing that they get up early and with alacrity to bring sustenance to their home. How much more so should one who wants to serve his Creator act thus to be very alacritous...
Similarly, there is no minor thing, good or bad, that one cannot learn many, many lessons...
This is what is meant by "Who is wise? One who learns from everyone," Small or large, wise or fool, a scholar or a merchant, a skilled tradesperson or a maid. For in wisdom, every person will see and consider and learn what is good and/or what is bad...
Questions for Thoughts
1. Can you think of an example of learning from something someone did, or didn't do?
2. Who are the inspiring figures in your life, and what is something you have learned from that person?
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.
Questions for Thought
1. How do you understand the concept of "these and these are the words of the living G-d?"
2. How would you apply the practice of Beit Hillel in your own interactions with others?