(יז) כָּל מַחֲלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלוֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי.
(17) Every argument that is [for the sake of] heaven's name, it is destined to endure. But if it is not [for the sake of] heaven's name -- it is not destined to endure. What [is an example of] an argument in the name of heaven? The argument of Hillel and Shammai.
אע"פ שנחלקו ב"ש וב"ה ... ללמדך שחיבה וריעות נוהגים זה בזה, לקיים מה שנאמר (זכריה ח, יט) האמת והשלום אהבו.
Although Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed (on many critical issues) ... nevertheless .. they behaved with love and friendship toward one another, as it says in Zecharia, "TRUTH and PEACE they loved."
- What do you think an "argument in the name of heaven" might be?
- Based on these two texts, how do we understand Judaism's view of Conflict?
א"ר אושעיא מאי דכתיב (זכריה יא, ז) ואקח לי (את) שני מקלות לאחד קראתי נועם ולאחד קראתי חובלים. 'נועם' אלו ת"ח שבארץ ישראל שמנעימין זה לזה בהלכה. 'חובלים' אלו ת"ח שבבבל שמחבלים זה לזה בהלכה (זכריה יא, יג).
R. Oshaya said: The scholars of the Land of Israel treat each other graciously when engaged in debates (Rashi [10th c. France] adds: [what does this mean?] look into the matter together, and this one corrects the other politely, and the law comes to light). However, the scholars of Babylon injure each other (Rashi: with strong and heated language) when debating.
- According to Rashi, there is a right and wrong way to argue.
- What is your take away? How can we argue TODAY with these principles in mind?
(7) Seven things [apply] to a fool, and seven to a wise person. A wise person does not speak in front of someone who is greater than him in wisdom, and he does not interrupt his fellow, and he is not afraid to answer; he asks on topic, and he answers according to the law. He talks about the first thing first, and the last thing last. About that which he has never heard he says, "I never heard," and he admits to the truth. And the opposite of these [is true] for the fool.
What do you think it means to admit to what one has never heard and admit when wrong?
What Guiding Principle(s) of constructive conflict can we draw from these texts?