(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 Korah and all his congregation.
In the time of the Messiah, we will follow the law according to Shammai. Hillel represents kindness and Shammai severity (hence the rulings of Beit Hillel are almost always more lenient). When the Messiah comes the advantage of the severity will be revealed and therefore the law will be in accordance with Beit Shammai. Beit Shammai comes from such a high level this present world is incapable of withstanding and only when Messiah comes will we be able to follow their opinion.
1. Can someone remind us why we hold our halacha (more often than not) in line with the school of Beit Hillel?
2. How do these texts support or counter that view?
3. What does the second text tell us about their machlochet as it relates to the Messianic age? What then, therefore, does it teach about OUR age?
ליקוטי מוהר"ן תורה ס"ד
וְדַע, כִּי מַחֲלקֶת הִיא בְּחִינוֹת בְּרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם כִּי עִקַּר בְּרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם, עַל יְדֵי חָלָל הַפָּנוּי כַּנַּ"ל כִּי בְּלא זֶה הָיָה הַכּל אֵין סוֹף, וְלא הָיָה מָקוֹם לִבְרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם כַּנַּ"ל וְעַל כֵּן צִמְצֵם הָאוֹר לִצְדָדִין, וְנַעֲשָׂה חָלָל הַפָּנוּי וּבְתוֹכוֹ בָּרָא אֶת כָּל הַבְּרִיאָה, הַיְנוּ הַיָּמִים וְהַמִּדּוֹת, עַל יְדֵי הַדִּבּוּר כַּנַּ"ל "בִּדְבַר ה' שָׁמַיִם נַעֲשׂוּ" וְכוּ'. וְכֵן הוּא בְּחִינַת הַמַּחֲלוֹקוֹת כִּי אִלּוּ הָיוּ כָּל הַתַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים אֶחָד לא הָיָה מָקוֹם לִבְרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם רַק עַל יְדֵי הַמַּחֲלקֶת שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם, וְהֵם נֶחֱלָקִים זֶה מִזֶּה וְכָל אֶחָד מוֹשֵׁך עַצְמוֹ לְצַד אַחֵר עַל יְדֵי זֶה נַעֲשֶׂה בֵּינֵיהֶם בְּחִינוֹת חָלָל הַפָּנוּי שֶׁהוּא בְּחִינוֹת צִמְצוּם הָאוֹר לִצְדָדִין, שֶׁבּוֹ הוּא בְּרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם עַל יְדֵי הַדִּבּוּר כַּנַּ"ל כִּי כָּל הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁכָּל אֶחָד מֵהֶם מְדַבֵּר הַכּל הֵם רַק בִּשְׁבִיל בְּרִיאַת הָעוֹלָם שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה עַל יָדָם בְּתוֹך הֶחָלָל הַפָּנוּי שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶם כִּי הַתַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים בּוֹרְאִים אֶת הַכּל עַל יְדֵי דִּבְרֵיהֶם "וְלֵאמר לְצִיּוֹן עַמִּי אַתָּה" 'אַל תִּקְרֵי עַמִּי אֶלָּא עִמִּי, מָה אֲנָא עֲבַדִי שְׁמַיָּא וְאַרְעָא בְּמִלּוּלִי אַף אַתֶּם כֵּן' .
Likutei Moharan I:64
Know this: that disagreement [machloket] is analogous to the creation of the world, which consisted of creating an empty space, as we have shown. For were it not so, everything would be infinitely divine [ein sof], and there would be no space left for the world. Therefore, He contracted the light to the sides, and an empty space was left in which the world could be created, with all its time and spatial dimensions, all done by the act of speech - as it is written: “By the word of God were the heavens made, etc.” [Psalms 33]. So too is the case with disagreement, for if all the scholars were united, there would be no creation of the world. It is only when there is disagreement between them, and they divide and each draws to one side, a space is created between them which is analogous to the empty space and the contraction of the lights, by the which the world itself was created by the act of speech, as we have shown. And all the arguments they each use are only in order to allow the world to be created by them [...] just as [God] created the heaven and the earth with words, so too can [scholars]!
Rabbi Eleazar said in the name of Rabbi Chanina: Students of the sages (or Torah scholars) cause peace to increase in the world as is said in Isaiah: “All of your children will be learned of God, and great will be the peace of your children.”
There are those who err thinking that world peace will not be built except by means of one form in points of view and qualities. Therefore when they see students of Torah scholars inquiring into wisdom and the knowledge of Torah, and, by means of their searching, the perspectives and approaches multiply, they believe that they thus cause argument and the opposite of peace. Yet truthfully this is not so, for the true peace cannot come into the world except by means of the value of a peace of many faces. A peace of many faces means that all sides and approaches are seen; and it becomes clear how there is a place for them all, each one according to its worth, its place, and its content. And, on the contrary, all positions that appear superfluous or contradictory will be seen, once the truth of wisdom is revealed in all of her many-sidedness, for only by means of the coming together of all the parts and all of the details, and all of the views that seem different, and all of the divided branches, truly by their means the light of truth and righteousness will appear, [along with] the knowledge of God, His reverence and His love, and the light of the Torah of truth. Therefore Torah scholars increase peace, for just as they broaden, explicate, and give birth to new words of Torah, in [locating new] aspects out of different aspects in which there is multiplication and division of themes, in this they increase peace.
Truth on earth is not, nor can be, the whole truth. It is limited, not comprehensive; particular, not universal. When two propositions conflict it is not necessarily because one is true the other false. It may be, and often is, that each represents a different perspective on reality, an alternative way of structuring order, no more and no less commensurable than a Shakespeare sonnet, a Michelangelo painting or a Schubert sonata. In heaven there is truth; on earth there are truths. Therefore, each culture has something to contribute. Each person knows something no one else does. The sages said: 'Who is wise? One who learns from all men-' The wisest is not one who knows himself wiser than others: he is one who knows all men have some share of the truth, and is willing to learn from them, for none of us knows all the truth and each of us knows some of it.
"When I was young, I used to admire intelligent people. Now that I am older, I admire kind people."
1. What can we learn from these sources? How can they help us reframe our conversations?
2. Additionally, what do these texts tell us about conversations that don't fit this model?
3. How can we know if a conversation is "for the sake of Heaven?"
Think of a recent occasion in which you were in communication and felt it went poorly. What happened? Try to remember as many details as possible. When did you shut down or lose control? How did you react?
Now (here is the hard part) try to frame those thoughts into feelings. What were you feeling at that moment? What could you have done to express that vulnerability? Would it have been worth it?
Before we start the discussion of the psychological aspect of selfishness and self-love, the logical fallacy in the notion that love for others and love for oneself are mutually exclusive should be stressed. If it is a virtue to love my neighbor as a human being, it must be a virtue—and not a vice—to love myself, since I am a human being too. There is no concept of man in which I myself am not included. A doctrine which proclaims such an exclusion proves itself to be intrinsically contradictory. The idea expressed in the Biblical " Love thy neighbor as thyself !" implies that respect for one's own integrity and uniqueness, love for and understanding of one's own self, cannot be separated from respect and love and understanding for another individual. The love for my own self is inseparably connected with the love for any other being.
I. Take 3 minutes to make a list of the things you tell yourself you have to do [the things you don't enjoy but feel are non-negotiable]
II. Let's take a look at the motivating factors. Change the language in that list to "I choose to..."
III. Now let's take a look at what those motivating factors ARE. Are they worth it?
IV. Communication is the same. What is motivating our discourse? Let's try the same exercise, but this time using difficult communication as our "have to's."