"Both These and Those are the Words of the Living God": How Do Jews Debate?

Commentary on Pirkei Avot by Rabbi Marc D. Angel (The Koren Pirke Avot)

Healthy and unhealthy controversy: The controversy of Korah and his cohorts was not for the sake of Heaven. Their goal was to overthrow the leadership of Moses and Aaron in the hope of seizing political power for themselves. They did not offer a positive agenda; rather, they preyed on the fears and frustrations of the public. When controversies are for the sake of personal gain, they are resolved by a show of power. The side that is stronger defeats the opponent; the controversy is over; history continues. These controversies are a zero sum game. One side wins, one side loses.

The Korah model of controversy is contrasted with the debates between Hillel and Shammai. Those disputes were for the sake of Heaven. Neither Hillel nor Shammai was seeking personal power or glory. Each was presenting his interpretation of the Torah and his application of Halakha. Each had cogent arguments to support his view. Although they disagreed strongly on various issues, they were not opponents out to destroy each other but were colleagues in search of truth. The Talmud reflects this idea when it states that both of their views "were the words of the living God." In such debates, a ruling must be reached so that people will know what the law requires. Yet, the "losing" side has not really lost. His opinion is still quoted and taken seriously. While it did not prevail then, it might prevail at another time or in another context. Hillel and Shammai ultimately were on the same side - on the side of truth, on the side of Heaven. Their controversies reflected honest and well-reasoned differences of opinion. What they shared in common far outweighed their relatively few differences of opinion.

Some present-day disputes are clearly in the category of Korah controversies. People fight for power, seek to destroy their opponents, give vent to their egotistical ambitions in cruel and ruthless ways. These controversies are resolved through power struggles. The stronger side will win; the weaker side will be wiped out or forced to surrender. Other contemporary controversies are more akin to those of Hillel and Shammai. As long as the disputants realize they are ultimately on the same side, these controversies can be healthy aspects of our intellectual and cultural lives. We can weigh both sides calmly and reasonably. We can disagree on various points of theology or philosophy and still remain respectful and friendly to each other.

A problem arises when theological and philosophical debates transform themselves into battles for power that call for the total defeat of opponents. On the surface, these controversies may seem to be "for the sake of Heaven"; yet, they are in fact fueled by the desire to crush opposition. Disputants in such controversies do not see the opinions of their opponents as being "words of the living God," but as blasphemies that cannot be tolerated in any way. When theological and philosophical disagreements slip into the category of korah-controversies, this leads to violence and terrorism. Instead of being reflections of a search for truth, they become vehicles for oppression.

In his essay "The Pursuit of the Ideal" Sir Isaiah Berlin addressed the question of how to deal with theological and philosophical disagreements. Berlin favored what he called "pluralism," an acceptance that different people might come to legitimate differences of opinion without seeing each other as mortal enemies or opponents. In his view, pluralism is "the conception that there are many different ends that men may seek and still be fully rational, fully men, capable of understanding each other and sympathizing and deriving light from each other" (The Proper Study of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays, Farrar Straus and Giroux, New York, 1997, p.9). In other words, I may be convinced that I have the real truth, but I may still see that others — who do not share my understanding of truth — are good, sincere, and thoughtful people trying to do their best. I can learn from them, respect them, and be friendly with them. We are disputants — not enemies.

In distinguishing between the Korah-type controversies and the Hillel-Shammai-type controversies, this mishna provides insight on the nature of human conflict. By juxtaposing them, it may be alluding to the thin line between these two types of controversies. Power struggles can dress themselves up as religious debates; theological and philosophical disputes can be mere camouflage for egotistical and unsavory oppression of opponents.