(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."
Why do you think the conflict between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai is the example of a conflict (machloket) for the sake of heaven?
What Guiding Principle(s) of constructive conflict can we draw from these texts?
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.
Notice that Rashi here is trying to explain R. Oshaya's statement. How does he understand the text?
(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?
Midrash Psalms, 12 (10th C.)
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Young students in the times of Saul, David and Samuel knew how to study the Torah with forty nine reasons to rule a matter pure and forty nine reasons to rule that the same matter was impure.
Make for yourself a heart of many rooms, and enter into it the words of Beit Shammai and the words of Beit Hillel, the words of those who declare a matter impure, and those who declare it pure.
What Guiding Principle(s) of constructive conflict can we draw from these texts?
What is Constructive Controversy?
From http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_71.htm
This problem-solving approach was introduced by David Johnson and Roger Johnson in 1979. It has been researched and validated, and it is recognized as a leading model for developing robust and creative solutions to problems. The technique draws on five key assumptions:
- We adopt an initial perspective towards a problem based on our personal experiences and perceptions.
- The process of persuading others to agree with us strengthens our belief that we are right.
- When confronted with competing viewpoints, we begin to doubt our rationale.
- This doubt causes us to seek more information and build a better perspective, because we want to be confident with our choice.
- This search for a fuller perspective leads to better overall decision making.
The resulting process is shown in Figure 1 below:
What is most difficult for you about engaging in conflict? Recall a conflict that you had with someone / group of people. What happened as a result?
What is a difficult conflict you need to engage in? What's holding you back from doing so?
How might we use the principles and guiding texts above to help us engage in constructive conflict?