א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה
Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin 13b
For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said, "the law is in accordance with us" and these said, "the law is in accordance with us". A Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God but the law is in accordance with Beit Hillel.
Bablyonian Talmud, Eruvin 13b
But [it was asked] since both are words of the living God, for what reason was the School of Hillel entitled to have the law determined according to its rulings? Because they were kindly and humble, and because they studied their own rulings and those of the School of Shammai, and even mentioned the teachings of the School of Shammai before their own.
ת"ר הדן חבירו לכף זכות דנין אותו לזכות
Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 127b
The Sages taught : One who judges another favorably is himself judged favorably.
How do you understand the phrase: Both these and those are the words of the living God?
What would have happened if a Heavenly Voice would not have given a ruling?
If we are not lucky enough to hear a Heavenly Voice how should we handle disagreements?
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, The Book of Jewish Values: A Day-By-Day Guide to Jewish Living, New York: Random House, 2000, pp. 186-7:
Signicantly, the heavenly voice ruled in favor of Hillel and his disciples, even in areas of ritual dispute, for moral reasons: he and his followers were “kindly and humble.”...
...We can all learn a lesson from the behavior of Hillel and his followers: Don’t read only books and publications that agree with and reinforce your point of view. If you do so, and many people do, you will never learn what those who disagree with you believe (at best, you will hear a caricature of their position, presented by people who, like you, disagree with it). It would be a good thing in Jewish life if Jews in the different denominations, or in different political camps, started reading newspapers and magazines of the groups with which they disagree, on a regular basis.
If you seldom hear, read, or listen to views that oppose your own, and if almost everyone you talk to sees the world just as your do, your thinking will grow abby and intolerant. That is often the case with ideologues on the right and left, both in religion and in politics.
As this text teaches us, humble people are not only more pleasant human beings, but in the final analysis, they may well be the only ones who will have something eternally important to teach.
What do you think of Rabbi Telushkin's conclusion that perhaps only humble people have something eternal to teach?
ת"ר הרואה אוכלוסי ישראל אומר ברוך חכם הרזים שאין דעתם דומה זה לזה ואין פרצופיהן דומים זה לזה
Babylonian Talmud Berachot 58a
Our Sages taught: If one sees a crowd of Israelites, he says, “Blessed is the One who discerns secrets,” for the mind of each is different from that of the other, and the face of each is different from that of the other.
Babylonian Talmud: Baba Metzia 24a
Rabbi Yochanan said: ‘Are you like the son of Lakish? When I said something, the son of Lakish would ask me twenty four question, and I would respnd with 24 answers. As a result learning increased. And you tell me a support [that agrees with my opinion]! Do I not know I say good ideas?
What do these texts teach us about diversity and disagreement?
(ב) וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא רָאִינוּ אֵינוֹ רְאָיָה
2) But the Sages say: "We didn’t see" is not a proof.
How can the Sages principle of, 'Only because a person has not seen something before, is a not a proof that it does not exist.' inform our debate?
What do you think of the Sages principle?