Arguments for the Sake of Heaven

It is not news that our society is hopelessly polarized. Unfortunately, this is also the case within the Jewish community and, even, within the rabbinate itself. One of the major issues that divides us is Israel and, more specifically, whether Israel as a Jewish state is a necessary and integral part of our Jewish identity.

An increasing number of Jews and, indeed, of rabbis and rabbinical students, consider themselves non- or anti-Zionists. They believe that Israel cannot be both a Jewish and a democratic state so they have chosen democracy over Jewishness for the land between the river and the sea. They believe that Israel/Palestine should be one democratic state for all, for Jews and for Palestinians, even if that means that Jews will eventually be a minority.

Those of us who believe that Israel should remain a Jewish state while granting equal rights to Palestinians worry that a state with Jews as a minority will inevitably result in what history has proven time and time again: that we will end up persecuted and unsafe. Yes, the United States has defied this historical reality. However, the rising antisemitism in the US suggests that, as journalist Franklin Foer has written, the golden age of Jews in America is over.

These two positions are apparently irreconcilable. Does that mean we should view each other as enemies? Should we impugn each other’s integrity over this difference, as has happened all too often in the discourse between these two sides? I would hope that, as Jews with a long tradition of disagreements, we could find a better way to engage with each other.

The Shalom Hartman scholar, Dr. Micah Goodman, says that Jewish tradition canonizes disagreement. Indeed, even the very beginning of the Torah offers two versions of the world’s creation. The first, in Chapter One, presents a transcendent God who calls the world and the human being into existence by the word. The second, in Chapter Two, offers us an imminent God, creating humankind by blowing God’s breath into a clump of earth. One can see these as contradictory stories or as complementary ones: Each reveals a specific aspect of God, enriching our understanding of the divine.

The Midrash and the Talmud, interpretations of our Tanakh, follow in this vein by consistently offering a “davar acher” — another perspective on one rabbi’s take. In the Talmud, pairs of rabbis disagree with each other and again, this results in a deeper understanding of our sacred texts. Hillel and Shamai are perhaps the most famous example of this interaction. They did not see eye to eye on anything, yet their children married one another. And Hillel was favored because he and his disciples always began their discourse by citing Shamai’s opinion before their own.

Another famous pair were Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish. On the unfortunate day Rabbi Yohanan cast aspersions on Reish Lakish’s integrity, their partnership blew up. Reish Lakish became ill and died, leaving Rabbi Yohanan in despair. The Rabbis found him another study companion, but Yohanan cried out in despair:

“You are not like Reish Lakish! When I stated a law, Reish Lakish used to raise 24 objections, to which I gave 24 answers, which consequently led to a fuller comprehension of the law. You say, ‘A teaching has been taught which supports you’ – do I not know myself that my statements are correct?” R. Yochanan would go and tear his clothes and cry, “Where are you, Reish Lakish! Where are you, Reish Lakish?” (from B.T. Bava Metzia 84a, translation from Sefaria). Surely this is a cautionary tale about disrespecting one’s opponent’s views.

Given this history, why can’t current-day rabbis follow in this vein? Shouldn’t we be able to recognize the validity of the other side? Shouldn’t we be able to honor the intention of those who truly believe what they are espousing rather than assume ulterior and base motives on their part? I call on my colleagues to think about how Hillel and Shamai, and how Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish, were able to disagree with respect and grace. Their arguments were considered “makhloket l’shem shamayim,” arguments for the sake of heaven. Let us try and emulate them.