יום שישי, 28 ביוני 2013

פינחס, בנות צלפחד, משה ויהושע

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
כבר מתחילת הפרשה אנו מרגישים שמשה נחלש כמנהיג ; מעשה הקנאות של פינחס משקף כשל מנהיגותי של משה .כאשר בנות צלפחד פונות אליו בבקשה לרשת את נחלת אביהם, הוא אינו יכול להחליט , ופונה לקב"ה.  מרים ואהרון  כבר אינם בין החיים ומשה נשאר לבדו כמנהיג דור יוצאי מצרים.  בסוף הפרשה  הוא גם מבקש שימונה לו ממשיך ויורש, כי הוא מבין שזמנו עבר.
ואולי בא הדבר ללמדנו שמנהיג - ואולי כל אדם - צריך לדעת לזהות את הסימנים המעידים על קשייו לקבל החלטות; שהוא  אינו יכול לפעול לבדו וצריך להתייעץ ולדעת לפנות לחלק הא-לוהי שבתוכו, כלומר לחלק שהוא מעבר לחוק הפורמלי המקובל.  וגם לזכור שלא עליו המלאכה לגמור, שלעתים מגיע הזמן לפנות את הדרך לדור ההמשך.
שבת שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם

-




Dear Family and Friends,
The Torah section we'll read tomorrow prepares us to the end of Moshe's leadership; he  finds it difficult to take decisions; he lost his sister Miriam and his brother Aharon and needs to consult G-d when Tzlofchad's daughters want to inherit their father's land. Towards the end of the Parasha he understands that  the people will need a new leader and asks G-d to choose the appropriate successor.
Maybe this teaches us that a leader - and maybe every person - should be aware of his difficulty to take difficult decisions, should not act alone and not hesitate consulting others, or the Absolute Other, or be in touch with his inner Soul, beyond formal legalistic considerations. He should also remember that there comes a time when he should leave the scene for the next generation.
Shabbat Shalom (a peaceful Shabbat) to all of us
Pinchas, Tzippie and Family


יום שישי, 21 ביוני 2013

עם לבדד ישכון - ברכה או קללה?

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
בלעם, עליו נקרא מחר, מתאר את עם ישראל במילים "עם לבדד ישכון, ובגויים לא יתחשב".
לצערנו, נסיבות היסטוריות, פוליטיות וחברתיות עלולות להציג פסוק זה כבסיס לתיאולוגיה ולפילוסופיה של עליונות, התבדלות שנאת הזר וגזענות. כי "אם לאף אחד לא איכפת מאיתנו, גם אנחנו לא צריכים לדאוג לאחרים".
לעומת זאת, ניתן לראות "לבדיות" כאמצעי לשימור זהות ייחודית תרבותית ורוחנית שנועדה להפוך את החברה האנושית כולה לטובה יותר, "כי היא חכמתכם ובינתכם לעיני העמים" . ובזה נהפוך קללה
לברכה. 
שבת שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם






Dear Family and Friends,
Tomorrow, in one of Bil'am's prophecies, we'll read about one of the characteristics of the Jewish people: "Am levadad Yishkon" –" it is a people that shall dwell alone".
Unfortunately, sometimes historical events may engender a philosophy and theology of isolation and xenophobia: "Nobody cares about us, so we don’t have to care about anybody else".
Nevertheless, being "alone" can also be interpreted as preserving its identity, individuality and spiritual legacy, and then, we choose to transform Bil'am's intention to curse the Jews into a blessing.
Shabbat Shalom to all,

יום חמישי, 20 ביוני 2013

Curses and Blessings

And the lord your god turned the curse into blessing for you,  for the lord your god loves you
Pinchas Leiser

The above dependant clause in Parashat Ki Tetseh, (Devarim 32 4-7) is a kind of "parenthetical statement" appearing in the context of the injunction against Ammonites and Moabites entering the Assembly of the Lord
Neither Ammonite nor Moabite shall come into the Lord's assembly. Even his tenth generation shall not come into the Lord's assembly ever. Because they did not greet you with bread and water on the way when you came out of Egypt, and for their hiring against you Balaam son of Beor from Aram Naharaim to curse you. But the Lord your God did not want to listen to Balaam, and the Lord your God turned the curse into blessing for you, for the Lord your God loves you. You shall not seek their well-being and there good all your days, forever.
The main subject is the prohibition against Ammonites and Moabites entering into the Lord's assembly, i.e., permitting them to marry a daughter of Israel. The Torah gives two reasons for the prohibition: Ammon and Moab's refusal to provide the Children of Israel with "bread and water", and the hiring of Balaam to curse Israel. In passing, the Torah tells us that God turned the curse into a blessing.
It is interesting to note that our Sages neutralized the prohibition in two ways:
a.         They restricted the probation to males. The proper nouns "Amoni" and "Moavi" may - according to Hebrew grammar - be read as all (male and female) Ammonites and Moabites, or as specifically male members of said nations. The Sages chose the latter reading, thus excluding females from the prohibition. (Sifri, Devarim, 248; Bavli, Yevamot 69b)
b.        "Came Sanherib and mixed the nations." (Berahot 28a) - the prohibition is no longer in effect because there is no way to identify Amonites and Moabites.
Perhaps one might say that these rabbinical readings in effect turned the curse which lay upon the Ammonites and Moabites into a blessing and facilitated their joining the Jewish people and "the Lord's assembly" as members with full rights.
The transformation of the curses into blessings is not explicitly mentioned in this week's parasha; there may be intimations of such as Balaam seems to repeat himself in different formulations. For example (Bemidbar 24:13):
Should Balak give me his houseful of silver and gold, I could not cross the word of the Lord to do either a good thing or a bad one from my own heart; that which the Lord speaks to me, it alone can I speak.
That is to say: It seems that were Balaam to be given the option of expressing his true feelings, he certainly would have accommodated Balak's desires and cursed Israel; only his being turned into a conduit for the word of God defused the curse.
The transformation of curse into blessing invites us to examine the concepts of blessing and curse, their origins, their influence, their reversibility and their relativity.
What is the power of curses and blessings, and from where does it derive?
God blessed the Sabbath day when he rested from all His labor. He also blessed Adam and Eve with "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth."
The first creation in the Bible to be cursed by God is the primeval serpent in the Garden of Eden - "Cursed be you of all cattle..."
God decreed death for Adam and Eve. Eve was told "In pain shall you bear children", but she was not cursed. Adam was told "The earth shall be cursed because of you."
Cain too, following his murder of Abel, was told by God: "Cursed shall you be by the soil that gaped with its mouth"
The source of these curses is God's response to Man's behavior. The Torah describes in human terms the consequences of his actions when he violates the divine will.
God's blessing of Noah and his sons upon their exiting the ark is similar to His blessing of Adam and Eve.
Noah is the first person in Scripture to curse and to bless; he curses Canaan, son of Ham, for his violation of his dignity, and he blesses "God, Lord of Shem" because Shem and his brother Yafet covered their father's shame.
It is noteworthy that Noah does not attribute the curse to the Lord, but the blessing has a connection to God, Lord of Shem. Is this curse a human emotional reaction, without a divine origin, as against blessings which derive their power from God?
In any case, Avraham is the first person to be notified that God will be involved in the blessings and the curses which people shower upon him, as is written "I shall bless those who bless you, and those who curse you shall I curse". The covenant between God and Avraham transforms, as it were, people's relationship to Avraham into relationship to the God of Avraham, and therefore He responds to these references with complete identification.
The blessing passed on from father to son - the Blessing of Avraham - becomes a central motif in the Book of Bereishit; it becomes the point of contention between Yaakov and Esav; on his deathbed Yaakov blesses his sons "each according to his blessing" (we would hardly be inclined to categorize certain of his messages to his sons as 'blessings').
It would seem, then, that all these blessings are related, in one way or another, to God as the source of the blessing.
Space does not permit dealing with all of the blessings and curses in the Torah; suffice it to recall that which is written with reference to the Priestly Benediction: "And they shall place my name upon the Children of Israel and I shall bless them." The priests are but channels through which God's blessings reach the Children of Israel.
The singular occasion of the proclamation of the blessings at Mt. Grizim and the curses at Mt. Eval (Parashat Ki Tavo) is another example of blessings and curses being transferred though human means although the origin is divine.
Returning to Balaam, we discover that our Sages, of blessed memory (Sanhedrin 105b), attempt - through analysis of the blessing emitting from Balaam's lips - to decipher what was the hidden message he wished to transmit:
And the Lord put a word in Balaam's mouth" - Rabbi Elazar said: An angel. Rabbi Yonatan said: A hook.
Rabbi Yochanan said: From that scoundrel evil man's blessing we can learn what was in his heart.
R. Johanan said: From the blessings of that wicked man you may learn his intentions: Thus he wished to curse them that they [the Israelites] should possess no synagogues or school-houses  -  [this is deduced from] "How goodly are thy tents, O Jacob"; that the Shechinah should not rest upon them  -  "and thy tabernacles, O Israel"; that their kingdom should not endure  -  "As the valleys are they spread forth"; that they might have no olive trees and vineyards  -  "as gardens by the river's side"; that their odor might not be fragrant  - "as the trees of lign aloes which the Lord hath planted"; that their kings might not be tall  -  "and as cedar trees beside the waters"; that they might not have a king the son of a king  -  "He shall pour the water out of his bucket"; that their kingdom might not rule over other nations  -  "and his seed shall be in many waters"; that their kingdom might not be strong  -  "and his king shall be higher than Agag"; that their kingdom might not be awe-inspiring  -  "and his kingdom shall be exalted".
R. Abba b. Kahana said: All of them reverted back to curses, excepting the one about synagogues and schoolhouses, for it is written, "But the Lord thy God turned the curse into a blessing for thee, because the Lord thy God loved thee"; "the curse" [in the singular], but not the curses.
Additional Sages deciphered the hidden messages in Balaam's words, reading his blessings as concealed curses. Rabbi Abba goes so far as to claim that some of these veiled curses were actually realized.
Does this mean that one should be concerned when cursed by another, even when the curser is considered by the Torah and the Sages to be a wicked person?
True, Rav Yehuda (Sanhedrin 90b, and other locations) said: "A scholar's curses, even on insignificant matters, take effect." Curses by a sage are dangerous, because they are liable to affect a person even if he is not deserving of punishment. But this is said only in reference to a scholar's curse, and perhaps Rav Yehudah is warning scholars to guard their tongue, as per the admonition: "Scholars, be cautious with your words, lest from your words they [your students] may learn to lie."
It may be that the intention of the Torah and our scholars is to tell us that everyone's curses have power; should someone's curse match God's intention to hurt another, that someone, regardless of his righteousness or his wickedness, becomes a channel for God's will.
But perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the story of Balaam's curses/blessings and other passages relating to the story is that curses and blessings are reversible and relative. It seems to me that both Balaam's attempts to view Israel from different angles and the placement of the blessing at Mt. Grizim and the curse at Mt. Eval come to instruct us that blessings and curses are often dependant upon points of view and meanings attached to the words. We are not dealing with absolute and irreversible concepts.
Sometimes there is a tendency to view a certain situation as a fateful curse. Such a deterministic view can lead us to despair and indifference; we feel that "there's nothing we can do" because in any case "nothing will ever change". Such feelings exist both in trying personal situations and in periods when the national and social mood is, in many aspects, at a nadir.
It seems to me that "the mouth of the ass", created on Sabbath eve at twilight, is a metaphor for hidden potentials for hope which exist within the seemingly cursed reality, coming to teach us that it is in our power to place the word of God within our mouths and to look at the world and all its inhabitants through a prism of blessing. The blessing pronounced by the priests prior to the Priestly Benediction may be understood as a reminder to bless the Jewish people "with love", - to transfer to us the ability to love and to strive for peace with all the universe's creations.

יום שני, 10 ביוני 2013

Talk, don't strike

THE WELL, THE ROCK, SPEAKING AND STRIKING
Pinchas Leiser

“Now they came, the Children of Israel, the entire community, to the Wilderness of Tzin, in the first New-Moon. The people stayed in Kadesh. Miriam died there, and she was buried there. Now there was no water for the community, so they assembled against Moshe and against and Aharon; the people quarreled with Moshe, they said, saying: Now would that we had expired when our brothers expired before the presence of God! Now why did you bring the assembly of God into this wilderness, to die there, we and our cattle? . . . Moshe and Aharon came away from the presence of the assembly to the entrance of the Tent of Appointment, and flung themselves upon their faces. The Glory of God was seen by them, and God spoke to Moshe saying: Take the staff and assemble the community, you and Aharon your brother; you are to speak to the boulder before their eyes so that it gives forth its water, so that you may give drink to the assembly and their cattle. 
So Moshe took the staff from before the presence of God, as He had commanded him. And Moshe and Aharon assembled the assembly facing the boulder. He said to them: Now hear, you rebels, from this boulder must we bring forth water? And Moshe raised his hand and struck the boulder with his staff, twice, so that abudant water came out; and the community and their cattle drank. Now God said to Moshe and to Aharon: Because you did not have trust in me to treat me as holy before the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore: you two shall not bring this assembly into the land that I am giving them. Those were the Waters of Meriva/Quarreling, where the Children of Israel quarreled with God, and He was hallowed through them.                           (Bemidbar 20:1-13)

When Chazal and the traditional commentators read these verses, they found in them an endless source for derashot, drawing from them – through speech -  “many waters”. . . and, as is known, “Water is none other than Torah”. They homiletically expounded the juxtaposition of the parasha of the red heifer to that of Miriam’s death. Similarly, with great sensitivity, they noted the connection between the death of Miram and the death of water: 

“Rabbi Yossi, son of Rabbi Yehudah, said: Israel had three great leaders: Moshe, Aharon, and Miriam. And they gave Israel three fine gifts: the well, the cloud, and the manna. The well – thanks to Miram; the pillar of cloud – thanks to Aharon; manna – thanks to Moshe. Miriam died – the well disappeared, as is written (Bemidbar 20) “There Miriam died”  and this is followed by “there was no water for the assembly”.  (Bavli, Taanit 9a, and elsewhere).

Chazal, and in their footsteps Rashi and others, describe a non-conventional reality – a well which accompanies the Children of Israel in the wilderness. This well is mentioned in Tractate Avot (5:6) among the ten phenomena which were created Sabbath Eve at sunset. The author of the Siftei Chachamim points out that the well was attributed to Miriam because “she waited near Moshe on the Nile, to see what what would happen to him when he was thrown in the basket.”

The waters which flowed from the well were the source of life. When Miriam died, the well disappeared, the source of life disappeared. The people react to the lack of water and Miriam’s absence indirectly, with feelings of desperation and death wishes (Rabbi Efrayim of Lunchitz, author of “Kli Yakar” explains that they did not eulogize Miriam properly and did not mourn her death in a direct manner).  Moshe and Aharon cannot cope with these feelings, and they flee to the entrance of the Tent of Appointment. Some commentators understand this flight as a failure of leadership, which finds expression further on in the parasha. Many commentators, Rishonim  and Achronim, dealt with the question of  “the sin and its punishment” of Moshe our teacher (an extensive summation of the different approaches may be found in Prof. Nechama Leibowitz’s STUDIES IN THE BOOK OF BEMIDBAR) and they found different reasons for the prevention of Moshe’s entry into Eretz Yisrael. 

A plain-reading of Chapter 20:7-13, must call the reader’s attention to the connection between the striking of the rock and Moshe and Aharon’s  not entering Eretz Yisrael. :

God spoke to Moshe saying: Take the staff and assemble the community, you and Aharon your brother; you are to speak to the boulder before their eyes so that it gives forth its water . . . And Moshe raised his hand and struck the boulder with his staff, twice . . . . Now God said to Moshe and to Aharon: Because you did not have trust in me to treat me as holy before the eyes of the Children of Israel, therefore: you two shall not bring this assembly into the land that I am giving them”.

The Holy one, Blessed Be He, commandes Moshe “to speak” to the rock so that it release its waters; Moshe does not speak, but he “strikes” the rock. True, “many waters”  flow from the rock after its being struck, but Moshe and Aharon are accused of a lack of faith, and of missing an opportunity to publicly sanctify the Lord, and therefore it was decreed that they may not enter Eretz Yisrael, - or, more in keeping with the text – they will not bring the assembly into the land. In other words, their leadership responsibility will end before the entry into the land. 

This reading ignores the wider context which includes the death of Miriam, the disappearance of the well, and Moshe and Aharon’s inability to cope with the despair which infects the nation after Miriam’s passing.  Perhaps this is the reason why the commentators do not consider the striking of the rock to be sufficient reason for the punishment given Moshe. 

Close study of the verses permits a reading with reveals a connection between the different events described in the parasha – with ramifications for future generations. 

The Generation of the Wilderness was an impatient generation. When it left Egypt, it was promised that it would reach its destination, a land flowing with milk and honey. The desert reality slaps the face of the generation, crises often marked by expressions of despair are heard; no food, no water, no hope. In these situations, the nation comes with harsh complaints to the leaders who brought them to “die in the desert”. We find different manifestations of this hopelessness. The sin of the Calf, Korach, the spies, the Waters of Controversy, Baal Pe’or, all these express the difficulties of this generation to manage a situation of uncertainty. Sometimes, in especially difficult moments, Moshe does not have the strength to contain the despair and the anger.

When the life of her younger brother was in danger, Miriam the prophetess, sister of Aharon, waited until Pharaoh’s daughter discovered Moshe’s basket and saved him. Thanks to that waiting, to that patience, that ability to contain unclear situations which usually arouse great apprehension, Miriam – and with her all the Children of Israel – acquired a well which was a source of life, a source of hope in a situation of wilderness uncertainty.

With Miriam’s death, the people’s ability to wait disappeared – “And when Miram died, the well was taken away”. The patience vanished. The people’s capacity (and also, temporarily, that of Moshe and Aharon) for accommodating uncertainty disappeared. Perhaps the Generation of the Wilderness – of which Moshe and Aharon were a part – is so-called because of its inability to cope with wilderness situations.

Different periods in the life of a nation are characterized by uncertainty; in order to deal with the ‘wilderness’ uncertainty, patience and moderation are needed, belief in a better future is required. Leadership which can lead a generation in wilderness situations is a “leadership which speaks”, not one which “strikes”. Only despair, resulting from lack of faith, hope, and tolerance, can create the dangerous illusion that complex situations can be resolved by use of force. The parasha of ‘Mei Meriva” –The Waters of Rebellion – and its adjacency to the death of Miriam teach us the perils attendant upon the blurring of boundaries between power and holiness. Sometimes, an entire generation  pays the price of such blurring of boundaries. 

יום שישי, 7 ביוני 2013

אדם ואדמה

לבני משפחתנו, חברותינו וחברינו היקרים,
מחר, בפרשת קורח, נקרא על  קורח שעירער  על מנהיגותם של משה ואהרון. התורה מספרת לנו שהאדמה בלעה את קורח וסיעתו. המשנה במסכת אבות מספרת לנו ש"פי הארץ" נברא בערב שבת בין השמשות.
אין זו הדוגמה היחידה במקרא בה  האדמה מגיבה למעשה האדם; יש  כאילו ברית בין האדם לאדמה; לאדם הראשון נאמר "ארורה האדמה בעבורך"; אחרי שהרג את הבל, נאמר לקין עובד האדמה: דמי אחיך צֹעקים אלי מן האדמה, ולכן, נאמר לו : "ארור אתה מן האדמה אשר פצתה את פיה" וקיימות עוד דוגמאות רבות לקשר בין האדם לאדמה.
ואולי תגובת האדמה, הצועקת, הבולעת, הפוצה את פיה, שאינה נותנת את יבולה  היא  מהווה הד לעוולות של בני אדם - אדם ואדמה 
שבת שלום לכולכם
פנחס, ציפי ומשפחתם

-




Dear Family and Friends,
Tomorrow we'll read  about Korach and his crowd, who contested Moshe's leadership. We'll read that the earth swallowed them, but we'll also read (in another 3 weeks) that "Korach's son didn't die". There are various interpretations of this phenomenon, but we know that according to our tradition, some of the Psalms were written by the sons of Korach.
Maybe this teaches us that although all human beings are mortal, their contribution to the world "lives after them" (sorry Shakespeare..).
Shabbat Shalom to all
Pincha, Tzippie, and Family

יום רביעי, 5 ביוני 2013

COMMENDING CONTROVERSY

COMMENDING CONTROVERSY
CONDEMNING TOTALITARIANISM
Pinchas Leiser

Every controversy that is in the name of Heaven [l’shem shamayim],
the end thereof is [destined] to result in something permanent.
But one that is not in the name of Heaven,
the end thereof is not [destined] to result in something permanent.
Which is the [kind of] controversy that is in the name of Heaven?
Such as was the controversy between Hillel and Shammai.
And which is the [kind of] controversy that is not in the name of Heaven?
Such as was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.                                                                (Mishnah Avoth, 5, 17)

The Sages saw in Korach an archetype of a person motivated by self-interest, and therefore they categorized his protest against Moshe and Aharon as a controversy “that is not in the name of Heaven”
Perusal of the above-quoted Mishneh raises several questions:
A.    How do we differentiate between “controversy in the name of Heaven” and “controversy not in the name of Heaven?” What exactly is “in the name of Heaven”? Can a clear and sharp differentiation always be made?
B.     What is the meaning of “destined to result in something permanent”?
C.     It is interesting to note that the Mishneh chooses examples from different worlds: the Biblical world (Korach} , and  the early Tanaaic period  (Hillel and Shammai).
The earliest attempt at differentiation between the two types of controversy is found in Avoth D’Rebbi Natan (Chap 40):
“Every controversy which is in the name of Heaven etc”. Which is the controversy for the sake of Heaven? Every assembly which is with religious purpose [“L’shem mitzvah”]; every assembly which was with religious purpose was that of the Men of the Great Assembly, and that not for the sake of religious purpose is the assembly of the people of the Generation of the Scattering [i.e., the generation of the Tower of Babel].
The Sages of this Baraita replaced the concept “l’shem shamayim” – “for the sake of Heaven”- with “l’shem mitzvah” – for religious purpose, and in addition, “controversy” is replaced with “assembly”. The ultimate determinant of the type of controversy is the goal of the assembly or the controversy. The motivation and the goal determine whether something is positive or negative; perhaps the Baraita is teaching that although something may seem at first to be a divisionary disagreement, as long as it is truly ‘l’shem mitzvah” it does not damage the unity, whereas false unity which is not  “l’shem mitzvah”,  divides.
The Meiri, in his commentary, understands the concept “l’shem shamayim” [for the sake of Heaven] as referring to the manner in which the controversy is conducted.
[…] and said that if the other party responds and differs not in order to vex or to triumph, but rather to reach the truth, as against “not for the sake of Heaven”; “not for the sake of Heaven”, is when he responds and differs in order to anger and to win.
The Meiri, then, determines the goal of the controversy from the manner in which it is conducted; one who is really concerned with the truth, and not concerned primarily with “winning”, will not argue in a vexatious manner. “L’shem shamayim”, then, is synonymous with conducting controversy with the purpose of determining the truth.
R. Obadiah of Bartinura explains “l’shem shamayim” in similar fashion, but he emphasizes not the manner in which the controversy is conducted, but rather its goal:
And I heard the word “the end” interpreted as “the goal” of the controversy. Controversy which is for the sake of Heaven is one which has as its purpose and desired end the attainment of truth. This exists, as we have said, when through the controversy the truth becomes clear. And, as is clear from the controversy between Hillel and Shammai in which halachic rulings follow the House of Hillel [Talmudic tradition attributes primacy of Bet Hillel’s rulings to their gentlemanly deportment – Translator’s note], but controversy not for the sake of Heaven has as its desired goal the search for authority and the love of triumph. This end is not permanent, as we found in the controversy of Korach and his assembly, where their goal and final intent was the desire for honor and authority, but the opposite was achieved.
 The Talmud is without doubt a book in which ‘controversy celebrates”, but in reading Pirke Aboth carefully we note that the archetype of controversy for the sake of Heaven is the controversy between Hillel and Shammai – not the controversy between their respective disciples, “the House of Hillel” and “the House of Shammai”, thus teaching us that man’s heart can inject power motives into a controversy which first began as a search for truth. Indeed, alongside the idyllic picture of the warm relations between the two schools we find the following: 
Although Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel are in disagreement on the questions of rivals, sisters, an old bill of divorce, a doubtfully married woman, a woman whom her husband had divorced and who stayed with him over the night in an inn, money, valuables, a perutah and the value of a perutah, Beth Shammai did not, nevertheless, abstain from marrying women of the families of Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying those of Beth Shammai. This is to teach you that they showed love and friendship towards one another, thus putting into practice the Scriptural text, Love ye truth and peace (Trac. Yevamoth 14a),
The Talmud Yerushalmi (Shabbat 1, 4) tells of a majority which the disciples of Beth Shammai attained by force:
And these are some of the rulings pronounced in the upper chamber of Hannya b. Hizkiya b. Garon when they went up to visit him, and they counted and [disciples of] Beth Shammai outnumbered those of Beth Hillel and they enacted eighteen measures on that same day.                                                                                                                                                   (Mishnah Shabbat 1, 4)
Our Mishnah: These are some of the rulings pronounced in the upper chamber of Hannya b. Hizkiya b. Garon when they went up to visit him, etc – that day was as difficult for Israel the day on which the calf was made.
R. Leizer said: On that day they overfilled the measure [of laws].
R. Yehoshua said: On that day they made the measure [of laws] just even.
Said to him R. Leizer: Had the measure been deficient and they came and filled it, fine, (this may be compared to) a barrel filled with nuts; no matter how many sesame seeds you add, it holds them all.
Replied R. Yehoshua: Had it been filled and they came took some away, fine; like a barrel which filled with oil, as you add water, it scatters the oil.
Taught R. Yehoshua Onaya: The disciples of Bet Shammai stood above them and they killed some of Beth Hillel. It is taught: Six of them went up and the rest stood over them with swords and daggers.                                                         (Yerushalmi Shabbat 1, 4)
The Mishnah does not reveal how Bet Shammai achieved the majority which resulted in the enactment of a number of their rulings on that day.  In the Talmud itself there is a controversy between R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua regarding the way in which these measures should be evaluated; do they strengthen or do they weaken. But it is absolutely clear that the opening passage of the discussion “that day was as difficult for Israel the day on which the calf was made”, referring to the violent manner in which the majority was achieved, expressed dissatisfaction with the silencing of controversy and argument between the two schools. Indeed, Tractate Sotah (47b) quotes a statement - originating in the Tosefta - which views the controversy as resulting from lack of proper preparation:
“With the increase of disciples of Shammai and Hillel who had not served [their teachers] sufficiently, dissension increased in Israel and the Torah became like two Toroth”.  It is possible, however, that this statement disparages not the existence of controversy per se, but even hints at the Yerushalmi story relating to the manner in which the controversy deteriorated into violence. 
In contradiction to this statement, there exists another famous one in Tractate. Haggiga (3b) in praise of controversy:
And he [R. Elazar b. Azaria] also took up the text and expounded: “The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails well planted are the words of masters of Assemblies, which are given from one Shepherd”. Why are the words of the Torah likened to a goad? To teach you that just as the goad directs the heifer along its furrow in order to bring forth life to the world, so the words of the Torah direct those who study them from the paths of death to the paths of life. But [should you think] that just as the goad is movable so the words of the Torah are movable; therefore the text says: ‘nails’. But [should you think] that just as the nail diminishes and does not increase, so too the words of the Torah diminish and do not increase; therefore the text says ‘well planted’; just as a plant grows and increases, so the words of the Torah grow and increase.  ‘The masters of assemblies’: these are the disciples of the wise, who sit in manifold assemblies [lit. “assemblies assemblies”] and occupy themselves with the Torah, some pronouncing ‘clean’ and others pronouncing ‘unclean', some prohibiting and others permitting, some disqualifying and others declaring fit.
Should a man say: How in these circumstances can I learn Torah? Therefore the text says: ‘All of them are given from one Shepherd’. One God gave them; one leader uttered them from the mouth of the Lord of all creation, blessed be He; for it is written: ‘And God spoke all these words’. Also you make your ear like the hopper and get you a perceptive heart to understand the words of those who pronounce unclean and the words of those who pronounce clean, the words of those who prohibit and the words of those who permit, the words of those who disqualify and the words of those who declare fit.
R. Yitzchak Minkovsky of Karlin (1787-1849), in his commentary (Keren Orah, Yevamoth 122b) explains the above as follows:
“Who sit in assemblies assemblies” – the repetition is intended to point out two kinds of assembly, one material and the second spiritual; that the two unite in their soul to direct everything toward a single source, to the ways of the Oneness and the goal of study for its sake, so it seems to me. And when they convene with this intent, some ruling that something is impure and others declaring it clean, the unity and the love from all the extremes will increase if there rests upon them the light of Torah, its secrets will be revealed to them and they will be like saplings “well planted”, and this is what is written “V’et Waheb bdsufah” [literally translated “Against Waheb in a whirlwind”, but homiletically read as] “and in the end there is love because the aim of this controversy is to increase love and unity. This, then, is the [R. Elazar b. Azariah’s] explanation: Lest one say, ‘How can I study Torah from now on?’, because without understanding the intended goal, controversy would seem to be a dividing factor, and how can both sides continue to exist? Therefore does it (Tosefta Sotah 7, 12) teach us “All were given by a single shepherd, one God gave them, one leader spoke them, all from the Master of all creation, blessed be He. This refers to our words above, because they have a single source, and one God gave them, etc., from the Master of all creation, blessed be He. And just as the purpose of  Creation was criticized by some at the time of Creation. They too were created in order to achieve the Blessed One’s uniqueness and unity, for He is one and His name is one, and so did the Torah effect wholeness, for through the sages’ disputes light was increased and they comprehended its truth that the Torah is a single, complete, and true entity. And this is what the Sages said (Aboth 5, 17) “Every controversy which is in the name of Heaven is destined to result in something permanent” because its purpose is the purpose of existence and of unity.
According to this elucidation, controversy, when conducted in the name of Heaven, is not only for the sake of clarifying the truth but also for the purpose of achieving true unity, as expressed in the wonderful words of Rav Kook in Olat R’iyah (p. 330) in reference to “Scholars increase peace throughout the world”:
Some mistakenly think that world peace cannot be established unless though a single hue of opinions and attributes, and therefore when they see scholars delving into wisdom and Torah knowledge, and their study  results in a proliferation of positions and approaches, they think that they [the scholars] are causing controversy and the opposite of peace. This is not true, for true peace can come to the world only through the multiplicity of peace. The multiplicity of peace means that all sides and approaches be seen, and it will become clear that all have a place, each according to its value, its place, and its matter.
At the beginning of Tractate Gittin (6b) the Talmud records a meeting between R. Abiathar and the prophet Elijah:
R. Abiathar soon afterwards came across Elijah and said to him:
‘What is the Holy One, blessed be He, doing?’ and he answered, ‘He is discussing the question of the concubine in Gibea.’ ‘What does He say?’ Said Elijah: ‘[He says], My son Abiathar says So-and-so, and my son Jonathan says So-and-so,’ Said R. Abiathar: ‘Can there possibly be uncertainty in the mind of the Heavenly One?’ He replied: Both [answers] are the words of the living God.

Perhaps this dialogue between R. Abiathar and Elijah—who represents Heaven in determining that “Both are the words of the living God”— echoes a discussion in Tractate Eruvin (13b) regarding the controversies between Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai: “Both these and these are the words of the living God”. (My thanks to Rabbi Benny Lau who called my attention to this link). Even in Heaven controversy has representation, i.e., the Heavenly vision encompasses this complexity, and this being so, it may be that “controversy in the name of Heaven” is that controversy which brings us closer to the complex and encompassing vision which exists in “Heaven”. May it be His will that we be wise enough to conduct the most important and most difficult controversies in a spirit of mutual respect, for the sake of clarifying the truth, and thereby we will succeed—if only in small measure—in accomplishing R. Menachem Mendel of Kotsk’s elaboration on the words of the Psalmist “The heaven is the Lord’s heaven, and the earth He has given to mankind” – in order to turn earth into “Heaven”. 

מי מפחד ממחלוקת?

בשבח המחלוקת, ובגנות הטוטליטריות.

פנחס לייזר

 כָּל מַחֲלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם.
 וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם.
 אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלוֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם? זוֹ מַחֲלוֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי,
 וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלוֹקֶת קֹרַח  וְכָל עֲדָתו. (משנה אבות ה, יז)

חכמים ראו בקורח אבטיפוס של אדם המוּנע  על ידי אינטרסים ולכן גם הגדירו את הערעור על מנהיגותם של משה ואהרון  כ"מחלוקת שאינה לשם שמים".
כשמתבוננים במשנה שהובאה לעיל, עולות מספר שאלות:
א.      איך מבחינים בין מחלוקת "לשם שמים"  לבין מחלקות שאינה לשם שמים. מהו "לשם שמים"? האם תמיד יתן לעשות הבחנה חדה וברורה?
ב.      מה פירוש "סופה להתקיים"?
ג.        בנוסף: מעניין לשים לב שהמשנה בוחרת דוגמאות מעולמות שונים: קורח המקראי לעומת הלל ושמאי מראשוני התנאים.

ההגדרה הקדומה ביותר המבחינה בין המחלוקות נמצאת באבות דרבי נתן (פרק מ):

"כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים וכו'. איזו היא מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים? כל כנסיה שהיא לשם מצוה כו'; כל כנסיה שהיתה לשם מצוה זו כנסת אנשי הגדולה, ושלא לשם מצוה זו כנסת אנשי דור הפלגה."
חכמי הברייתא המירו את המושג "לשם שמים" ב"לשם מצוה" ובנוסף, במקום מחלוקת, דיברו על כנסיה או כנסת. בסופו של דבר, הדבר הקובע הוא "לשם מה" מתכנסים או מנהלים מחלוקת. המניע והמטרה קובעים אם מדובר במשהו שלילי או במשהו חיובי; ואולי מלמדת אותנו ברייתא זו שמה שנראה כמחלוקת מפלגת, כל עוד היא "לשם מצוה", היא אינה פוגעת באחדות, לעומת אחדות שקרית , שאינה לשם מצוה, מפלגת.
המאירי, בפירושו, מבין את המושג לשם שמים כמתייחס לאופן בו מתנהלת המחלוקת:

...ואמר שאם זה השני משיב וחולק שלא בדרך קנטור ונצוח אלא להודעת האמת.
לעומת "שאינה לשם שמים": אבל כשאינה לשם שמים אלא דמשיב וחולק דרך קנטור ונצוח.
נראה אם כן שהמאירי מסיק את מטרת המחלוקת מהאופן בו היא מתנהלת; מי שעניינו באמת, לא ינהל מחלוקת בסגנון של קנטור, לעומת מי שמעוניין לנצח בויכוח.
"לשם שמים" הוא אם כן מילה נרדפת לקיום מחלוקת לשם בירור האמת.
גם רבי עובדיה מברטינורו (ברטנורא) מפרש את המושג לשם שמים בכיוון דומה, אך אינו מדגיש את אופן ניהול המחלוקת, אלא את מטרתה וכך לשונו:
"ואני שמעתי פירוש סופה - תכליתה המבוקש מענינה. והמחלוקת שהיא לש"ש התכלית וסוף המבוקש מאותה מחלוקת להשיג האמת. וזה מתקיים כמ"ש מתוך הויכוח יתברר האמת. וכמו שנתברר במחלוקת הלל ושמאי. שהלכה כב"ה ומחלוקת שאינה לש"ש תכלית הנרצה בה היא בקשת שררה ואהבת הניצוח. וזה הסוף אינו מתקיים. כמו שמצינו במחלוקת קרח ועדתו. שהתכלית וסוף כוונתם היתה בקשת הכבוד והשררה והיו להיפך."
התלמוד הוא ללא ספק  ספר בו "חוגגים את המחלוקות", אך יש המדייקים כי בפרקי אבות בוחרים דווקא את מחלוקת  הלל ושמאי כאבטיפוס למחלוקת לשם שמים ולא את תלמידיהם "בית הלל" ו"בית שמאי", ללמדנו שיצר לב האדם יכול להכניס מניעים כוחניים אל תוך מחלוקת שתחילתה מכוונת לבירור האמת, ואכן  לצד התמונה האידילית המתארת את היחסים החמים  ששררו בין שני בתי המדרש (בבלי יבמות יד ע"ב ):
"אע"פ שנחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל בצרות, ובאחיות, בגט ישן, ובספק אשת איש, ובמגרש את אשתו ולנה עמו בפונדק, בכסף ובשווה כסף, בפרוטה ובשווה פרוטה, לא נמנעו בית שמאי מלישא נשים מבית הלל, ולא בית הלל מבית שמאי, ללמדך, שחיבה וריעות נוהגים זה בזה, לקיים מה שנאמר: (זכריה ח') 'האמת והשלום אהבו'."
מספר לנו התלמוד הירושלמי (שבת א, ד) על הרוב שהשיגו תלמידי בית שמאי בכוח הזרוע:
ואלו מן ההלכות שאמרו בעליית חנניה בן חזקיה בן גרון שעלו לבקרו, ונמנו ורבו בית שמאי על בית הלל ושמנה עשר דברים גזרו בו ביום. (משנה שבת א, ד)
 מתניתין: אילו מהלכות שאמרו בעלית חנניה בן חזקיה בן גרון כשעלו לבקרו כו' -
אותו היום היה קשה לישראל כיום שנעשה בו העגל.
רבי ליעזר אומר: בו ביום גדשו את הסאה
רבי יהושע אומר בו ביום מחקו אותה.
 אמר לו ר' ליעזר: אילו היתה חסירה ומילאוה, יאות; (משל) לחבית שהיא מליאה אגוזין כל מה שאתה נותן לתוכה שומשמין היא מחזקת.
אמר לו ר' יהושע: אילו היתה מליאה וחיסרוה, יאות; לחבית שהיתה מליאה שמן, כל מה שאתה נותן לתוכה מים, היא מפזרת את השמן.
תנא רבי יהושע אונייא: תלמידי ב"ש עמדו להן מלמטה והיו הורגין בתלמידי בית הלל.
תני: ששה מהן עלו והשאר עמדו עליהן בחרבות וברמחים. (תלמוד ירושלמי שבת א,  ה"ד)

המשנה אינה מספרת לנו דבר על האופן בו השיג בית שמאי רוב שבעקבותיו גזרו מספר גזרות באותו יום לפי שיטתם. בתלמוד עצמו יש מחלוקת בין רבי אליעזר לרבי יהושע לגבי האופן בו יש להעריך גזרות אלו; האם יש בהם חיזוק או החלשה. אך ברור לגמרי שהמשפט הפותח את הסוגיה "אותו היום קשה היה לישראל כיום שנעשה בו העגל" שבוודאי מתייחס לאופן האלים בו הושג הרוב מביע מורת רוח משיתוק המחלוקת והויכוח בין בתי המדרש.
אמנם, במסכת סוטה (מז, ע"ב) , מובא מאמר שמקורו בתוספתא, הרואה את המחלוקת כתוצאה מחוסר הכשרה ראויה:
"משרבו תלמידי שמאי והילל שלא שימשו כל צורכן רבו מחלוקת בישראל ונעשית תורה כשתי תורות." אך יתכן שמאמר זה מגנה לא את עצם קיומה של מחלוקת, אלא אולי אפילו רומז לסיפור המסופר בירושלמי המתייחס לאופן בו הידרדרה המחלוקת לאלימות.
לעומת מאמר זה, קיים מאמר אחר מפורסם במסכת חגיגה (ג, ע"ב) בשבח המחלוקת:
ואף הוא (רבי אלעזר בן עזריה)  פתח ודרש: דברי חכמים כדרבונות וכמסמרות נטועים בעלי אסופות נתנו מרועה אחד ... בעלי אסופות - אלו תלמידי חכמים שיושבין אסופות אסופות ועוסקין בתורה, הללו מטמאין והללו מטהרין, הללו אוסרין והללו מתירין, הללו פוסלין והללו מכשירין, שמא יאמר אדם: 'היאך אני למד תורה מעתה'? תלמוד לומר: 'כולם נתנו מרועה אחד' - אל אחד נתנן, פרנס אחד אמרן, מפי אדון כל המעשים ברוך הוא, דכתיב: 'וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה' - אף אתה עשה אזניך כאפרכסת וקנה לך לב מבין לשמוע את דברי מטמאים ואת דברי מטהרים את דברי אוסרין ואת דברי מתירין את דברי פוסלין ואת דברי מכשירין.
אותו מפרש רבי יצחק מינקובסקי מקרלין (1787-1849) בפירושו (קרן אורה יבמות קכב, ע"ב) באופו הבא:
בעלי אסופות שיושבים אסופות אסופות כפל הדברים להורות על שתי האסופות האחת אסיפה גשמית והב' אסיפה רוחנית. כי יתאחדו בנפשם יחד לכוין הכל אל מקור אחד אל דרכי היחוד ותכלית הלימוד לשמה כנ"ל. וכאשר יושבים בכוונה זו והללו מטמאים והללו מטהרים, יתרבה היחוד והאהבה מכל הקצוות אם ישכון עליהם אור התורה נתגלה להם מצפוניו ויהיו כנטיעים מגודלים וזה הוא שאמר 'את והב בסופה' אהבה בסופה כי תכלית מחלוקת זו היא להוסיף אהבה ויחוד. ולזה מפרש ואומר: שמא יאמר אדם איך אני למד תורה מעתה כי בלי השכל אל דבר בתכלית המכוין נראה קצת כעין פירוד מחלוקת ואיך יתקיימו שניהם. ת"ל כולם ניתנו מרועה אחד אל אחד נתנן, פרנס אחד אמרן, מפי אדון כל המעשים ב"ה. יכוין לדברינו הנ"ל כי מקורן אחד הוא ואל אחד נתנן כו' מפי אדון כל המעשים ברוך הוא. וכמו שתכלית הבריאה גם שנבראה בקצתה מתנגדים. הלא הם נבראו להשיג יחודו ואחדותו ית"ש כי הוא אחד ושמו אחד, כן התורה השלימה ע"י התווכחות החכמים יתרבה אורה וישכילו אמיתתה כי תורה אחת שלימה ונאמנה היא. וזה שאמרו ז"ל (אבות פ"ה מי"ז) כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים סופה להתקיים כי תכליתה הוא תכלית הקיום והאחדות.
בפירוש זה, מכוונת המחלוקת, כאשר היא מתנהלת לשם שמים, לא רק לבירור האמת, אלא גם להשגת  אחדות אמיתית, וכדבריו הנפלאים של הראיה קוק בעולת ראי"ה (עמ' של) על "תלמידי חכמים מרבים שלום בעולם"
"יש טועים שחושבים, שהשלום העולמי לא ייבנה כי אם על-ידי צביון אחד בדעות ותכונות, ואם כן כשרואים תלמידי חכמים חוקרים בחכמה ודעת תורה, ועל-ידי המחקר מתרבים הצדדים והשיטות, חושבים שבזה הם גורמים למחלקות והֵפך השלום. ובאמת אינו כן, כי השלום האמיתי אי אפשר שיבוא לעולם כי-אם דווקא על-ידי הערך של ריבוי השלום. הריבּוי של השלום הוא, שיתראו כל הצדדים והשיטות, ויתבררו איך כולם יש להם מקום, כל אחד לפי ערכו, מקומו ועניינו."
בתחילת מסכת גיטין (ו, ע"ב) מספרת לנו הגמרא סיפור על  מפגש בין רבי אביתר לאליהו הנביא:
"ואשכחיה ר' אביתר לאליהו, אמר ליה: מאי קא עביד הקדוש ברוך הוא? א"ל: עסיק בפילגש בגבעה,(הוא עוסק בסוגיית "פילגש בגבעה)
 ומאי קאמר? אמר ליה: אביתר בני כך הוא אומר, יונתן בני כך הוא אומר.
אמר ליה (רבי אביתר לאליהו) : חס ושלום, ומי איכא ספיקא קמי שמיא? (האם יש ספק "בשמים"?)
אמר ליה (אליהו לרבי אביתר) : אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן."
ואולי מלמד אותנו דו-שיח זה בין רבי אביתר לאליהו, המייצג את השמים באמירה "אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן" המהדהדים עם הנאמר  במסכת עירובין על מחלוקות בית הלל ובית שמאי (ותודה לרב בני לאו שהסב את תשומת לבנו לקישור  הזה) שגם בשמים יש ייצוג למחלוקת, כלומר הראייה השמימית מכילה מורכבות ואז, יתכן שניתן להבין מחלוקת "לשם שמים" כמחלוקת המקרבת אותנו לראייה המורכבת והמכילה שקיימת "בשמים". מי יתן שנשכיל לקיים את המחלוקות החשובות והקשות ביותר מתוך כבוד הדדי, לשם בירור האמת, ועל ידי כך נצליח, ולו במידה מועטה, כלשון ר' מנחם מנדל מקוצק על מילות משורר תהילים "השמים שמים לה' והארץ נתן לבני אדם "  לעשות מהארץ "שמים".