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”.
