For Heaven’s Sake!
Parashat Pinchas 5771
In a famous Monty Python sketch, a man goes to an expert to learn how to argue. But instead of arguing, the so-called expert simply disagrees with everything the man says. At one point the man exclaims, “You’re not arguing, you’re just contradicting me”… to which the expert replies, “no I’m not.” The man seeking help protests, “An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.” And, of course, the expert replies, “no it isn’t.”
I think we’ve become accustomed to this kind of argumentation in our society. It seems like people are more interested in winning than seeking after truth. We’ve also been conditioned to believe there are two sides to every argument and they are of equal weight.
The 2nd century collection of rabbinic law and wisdom known as the the Mishna famously states in chapter 5 of pirkei avot, “כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים סופה להתקיים… ” “Any disagreement which is for the sake of Heaven will in the end yield results; And any [dispute] which is not for the sake of Heaven will in the end not yield results. What is a dispute for the sake of Heaven?” The Mishna answers, “this is the sort of dispute that existed between Hillel and Shammai. And what is one which is not for the sake of Heaven? It is the dispute of Korach and his gang.”[1]
You’ll remember that a few weeks ago we read about a rebellion staged by Korach against the leadership of Moses and Aaron. Korach was hungry for power and challenged Moses’ authority. By contrast, what is a dispute for the sake of Heaven? What does Pirkei Avot mean when it invokes the arguments of Hillel and Shammai? You’ll recall that Hillel and Shammai were the preeminent sages of the 1st Century BCE. Their teachings formed the basis of what would later become rabbinic Judaism. It is told of them in the Talmud (BT Eruvin 13b) that there was a protracted dispute between the school of Shammai and the School of Hillel, each asserting that the law was in agreement with their view. They argued in this way for three years until a Heavenly Voice came forward and declared, “אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן” “…both of these opinions are the words of the Living God, but the law is according to the ruling of the School of Hillel.” How is it possible that both are the words of the Living God – that both can be valid – but that the law takes the side of one of them? The Talmud explains, “what was it that entitled the school of Hillel to have the law fixed in agreement with their rulings? Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own ruling and those of the school of Shammai, and they were even so humble as to mention the opinions of the school of Shammai before theirs.”
What makes an argument “le’shem shamayim” – for the sake of heaven – is that each side tries to understand the other and sincerely seeks after truth. That is why in Judaism, it is possible to have multiple opinions that simultaneously can be valid even when they are contradictory. If both sides are aiming for truth and are willing to hear the other side, that’s a dispute for the sake of heaven. The interesting thing is that the law accords with Hillel because Hillel’s students are the most humble. They are willing not only to look at the other side but to validate it publicly. They win not because they have the absolute truth or because they have more clever arguments, but because they are more flexible.[2]
In this weeks’ Torah portion, God tells Moses that, because of his mistakes as a leader, he will die without entering the Promised Land. Confronted with the finality of his life and his years of leading the Jewish people, Moses does not object nor does he react with self-pity. Instead, Moses’ only concern is for his people. He says to God, “Let Adonai, God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint someone over the community who [can lead them] so that they are not like sheep without a shepherd” (Num. 27:16). The phrase Moses uses is unusual… he calls God “אֱלֹהֵי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל בָּשָׂר” “The God of the spirits of all flesh.” The use of the plural is strange. Midrash Tanhuma (an 5th century collection of rabbinic interpretation on the Torah) explains that Moses used the phrase as though to say, “Master of the Universe, You know the opinions of everyone, and that there are no two among Your children who are alike. I beg of You that after I die, when You appoint a leader for them, appoint one who will tolerate each one of them for their own opinion.”[3] The God of the spirits of all living things is the God who understands each individual and values the unique spirit in each person. Likewise, a good leader values multiple opinions and tolerates differences. A good leader is willing to see the worth of even a contradictory position.
After 40 years leading the people, Moses is only concerned for the wellbeing of his people. He isn’t concerned about his prestige, nor is he concerned with power. He could have asked that the leadership pass to his sons, but Moses wants what is best for the people. So why does God choose Joshua? We might have expected Pinchas to be the new leader. Remember, our parsha opened with the reward given to Pinchas for his act of zealotry. He was aflame with passion for God. You might expect that zealous passion for God and the Law would qualify him to lead the people. But zealots don’t have that quality of tolerance and flexibility of which Moses spoke.
In our Parsha God tells Moses to select Joshua to be the next leader. Why? God describes Joshua as “אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר רוּחַ בּוֹ” – Joshau is a man who has a ruach in him, he has spirit in him (Num. 27:18). Moses describes God as “Elohei ha ruchot” the God of spirits and Joshua is a man of spirit. So what makes someone a good leader? One thing is that they can tolerate multiple opinions. A leader like Joshua values the intrinsic worth of every person. What makes an argument a dispute for the sake of heaven? The willingness of the two sides to recognize the validity of the other position.
Unfortunately, those qualities are not always evident in our society. How often in an argument with a friend, with a spouse, with a coworker do we really listen and even say, “You know, you have a good point, let me think about it”? It depends on what your aim is. If your aim is to win and gain the upper hand, you just hold to your position even when you’re wrong in the hopes you’ll wear down your opponent. But if your aim is to learn and come to a resolution, then you listen and even perhaps concede to the good points your opponent makes. Good leaders like Joshua can tolerate opposing opinions and even – dare I say – compromise.
What’s interesting about the disputes between Hillel and Shammai is that the Talmud doesn’t say Shammai is wrong. He doesn’t lose because he has the weaker arguments or because he’s bad. He loses because he’s inflexible. Hillel wins the argument because he’s willing to be more conciliatory to Shammai.
Don’t get me wrong, I firmly believe in seeking truth and standing for something. Being right matters. Not all arguments are equally valid. Facts matter. Truth matters too. But so does process. So next time you’re in an argument with someone or the next time you’re listening to others argue and trying to make up your mind, think of Hillel who studied the positions of his opponent; remember Moses who’s greatest concern was for the wellbeing of his people; keep in mind the image of Joshua who could tolerate the opinions of others. And may all of our arguments be not for the sake of winning or beating up our opponents. May our arguments be for a higher purpose and for a greater good. Those are arguments l’shem shamayim – those are arguments for the sake of Heaven.
Shabbat Shalom.
[1] Pirkei Avot 5:17
כל מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים סופה להתקיים ושאינה לשם שמים אין סופה להתקיים איזו היא מחלוקת שהיא לשם שמים זו מחלוקת הלל ושמאי ושאינה לשם שמים זו מחלוקת קרח וכל עדתו:
[2] See also BT Shabbat 30b.
[3] Tanhuma (Buber) Parashat Pinchas: 10. See also Rashi. Compare also to commentaries on Num. 16:22 where this unusual phrase also appears.
מדרש תנחומא (ורשא) פרשת פינחס סימן י
י) ילמדנו רבינו הרואה בני אדם משונין כיצד מברך, כך שנו רבותינו הרואה את הכושי ואת הלוקין ואת הקיפח, ואת הבהקנין ואת דרניקוס, אומר ברוך משנה הבריות, והרואה את הקיטע ואת הסומא ואת מוכה שחין אומר ברוך דיין האמת אימתי בשעה שהיו שלמין ונשתנו אבל אם היו כן ממעי אמן אומר ברוך משנה בריותיו, והרואה בריאות טובות ואילנות טובות אומר ברוך שככה לו בעולמו אבל אם ראה אוכלסין הרבה של בני אדם אומר ברוך חכם הרזים, כשם שאין פרצופותיהם שוין זה לזה כך אין דעתם שוין זה לזה, אלא כל אחד ואחד יש לו דעת בפני עצמו וכן אומר (איוב כח) לעשות לרוח משקל ומים תכן במדה, כל בריה ובריה יש לו דעת בפני עצמו תדע לך שהוא כן, משה מבקש מן הקב”ה בשעת מיתתו ואומר לפניו רבש”ע גלוי וידוע לפניך דעתם של כל אחד ואחד ואין בשל בניך דומה זה לזה, כשאני מסתלק מהן בבקשה ממך אם בקשת למנות עליהם מנהיג מנה עליהם אדם שיהא סובל לכל אחד ואחד לפי דעתו מנין ממה שקראו בענין שנא’ יפקוד ה’ אלהי הרוחות לכל בשר וגו
Test comment
This is a masterful sermon. I’ve sent a link to it to my kids, some of my grandchildren and a few friends. They’ll recognize it as something I’ve been preaching about since they’ve known me, but I’ve never been able to back it up with the sources that the rabbi cites. It’s obvious how this applies to the political situations today in both the U.S. (the Tea Party) and in Israel (the current antidemocratic legislation pending in the Knesset). While those I disaagree with here ultimately may have some valid points to make (but their intolerance of other points of view makes it difficult to engage with them), we don’t really have to waste our time listening to, say, the Ku Klux Klan because what they have to say is patently not “for the sake of Heaven.”