What determines civil discourse in our conversations, our politics? Are we able to carry out calm and measured discussions? How do we define such discussions?
To respond to this challenge, it is helpful to go back to Jerusalem before the destruction of the Second Temple.
In the first century BCE (before the beginning of the first millennium), various religious strains of Judaism held court over political and religious thought, particularly through the presence and power of the Pharisees. The lessons learned from that period in our religious history can help us in our family debates, our debates with friends, and our discussions at work and in school.
The early rabbis played a role in a community which had very little peace. Members of Jewish factions hated members of other Jewish factions. Some of the key rabbinic institutions wanted to build a society where partisan hatred did not rule the roost. They believed in peace, and they believed in supporting secular governments — Roman, Jewish, and others — and not trying to run everything.
There are two stories from that time that reflect the hope and frustrations of the rabbis of that era.
- Yokhanan ben Zakkai, one of the greatest rabbis of the time, recognized that fighting Rome was probably a lost cause. In opposition to people on both sides of the divide, he felt that peace was an option. The emperor seemed to be asking Jews to put down their arms. Peace was an option that Yokhanan ben Zakkai argued should be embraced, but the Zealots considered peace on Rome’s terms an unacceptable option.
Yokhanan ben Zakkai recognized that he would not succeed in persuading the rebels to abandon the fight, and that this could also mean the end of Judaism and the Jewish people. It was this outcome that Yokhanan ben Zakkai had the prescience to thwart. He arranged to leave the besieged Jerusalem in a coffin and to request from General Vespasian the establishment of a beit midrash (House of Study) at Yavneh. If the Judaism of Jerusalem (i.e., Temple-based Judaism) was lost, then a next form of Judaism had to be firmly established: the fulfillment of mitzvot in the context of learning Torah. This could be pursued without the Temple, and, if necessary, outside of the Land. This is how Rabbinic Judaism was able to flourish.
Yokhanan was not the first to promote peaceful conversations in times of friction and hatred. There were two great schools in ancient Jerusalem in the first century BCE. One was the House of Shammai, and the other was the House of Hillel. They were both brilliant teachers whose followers guided Jewish religious decision-making for decades. These two schools disagreed frequently about points of Jewish law, but they constructed a path that enabled their society to live somewhat more in peace.
It is important to look at the Jewish teachings on civil discussion from these two schools during the period from 100 BCE to 80 C.E. The schools of Hillel and Shammai did not like each other. They were bitter rivals. Yet with all the distaste between the scholars and their schools, these scholars developed a code of conduct that enabled them to get along, to grow stronger and to build the Jewish people at a very difficult and fractious time in Jewish history. When there is a shared belief in a greater cause, two different sides can develop a set of rules that can steer the two sides to a healthy vibrant connection and to building a productive and positive society.
In fact, they developed many rules which they lived by, and it is those rules which enabled the Shammaites and the Hillelites to prosper together. I am going to discuss five of those rules. These five offer us a model for building a society in which great differences are overcome:
- Living in a sacred model of conflict.
- There is a multiplicity of truths.
- There is a way to treat your opposition that will help your side achieve greater success.
- Respectful disagreement may lead to greater wisdom.
- The Mitzvah of Rebuke or Tokhekhah.
A Sacred Model of Conflict defines the preeminent method of discourse in the Talmud. Mishnah Avot 5:19 uses the conflicts between the schools of Hillel and Shammai to explain the meaning of the idea. In this model, the Mishnah suggests that in an argument for the Sake of Heaven, one assumes the argument is being waged for the good of everyone, even if the arguers have vastly different opinions.
The presumption is that a controversy for the Sake of Heaven (for the good of the society) will have lasting value, but a controversy not for the sake of heaven (money, power or worse) will not endure. What is a controversy for the sake of heaven? Hillel vs. Shammai — when those men and their students argued — believed that it was for the holy community, for the sake of heaven. What is a controversy not for the sake of heaven? The rebellion of Korakh and his associates (Numbers 16) was an effort to take over the society.
The Schools of Hillel and Shammai maintained deep connections. Members of the House of Hillel and House of Shammai could marry each other, creating the future society together. If you are going to change something, to make something new happen, then you have to respect your opponent and come up with something that is honest, peaceful and able to be accepted.
There Are Multiple Truths. In the midst of earnest disagreement, the rabbis refused to make exclusive truth claims. In the classic example (Eruvin 13b), “The Bat Kol (‘Divine voice’) said: ‘These and these are the words of the living God.”
Every view has a dimension of truth. One view may be found to be closer to the actual truth than another at a given moment, and it may become halakhah, but even then we must preserve the other view just in case things change. And rabbinic authorities in different geographical locations can render contradictory opinions in recognition that differing circumstances can yield different conclusions.
How Should One Act in a Debate? The School of Hillel almost always won the debate. Why? According to the rabbis (Eruvin 13b), it was because the House of Hillel was gentle and humble. They taught both their own words and the words of the house of Shammai; they actually taught Shammai’s opinions before their own.
The following story is told in the Talmud (Shabbat 31a): A certain Gentile came before Shammai and said to him: “Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.” Shammai sent him away. When the proselyte went before Hillel with the same question, Hillel said to him, “What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary; go and learn it.”
Respectful Disagreement May Lead to Greater Wisdom. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, the first Ashkenazic chief rabbi of Mandatory Palestine (1919), taught: “A peace of many faces means that all sides and approaches are seen; and it becomes clear that there is a place for them all, each according to its worth, place, and its content.”
The Mitzvah of Rebuke/Tokhekhah. We read in Leviticus 19:17: “Do not hate your friends in your heart. You should surely rebuke them when they do wrong and not bear their sin.” This means we must learn to speak our minds when you differ with a scholar you respect. When you need to tell someone she or he is wrong, you should do it privately, gently and softly. If the person accepts the rebuke, that is good. But if the person does not, you should do it again, gently and softly. If the person tells you that they do not want you to continue rebuking them, stop.
My Personal Rules:
- How do we speak?
Do we tell the truth? Do we exaggerate, use hyperboles? Do we ridicule our opponents, take away their dignity and make civil discussion impossible? Are we gentle? Do we acknowledge both sides? Are we angry or condescending or patronizing?
- How do we listen?
Sometimes, it appears that people have drunk the Kool-Aid of their point of view and cannot hear the voices of those who oppose them. They shout them down. They interrupt them in the middle of a sentence. People sometimes actually justify those interruptions by saying it is part of Jewish culture. If so, some cultural rules need changing.
- Do we keep the tent large enough?
Do we make certain the opinions discussed cover a wide spectrum? That at least the views of Hillel and Shamai are being expressed? Are all the rational voices are on the stage?
- Tokhekhah/ When you rebuke people, and you must, put on your best clothes. First, can you find an ally of the person with whom you disagree to make the rebuke. In any event, when you rebuke, do it privately. Make sure that you don’t embarrass them. Do it more than once until they begin to take your suggestion or ask you to stop.
I believe deeply that you can only fully get to know someone when you look at them across a table or a one-on-one Zoom call, and learn about their lives, their pain, their dreams. When you do so, finding common ground becomes so much easier and more likely. As an organizer, the most important thing I do is to go to lunch — not to win an argument, but to know someone’s soul. If you do, you will learn so much. Bringing that person to your side may not even be the most important thing. Just go to lunch, and you will learn so many wonderful things you never imagined. You may even make a friend.
