From the Nov./Dec. 2008 Bulletin
The late comedian George Karlin, was masterful at turning a phrase. Among his many linguistic talents was an uncanny ability to identify commonly accepted ideas and prove them to be oxymorons. A couple of his most famous word-pairs were military intelligence and jumbo shrimp (kosher, of course). The phrase friendly adversaries may appear to qualify as one of these, but the coveted notion is an ancient and celebrated Jewish concept! It harkens back more than two millennia when Hillel and Shammai, would argue fine points of law, draw opposing conclusions, and yet remain the best of friends! In fact the Talmud records over 300 differences of opinion between Beit Hillel (the House of Hillel) and Beit Shammai (the House of Shammai).
One of the most famous debates between their respective academies was on the lighting of the Hanukkah Menorah. The debate, or machloket, goes as follows: Shammai proposed that we should begin with the maximum eight lights, decreasing daily like the dwindling oil in the temple. According to Hillel however, we should kindle the first light and increase to the maximum eight to achieve the brightness and spiritual potency of a fully lit menorah. Each scholar’s view was supported by a biblical principle or a strong logical argument. So how was the decision made and what practice established?
The Talmudic Sages believed that both views were valid and generally described Shammai's analyses as both sharper and deeper than those of Hillel. The menorah dispute was nevertheless resolved in Hillel’s favor and the custom of starting with one light and building to eight is practiced to this very day. A principle established by the ruling also stated that in matters of holiness, one always increases.
Hillel was far more liberal that Shammai. He erred on the side of the individual and making Judaism more accessible to potential converts. He was known for his kindness, gentleness and concern for humanity. Hillel’s life began in such great poverty that he could not afford to study Torah and because of him the fee for studying Torah was forever abolished.
In later life, he was chosen by the Sanhedrin, the supreme rabbinic court, to serve as its president. His name was chosen for the organization that supports Jewish students on college campuses. Hillel’s most famous saying, recorded in Pirkei Avot, Ethics of the Sages is, "If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, then what am I? And if not now, when?"
To this day Jewish law almost always agrees with the school of Hillel. Why? The Talmud (Eruvin 13b) explains that…“the words of both schools are the words of the living God—elu v’eilu divrei Elohim Chayim,” but the law follows the rulings of the school of Hillel largely because he studied the views and opinions of others and humbly quoted their words before their own. The sages tell us that in their disputes Hillel and Shammai were arguing for the sake of heaven, that is to achieve the highest good and therefore both their viewpoints will live forever.
Does this then mean that there are two standards of truth? As in the case of quantum physics, from the viewpoint of Jewish mysticism, everything is about perspective. In an imperfect like the one in which we live, we err on the side of Hillel’s pragmatism, but in the messianic era, after humanity has achieved a more enlightened state, we will revert to the practices established through Shammai's astute insights.
Two Jews, three opinions! It’s inbred in us like the instinct of Jewish New Yorkers to migrate south to Miami. Our challenge is to live with others in a community where so many opinions differ from our own. Even when decision-making has practical consequences, the most important thing is to preserve the integrity of the community. “Do not separate yourself from the community,” is an essential dictum of the Sages. And in this matter Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai set the example. Regardless of where they stood on issues, they refused to become arch rivals like the Hatfield’s and McCoys and always permitted their children to marry each another.
Another key rabbinic principle states that, “God dwells in the space between two who are studying Torah.” Even when we disagee, we are called to see the spark of divinity in our opponent. The word hevruta or study-buddy is derived from the word haver or friend and implies that debate and discussion is not about winning or losing, rather it is about discovery and learning. To approach another with inquisitiveness rather than defiance requires that we allow ourselves to be influenced by their worldview. In the words of a wise counselor, it is to shift our attitude from “no” to “know.” And as a rabbinic colleague of mine recently suggested, “humility is not to cower and confess that I am a nobody, but to simply allow you to be a somebody.” We do so when we, as advised by author Steven Covey, “seek first to understand, then to be understood.”
Knowing and appreciating others increases our ability to live fully in this world and strengthens our bonds of connection. By conducting ourselves with honorable intentions and giving our fellow the benefit of the doubt, we model kvod habriot, respect for God’s creatures. Hillel and Shammai’s successful relationship as friendly adversaries teaches us the value of considering a range of perspectives, appreciating the other side of the argument, and learning and preserving minority views. Most importantly, they demonstrate that we do not have to agree with one another to enjoy the benefits of a rich and caring community.
By Rabbi Rosalind Glazer