Constructive Conflict

Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korach and all his congregation.

Disputes are ubiquitous in rabbinic literature. Every page of Midrash and Talmud is filled with debates amongst colleagues and imagined arguments between sages living in different generations. Sometimes the arguments are resolved through debate, sometimes through consensus, and sometimes they are left unresolved.  

Rabbi Dr. Richard Hidary explains in his Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash why argumentation is constitutive of rabbinic texts.  The rabbis, he writes,  

recognize the inevitability of multiple interpretations and subjectivity of human reason. But rather than give up on the possibility of truth, and rather than relegate truth to heavenly forms and deny a place for persuasive speech, the rabbis take a brilliant third path. They teach that all possible legal outcomes and all of the ways of reasoning towards them are themselves parts of the Sinaitic revelation and contain truth. The thematization of polysemic revelation attested to across various works of rabbinic literature proves how fundamental it is to the rabbinic worldview… (p. 286).

Framed as such, argumentation is an essential and holy method of discussing and understanding the word and will of God.  

Yet, this constructive aspect of disagreements is countered by the oft-experienced destructive conflicts. These ruin relationships, lead to animosity, and can leave devastation in their wake. This Mishna distinguishes between these two paradigms. Like the previous Mishna regarding two archetypes of love, this one too provides broad categories, and it is up to the commentaries to fill in the gaps.

The Mishna distinguishes between arguments for the sake of Heaven and those that are not for the sake of Heaven. The former will “endure,” while the latter will not. The former is represented with a model of the disputes between Hillel and Shammai, the latter with Korach and his followers. What is the difference between arguments for the sake of Heaven and those not for the sake of Heaven?

Rabbi Menachem Meiri distinguishes as follows:

The argument between Hillel and Shammai: In their debates, one of them would render a decision and the other would argue against it, out of a desire to discover the truth, not out of cantankerousness or a wish to prevail over his fellow. An argument not for the sake of Heaven was that of Korach and his company, for they came to undermine Moses, our master, may he rest in peace, and his position, out of envy and contentiousness and ambition for victory.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks dedicated one of his earliest books, Arguments for the Sake of Heaven: Emerging Trends in Traditional Judaism, to this topic. He revisited the theme in his last book Morality: Restoring the Common Good in Divided Times. Quoting Meiri, he distinguishes between arguments for the sake of truth versus those for the sake of victory.

In argument for the sake of truth, if you win, you win, but if you lose, you also win, because being defeated by the truth is the only defeat that is also a victory…  In an argument for the sake of victory, if you lose, you lose, but if you win, you also lose, for by diminishing your opponents, you diminish yourself” (pp. 191-192).

The distinction between the two types of arguments is not necessarily about the content, but in the process of dispute, as well as the underlying motivation.  In his Covenant & Conversations essay on Parshat Korach, Rabbi Sacks elaborates on the process of how one argues:

In an argument for the sake of truth, both sides win, for each is willing to listen to the views of its opponents, and is thereby enlarged. In argument as the collaborative pursuit of truth, the participants use reason, logic, shared texts, and shared reverence for texts. They do not use ad hominem arguments, abuse, contempt, or disingenuous appeals to emotion. Each is willing, if refuted, to say, “I was wrong.” There is no triumphalism in victory, no anger or anguish in defeat

Arguments for the sake of Heaven are conducted with moral and intellectual virtues. These types of arguments are necessary and constructive for a healthy system of law, religion, and interpersonal relationships.

In analyzing the differences between the Jewish approach to constructive and destructive conflict to those in the contemporary conflict resolution literature, Rabbi Dr. Howard Kaminsky in his Fundamentals of Jewish Conflict Resolution: Traditional Jewish Perspective on Resolving Interpersonal Conflicts identifies two main distinctions. While there is consensus and overlap in terms of the importance of intellectual and moral virtues within the process of debate, the modern conflict resolution literature does not focus on pursuit of truth, nor does it concern itself with the internal motivations of the debaters. The Jewish sages throughout the ages are concerned with pursuing truth and are also interested not just with how one acts, but with the development of virtuous intentions and motivations.

It is to this latter point that the Jewish ethicists, sensitive to the potential personal biases, caution that even when we are convinced that our particular argument is for the sake of Heaven, to be suspicious of our own motivations before engaging in a dispute. With the right rationalization, any petty personal argument can be justified as being for the greater good. Introspection, along with consultation with mentors and peers, can prevent us from falling into the pits of unnecessary and unjustified argumentations. However, as held up as a model in this Mishna, a collaborative argument for the sake of pursuing truth and goodness, done with intellectual rigor and infused with proper character, can yield invaluable results.