Arguing in Park Slope

Tal Mashiach and Who's Around in their incredible concert last week at Kumah. Photo by Gili Getz

Dear friends,

The Park Slope Food Coop circus this week got me thinking about the Mishnah’s teaching in Pirkey Avot, Ethics of the Fathers: “Every argument which is for the sake of heaven is destined to endure. And that which is not for the sake of heaven, is destined not to endure.”  

How do you know if your dispute is for the sake of heaven or not? And how can we tell whether the intense debates this week around the Park Slope Food Coop’s vote to boycott Israeli products falls into that category or not? In other words, are we to treat this episode as a lot of noise over nothing, or as a real dispute of substance worthy of engaging in? 

The answer hinges upon what is meant by an argument “for the sake of heaven.” The Mishnah explains: “Which is the argument that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the argument of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the argument that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the argument of Korach and all his congregation.” 

Korach is the great story of rebellion against Moses in the desert. The rabbinic understanding of his actions is that the rebels were motivated by ego and personal desire. When he confronts the leadership, Korach accuses Moses and Aaron of “raising themselves above the community of God.” The rabbis see this as a direct attack on Moses and Aaron, instead of a challenge to the system meant to improve society. That is the measure of an argument that is destined not to endure. And indeed the Torah gives a clear indication that one side was right in this case, and the other was wrong. Moses and Aaron keep leading, while Korach and his followers are swallowed by the earth in an unnatural act of God. 

Hillel and Shammai were the two great rabbis of the first century BC. To oversimplify, Hillel was a liberal, Shammai a conservative. The Talmud records many of their arguments, and usually ends up falling in Hillel’s camp, but not before citing both sides. These many debates are a great example of the Book of Proverbs’ axiom: “Iron sharpens iron.” Two solid minds, each perfect within their own context come against each other in such a way that elevates both, and forces the other to dig deeper into truth. Often what is revealed is that there are two truths. 

Was this week Korach or Hillel and Shammai?  

Let us consult with the 18th century German rabbi Jonathan Ivshitz. According to him you know if it’s an argument for the sake of heaven if both opposing groups: 

הם אוהבים גמורים בלב ונפש זהו אות שמחלוקתם לשם שמים אבל אם הם אויבים ונוטרים שנאה זה לזה ע”ימחלוקת. זהו שלא לשם שמים ויתייצב השטן בתוכם. 

“love each other totally in heart and soul. But it they are enemies and hold on to hatred towards each other, then they are arguing not for the sake of heaven, and the devil will appear in their midst.” 

Another major Ashkenazi 19th century rabbi, the Chatam Sofer, builds on Ivshitz. He teaches that the purpose of the argument is to "not to convince the other,” but to find the truth. Whoever can “truly listen to the other with openness and humility,” as the rabbi put it, is more likely to find the truth. Or at least to accept that there may be competing truths at play. 

For most of us, accepting that there are more truths than what we believe to be true is difficult. In the case of the Coop, many Jews see too many expressions of personal animosity or veiled hatred to take the refusal to purchase Israeli products as a rejection of a state and its actions, and instead see the issue as a contemporary expression of the ancient racist hate against us. And others see the refusal to boycott Israel not as a stand for equality, or any idea per se, but simply as a blind, selfish attempt to protect a racist government, and the false idea of a democratic Jewish state.  

We have seen enough expressions of personal animosity at this stage to know that the devil is present in this argument. But there are real arguments on both sides as well. Whether the question of boycotting Israel or not is “destined to endure” forever or not I can't say. But it’s very likely going to be part of our landscape for the duration of our lives, or at least the foreseeable future. So let all of us summon our most honest, humble and open listening capacities, our strongest and sharpest arguing skills, and see if we can keep our egos and opinions secondary to our quest for truth and goodness. And may that guide us to dig deeper into the place where competing truths intersect.  

Next Friday we will hold our final Kabbalat Shabbat of the school year at First Pres. I hope you will join us there to summarize the year and discuss some of these questions further. And if you'd like to discuss the troubling episode of this vote and its aftermath with me, please reach out. I'd be happy to hear what you think and share where I stand.

Shabbat shalom,

Rabbi Misha