The current dispute over the government’s proposed “judicial reform” in the last few months is reminiscent of our people’s past. The Jewish world is filled with disagreements, and we can learn how to settle them by looking to our forefathers.
During the time of the Mishna, when the Second Temple once stood, two main streams of Jews consistently held differing viewpoints. These streams were known as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai generally adopted a more stringent and rigid approach, while Beit Hillel, in contrast, demonstrated a comparatively more compassionate and rational stance on nearly every matter.
Disputes among people and Jewish teachings
In Hebrew, two distinct phrases are used to describe disputes among people: “vikuah” and “mahloket.” The term “vikuah” derives from the Hebrew word meaning power, “koah.” In this type of dispute, the opposing sides strive to conquer, defeat and overpower each other. In contrast, “mahloket” stems from the concept of “helek,” of being a part of something. It signifies that the two conflicting opinions are integral parts of the same whole, akin to different facets of the single house, or two sides of the same coin.
Within the realm of “mahloket,” lies the belief that when divergent opinions converge, they engage in a contestation that has the potential for adjustment. The ultimate goal is to ensure that the best and most accurate opinion prevails, incorporating elements from the opposing side. This pursuit of a middle ground that is equitable and persuasive to the majority is deeply rooted in the essence of “mahloket.”
In comparison to “vikuah,” which arises from worldly passions that undermine genuine debate and discussion, “mahloket” emerges from a space of valuing one’s neighbor, fostering dialogue, promoting brotherhood and seeking the higher purpose of enlightenment: “le’shem shamayim.”
Both Shammai and Hillel posed a deep understanding of ethics, and the human’s soul and Jewish philosophy and law. Their struggle was not personal, but only in order to detect what way is the right path.
“Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven’s name, it is destined to endure. But if it is not for [the sake of] heaven’s name – it is not destined to endure. What is [an example of an argument] for [the sake of] heaven’s name?
The argument of Hillel and Shammai. What is [an example of an argument] not for [the sake of] heaven’s name? The argument of Korah and all of his congregation” – Mishna, Pirkei Avot 5:13.
After generations of disagreements, a resolution was reached: both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel were recognized as “the words of God.” Yet most of the Halacha of the Jewish law would be determined in accordance with Beit Hillel’s rulings.
The rationale behind this decision stems from Beit Shammai’s unwavering certainty in the righteousness of their own path. Their unwavering focus on their own position rendered them incapable of perceiving alternative and opposing perspectives.
In contrast, Beit Hillel consistently demonstrated a willingness to consider various viewpoints, including those of Beit Shammai. They remained open-minded, incorporating opposing perspectives into their deliberations and sometimes even revising their own stances as a result.
Beit Hillel’s thoughtful consideration of Beit Shammai’s opinions not only facilitated fruitful discussions but also accommodated both perspectives. This approach earned Beit Hillel widespread recognition and established their lasting prominence in the realm of Halacha. Even two millennia after the initial controversy, the Mishna and subsequent developments bear the imprint of Beit Hillel’s influence.
Applying Jewish learning to the judicial reform argument
In recent months, a dispute has arisen in Israel regarding the “legal reform” and the transfer of governance authority from the Supreme Court. Some argue that this would be an integral part of Israel’s democratic system that it is currently missing, while others claim it is something of a dangerous slope that undermines the separation of power and the authority of the judicial institution to offer future criticism over the political parties forming coalitions and governments.
Regardless of whether it is considered democratic behavior or not, engaging in a predatory debate within the Knesset as we have seen in the past few months raises grave concerns.
Such a debate tends to disregard and marginalize the significant opposition coming from nearly half of the population who lack governmental power (holding only parliamentary influence, which is relatively weak in the Israeli system).
This is the way to create a “vikuah,” against the Mishna’s way.
It is not Jewish behavior.
The writer volunteered for the IDF to serve as a combat soldier. Since his release he volunteered and worked in many civil NGOs and organizations and currently is studying in the Hebrew University simultaneously for both a Masters in law and for a Bachelor in law & economics.