Author’s note: I wrote this before the recent SCOTUS activity allowing open carry in NY and overturning Roe v Wade. These two issues get at my fundamental values about the sanctity of life, personal autonomy, religious freedom and feminism. It makes this topic even more personal to me than before. I’ve decided to let the piece stand and then add a few thoughts at the end.
When I start to feel frustrated about the state of the things in our country today, with how entrenched people can be in their sides and how little people seem to actually be open to new ideas or to changing their minds, I think about Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia, z”l. They often took opposite positions on issues and disagreed vehemently, yet, sources have confirmed that the pair were actually friends who enjoyed spending time together.
A comic opera called Scalia/Ginsburg was written about their unlikely friendship in 2015 by Derrick Wang. When Scalia died, Ginsburg made a public statement and included the following: “From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the “applesauce” and “argle bargle”—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. “Ginsburg recognized that Scalia’s challenges helped her sharpen her opinions and to me, they are a wonderful modern example of a concept called: mahloket l’shem shamayim, disagreement for the purpose of heaven (MLSS) .
Mishnah Avot 5:17 explains that “any disagreement (mahloket) for the sake of Heaven (l’shem shamayim) is destined to endure and one that is not…, will not continue to exist. What is a disagreement that is for the sake of Heaven? This is the disagreement between Hillel and Shammai. And one that is not? This is the disagreement of Korah and his group.” Hillel and Shammai are two famous rabbis from ancient times who disagreed often and yet they are lauded as a pair who knew how to do so constructively. So, how do we understand the traits of a worthy disagreement, that will be considered MLSS, and even more importantly, how can we learn from their example?
Our tradition offers several depictions of how Hillel and Shammai were able to not only argue productively but were also able to rise above their differences and interact in the world as human beings. (I hope to write about these textual examples in a longer piece because the lessons we can draw from them are quite profound.) Maybe they were not buddies, like Ginsburg and Scalia, but they were able to see beyond the argument itself to the person on the other side. The medieval French commentator, The Meiri, comments that in the case of Hillel and Shammai, “one would rule on a matter and the other would disagree in order to understand the truth….” Which differs from the dispute Korah brought against the leadership of Moses and Aaron “ for they came to complain…out of jealousy and provocation and a desire to win.”
I’m sure we all know people like Korah, who seem to only want to engage in order to get you to see their view, essentially, to win. Maybe we recognize that quality in ourselves, that drive to bring everyone over to our way of thinking. But just as we try to teach our kids to be good listeners, perhaps this is something we can model for them and to utilize the MLSS model.
Here are some basic strategies to keep in mind that come from the Mahloket Matters curriculum from Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem:
1. Listen and be open to admitting that you could be wrong.
2. Check your motivation. Why is this so important? What is this argument really about for us?
3. Debate the issues without attacking the people. Place the relationship at the forefront.
4. Consider that you both might be right.
I bless us that as we encounter disagreement with those in our lives, even about things that lie at the core of who we are, that we work to be more like Hillel and Shammai, and Ginsburg and Scalia and that relationship is paramount. Even if we see the world in very seemingly opposite ways, may we always look for the common ground and commit ourselves to speaking to each other with respect with an aim for a greater purpose beyond simply ‘winning’.
*This summer, I am participating in the Mahloket Matters fellowship through Pardes and the Rabbinical Assembly. This reflection will also appear in the Scroll publication of B’nai Israel Congregation in the June/July issue.
Additional notes: Now that I find myself overcome with emotion on a regular basis at what I feel are deep injustices and failings of our highest court, it brings me back to Scalia and Ginsburg. Could there ever be an issue where their disagreeing views would create a rift in their personal relationship? Could they swing too far to one extreme or another? As judges, they are faithful to the law and to the Constitution rather than political parties, but I am losing faith in that today.
As my fellowship continues and I keep learning more and starting to practice these strategies, I’m wondering about how effective they are in real life. For instance, if I encountered the governor of Mississippi, could we have a real and reasonable conversation about abortion? Could I talk to the NRA about assault rifles? Would they actually be able to engage with me?
If you have experienced or witnessed people finding common ground across deep divides, would you please share it here? I, for one, would certainly love to be inspired and to continue to hope that it is possible. Thank you!
Thank you for these thoughts! Your NRA question reminded me that sometime last year, I engaged with a Facebook friend with whom I disagree on almost everything and was pleasantly surprised to realize that the NRA did not reflect this individual's views about gun rights--she was much more willing than the NRA to agree with me on what I consider common-sense protections related to guns. I'll add that this individual--and almost everyone in my orbit with whom I disagree this strongly on this many topics--are friends from my AmeriCorps year in Appalachian western MD. Given how many politicians were trying to disband this program when I participated in the 1990s, it's kind of astonishing that it still exists; I think expanding (dare I suggest mandating) national service may be one solution toward fostering constructive disagreement.