You have heard me say that my father’s definition of a Jew is someone who questions, thinks and argues. Yes, argues. We’re good at it. Over everything. Even here. He was so proud of Judaism commitment to education, to scholarship, to being part of the People of the Book. As a scientist who prided himself on using the scientific method, a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. He felt that it was like how the rabbis argued in the Talmud, and he loved that the Talmud preserves the debate.
Why are we talking about this today?
This week we mark the yahrzeits of both Myra Becker and Saul Mariaias. Saul was my bimah partner and as I told our Torah Study group this week, while he faithfully read haftarah every week, he hated reading Hebrew poetry. He served in the militaries of four countries: Argentina, Israel, US and in the Norwegian merchant marine. He was conservative to his core. Myra was what I would call a social justice warrior. Her last week, she spent lobbying for children not being separated from their families at the border. They did not agree on politics, yet they were the best of friends. They died about two hours apart. I teach today in my father’s name and Myra and Saul.
Last night we looked at a little piece of our larger portion, the story of the daughters of Zelophehad, Mahlah, Noah, Hogath, Milcah and Tirzah. Just 11 verses. They thought it wasn’t fair that since they had no brothers that when their father died they did not inherit their father’s property and his name would die out. They brought their case to Moses who brought their case to G-d who said, “The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just. You should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them.”
That is a change, a big change ordered by G-d Himself, in how the people lived out Torah.
But wait, there is more. In our portion, which we read parts of as maftirs in other holidays throughout the year, we learn how to do offerings on Sukkot. It is hard to see the relevance in our post sacrificial Judaism. But here it is. On each day we offer one less bull. On the first day 13, on the second 12, on the third 11, etc. I am still not planning to do this on the synagogue parking lot or even praying to return to this on the Temple Mount. Yet, there is an argument in the Talmud that you may have even heard before. Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai are discussing how to light Chanukah lights. Rabbi Shammai says that you should like 8 on the first night, 7 on the second, 6 on the third etc., citing today’s very discussion of how to observe Sukkot. Hillel said that we should light one more each night. As you already recognize, the decision went to Hillel, because we should increase our light, increase our joy. Yet, if you are a member of a Reconstructing Judaism, you may light your candles according to Shammai, recognizing his minority opinion and today’s portion.
The Talmud itself outlines 13 principles of how to disagree, how to argue about the text. Those rules help us understand the Torah better. Compiled by Rabbi Ishmael they are used to derive halacha, (Jewish law) from the biblical text. Biblical mitzvot are considered more important than rabbinical ones. Yet, these principles are not just technical rules; they reflect a sophisticated understanding of language, logic, and the nature of divine revelation. The arguments are often quite elegant and sometime grammatical. And to be honest, after eight classes of Talmud they are still not clear to me.
While we are not going to discuss each of the 13 today, I have included them at the end for reference. These principles are not rigid rules but rather guidelines that provide a framework for interpreting the Torah and deriving halakha. They are used in conjunction with other methods of interpretation and are essential to understanding the complexities of Jewish law. And they teach us how to argue, even across the generations.
How we disagree in the Talmud has much to teach us in this moment. First, it is OK to disagree. Second, it is important to preserve the minority opinion. Third, we must do it with civility, politeness, reason. And it must be constructive. Argument for the sake of heaven, not just to be disagreeable, not just to argue. And if not for heaven, it must make the world a better place! Recently, we read about Korach, who challenged Moses’ authority. It did not go well for him. In the daughters of Zelophehad, we learn that he was not one of Korach’s faction.
Sometimes when I am called to do an invocation at a board meeting or the Statehouse, I like to use the words of a prayerbook from Great Britain that talks about Korach, Hillel and Shammai:
“Let us come together in G-d’s name and prepare ourselves to do His will. May his presence dwell among us, drawing us to serve Him and His creatures with justice and with love. Let us listen to each other with respect, and treat each other with wisdom and generosity, so that we witness to the master whom we serve and justify His choice of us. May none of our controversies rise up like those of Korach, from ambition and self-seeking. Let them only be for the sake of heaven, like those of Hillel and Shammai. May our eyes be open to see His greatness in the smallest things we do. Through our faithfulness may the cause of goodness prosper in the world.”
(Page 296, Forms of Prayer for Jewish Worship, Seventh Edition, 1977, The Reform Synagogues of Great Britain)
Some of you don’t like any controversy, especially in what is known as synagogue politics. Yet, politics exist all over including the Bible. When we look at the Holiness Code, Chapter 19 of Leviticus, it teaches us to “Love our neighbor as ourselves.” But it also teaches to feed the widow, the orphan, the stranger, to not stand by while your neighbor bleeds, to have just weights and measures, to not withhold the wages of a laborer overnight. Each of those instructs how to set up a civil society. Each of those is political.
Some of you have brought to my attention a new book, Beyond Dispute, Rediscovering the Jewish Art of Constructive Disagreement. I can’t wait to delve into it more deeply. My hope is that we use our Jewish tradition, our Jewish values, to argue for the sake of heaven and to make the world or at least this little corner of it a better place.
Here’s a breakdown of the thirteen principles:
- Kal V’Chomer (Light and Heavy):
An argument from the lesser to the greater or vice versa. If a less significant case has a certain rule, then a more significant case must also have that rule, and possibly more so.
- Gezeirah Shava (Equivalence of Terms):
If two verses use the same unusual or unique term, then the laws or interpretations associated with one verse can be applied to the other.
- Binyan Av Mikotuv Echad (Building a Principle from One Text):
A general principle derived from a single biblical text can be applied to similar cases.
- Binyan Av Mishnei Ketuvim (Building a Principle from Two Texts):
A general principle derived from two or more biblical texts can be applied to similar cases.
- Kelal U’Ferat U’Kelal (General, Specific, General):
A general statement followed by a specific example, and then another general statement, is interpreted to mean that the general rules apply only to things similar to the specific example.
- K’lal She’na’mar Bo Perat (General Specified in a Specific):
When a general statement is followed by a specific example, the specific example limits the application of the general rule.
- K’lal She’na’mar Bo Perat u’Mekushar Le’inyano (General Specified in a Specific and Related to its Context):
When a general statement is followed by a specific example, and that example is related to the context, the specific example limits the application of the general rule, but also highlights its contextual relevance.
- Davar Ha’lamed Me’inyano (Contextual Interpretation):
The meaning of a word or phrase can be determined by its context within the verse or passage.
- Davar Ha’lamed Mi’sofo (Interpretation from the End):
The meaning of a verse can be clarified by a later statement in the same verse or passage.
- K’tzat V’kabal U’mikbal V’Chazar al Hakelal (General, and the Specific is excepted):
When a specific instance is excepted from a general rule, the exception can teach us something about the general rule itself.
- K’tzat She’hayu Bo Kelal u’Perat, u’Perat She’hayu Bo Kelal (General, Specific, General, and Specific Exception):
Similar to principle 10, but with more nuance regarding the relationship between the general, specific, and exception.
- E’mat She’ne’emar Alav Alav (Reconciliation of Contradictory Statements):
When two verses appear to contradict each other, a third verse can be found to reconcile them.
- Kol Davar She’hayah Bi’Shem Elokim (Interpretation Through Association):
When a verse is understood in light of another verse, even if the connection is not immediately obvious.