Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: The Necessity of מחלוקת/Controversy and Division

The mishna in Avos (5:17) begins with this surprising statement:
כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם.
Loosely (and not entirely inaccurately) translated: Every argument that is made out of religious fervor will last forever. You may very well be thinking, "Ah yup. Religious nuts are destroying the world and they never stop!" Yet the mishna there is actually praising a מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם and condemning its evil cousin, the מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם. To appreciate what Chazal are telling us, we are going to need to more carefully define what a מַחֲלֹקֶת is, and also what it means to be לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם.

While the Torah requires a death sentence for certain crimes (murder among them), only a court of 23 expert judges can render such a decision. The Torah requires an odd number of judges on any tribunal in order to prevent deadlock. Suppose though, that it is the unanimous decision of the court that the defendant by executed. You may very well be thinking, "Ah yup. That dude must really be guilty! Off with his head!" Well, what do you know? You are wrong again. Chazal tell us that if the court rules unanimously for conviction of a capital crime, then the defendant is acquitted (Sanhedrin 17a).

Yes, you heard/read correctly; acquitted. Why? er... WHY?! No worries, the gemara explains: a sentence of death cannot be rendered until the judges have had a night to ponder their decision and thus create the possibility of acquittal. That is a Torah requirement. Since the judges are of one mind, the requirement to ponder the decision cannot be fulfilled. The defendant is therefore acquitted. Sounds almost like the loophole of not having been read his rights, eh?

But there's more. Suppose one has a tribunal of three judges and one judge just cannot make up his mind; "I just don't know, and that's my final word." In that case the halacha is that another judge be added to the tribunal; and that is so even if the two other judges rule the same way. Strange, no? Once two judges have voted for the plaintiff or the defendant, the vote of a third judge cannot possibly change the outcome. We appoint another judge, though, because a just who can't decide is considered halachically as absent. Absent to the point that our tribunal has the halachic status of a tribunal with only two judges; which, being an even number, is unfit to function as a court.

What's going on? What's with this loophole? When the Creator injects a loophole, it is not -- Heaven forfend! -- an oversight; it is the revelation of a deep principle. Without real, meaningful discussion, truth cannot be discovered. Real, meaningful discussion only occurs when there is a disagreement. The word מַחֲלֹקֶת does not mean dissension and strife. The root verb of מַחֲלֹקֶת means to distinguish and delineate, so מַחֲלֹקֶת  means controversy and division. Of course מַחֲלֹקֶת can be used to sew strife and discord, but that is because this very powerful tool is being wielded by participants with an agenda.

Similarly, לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם does not mean "religious fervor"; it means, without thought to personal gain. The deeper meaning of לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם is for the sake of finding the Truth, which is the signet/seal of HaShem. Of course that can only happen with a religious fervor, but -- again -- that is a very powerful tool and can be misused by those who have their own agenda. (For those of you who like Tolkien references: Gandalf the White only involved himself with מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, whereas Saruman -- who also appeared white but was really of different colors -- was constantly whipping up מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם to further his one agenda.)

To find the Truth, you need controversy to enable seeing all sides before coming to a conclusion. That is why every מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם endures forever. It is Truth, which is forever.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...

Thought for the Day: What Category of Muktzeh are Our Candles?

As discussed in a recent TftD , a p'sak halacha quite surprising to many, that one may -- even לכתחילה -- decorate a birthday cake with (unlit, obviously) birthday candles on Shabbos. That p'sak is predicated on another p'sak halacha; namely, that our candles are muktzeh because they are a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not  מוקצה מחמת גופו/intrinsically set aside from any use on Shabbos. They point there was that using the candle as a decoration qualifies as a need that allows one to utilize a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור. Today we will discuss the issue of concluding that our candles are , in fact, a כלי שמלאכתו לאיסור and not מוקצה מחמת גופו. Along the way we'll also (again) how important it is to have personal relationship with your rav/posek, the importance of precision in vocabulary, and how to interpret the Mishna Brura.  Buckle up. After reviewing siman 308 and the Mishna Brura there, I concluded that it should be permissible to use birthday candles to decorate a cake on Sha...

Thought for the Day: אוושא מילתא Debases Yours Shabbos

My granddaughter came home with a list the girls and phone numbers in her first grade class.  It was cute because they had made it an arts and crafts project by pasting the list to piece of construction paper cut out to look like an old desk phone and a receiver attached by a pipe cleaner.  I realized, though, that the cuteness was entirely lost on her.  She, of course, has never seen a desk phone with a receiver.  When they pretend to talk on the phone, it is on any relatively flat, rectangular object they find.  (In fact, her 18 month old brother turns every  relatively flat, rectangular object into a phone and walks around babbling into it.  Not much different than the rest of us, except his train of thought is not interrupted by someone else babbling into his ear.) I was reminded of that when my chavrusa (who has children my grandchildrens age) and I were learning about אוושא מילתא.  It came up because of a quote from the Shulchan Aru...