Tzav (Leviticus 6 - 8) GOOD MORNING! I’ve recently been considering the importance of trying to understand the perspective of others. I would argue that if there is one thing that is sorely missing from how society today conducts itself, it’s the fact that opposing sides rarely take the time to examine an issue from all sides. In general, it is hard to recognize that “my truth” isn’t the only truth. For example, the optimist sees the glass as half full and the pessimist sees the glass as half empty. At first blush that seems like a fairly straightforward disagreement, with most everyone falling into one category or the other. But there is always another perspective, like the chemist who sees the glass as completely full – half with liquid and half with air. The fact is that all three views are correct. This search for an objective truth has been the hallmark of Jewish scholarship for over two thousand years. Two of the most famous academies of Torah scholarship were known as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, both of which were active during the last century BCE and the early first century CE. They were particularly well known for having differing opinions on a wide variety of topics. “A disagreement which is for the sake of Heaven will be preserved, and one which is not for the sake of Heaven will not be preserved. What is a disagreement that is for the sake of Heaven? The disagreement of Hillel and Shammai” (Pirkei Avot 5:17). The Mishnah in Pirkei Avot (Ethics of Our Fathers) is making a remarkable statement. The Mishnah categorizes the arguments of Hillel and Shammai as being “for the sake of Heaven,” meaning that their disagreements weren’t personal, but were rather solely a pursuit for a higher truth. But what does that really mean? After all, isn’t every argument between two rabbis or community leaders for the sake of Heaven? Unfortunately, no, that is often not the case. But this is obviously very tricky, how do we know if the arguments are for the sake of Heaven or a reflection of personal animus? The Talmud gives us a brilliant insight. The Talmud says that even though the schools of Shammai and Hillel often disagreed with each other, the students of each would marry families from the other school. Their disagreements weren’t personal; there was love and respect between the students of each school. The Talmud goes a step further: “For three years the schools of Shammai and Hillel debated with one another (on a certain topic), each one saying that the law follows their view. Finally, a heavenly voice called out and said, ‘Both of the views are the words of the Living God.’” In other words, both views are valid (similar to the example given above about the cup and the water). The Talmud goes on to make an extraordinary statement, “Since the views of both schools were valid, why did the School of Hillel merit that, in practice, we usually follow its view?” The Talmud gives two reasons; “First, because the students of the School of Hillel had a gentle disposition and a forbearing manner and second, when discussing their view, they always recorded the view of School of Shammai first” (Eruvin 13b). In other words, the students of the School of Hillel had tremendous deference for the other school, and they always carefully examined the view of the School of Shammai and articulated it before giving their own opinion. Once again, we see that they were motivated solely by a quest for truth, and that they carefully scrutinized the views of others before ruling differently. This concept of carefully looking at an issue and searching for an objective truth – without blindly following one’s personal agenda – is one of the great failings of modern society and particularly evident in American partisan politics. From the laws of thermodynamics, which are particularly concerned with understanding and defining systems that are in equilibrium, we see that the universe, and life in general, is really about trying to strike and then maintain a balance. Without trying to be too nerdy (or for that matter, bore you to tears) I will generalize the second law of thermodynamics, which is concerned with how systems tend to trend to disorder in a process known as entropy. Eventually, this leads to static equilibrium i.e. death. But living organisms have to go against this process in order to survive. They need a constant balance of metabolism systems to maintain life. They require a dynamic motion between them to maintain homeostasis, or internal stability. Thus, everything in life requires a push and pull in order to achieve cellular balance. In other words, opposing forces actually need one another in order to maintain the system of life. | 
Posts