What Does Jewish Wisdom Say About Disagreeing in a Polarized World?

Dear Jew in the City,

With the recent Donald Trump/Elon Musk spat dominating headlines, what guidance does
Jewish wisdom offer about how to argue passionately without crossing a line? How can we
disagree better/respectfully, especially in such a polarized world?

Sincerely,

Kate

Dear Kate,

Thanks for your question. I’ll share some thoughts on disagreeing, but first I’ll share a harsh
reality.

How can we disagree more respectfully? That’s on you. Simply be more respectful. But even if
you treat your opponent respectfully, you can’t control how they act. If they choose to hurl
invective or make ad hominem attacks, there’s simply nothing you can do to prevent it. You can
be respectful, but you can’t force a respectful dialogue.

That being said, not every disagreement has a right side and a wrong side. As Dave Mason sang
in his 1977 hit, “There ain’t no good guy; there ain’t no bad guy. There’s only you and me, and
we just disagree.”

I often think of a news story from 2018. Madeleine Entine and Carly Goldman were sisters of
the Chi Omega sorority at Ohio State University. Madeline was prone to panic attacks, which
were mitigated by her service dog, Cory. Cory, however, aggravated Carly’s allergies, which
inflamed her Crohn’s disease. So, does Cory get to stay in the sorority house or not?

Before you answer, consider this: Madeleine was protected under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). If that affects your answer, consider this: Carly was also protected under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Neither one of them was wrong per se. They were both right, and yet their positions were
mutually exclusive. The world isn’t black and white, and it’s important to recognize when the
other position has merit.

Consider when Sarah wanted to expel Yishmael in Genesis chapter 21. You may recall that
Avraham disagreed with that course of action. They agreed that Yishmael was a problem, they

just differed on the resolution. Avraham felt that if they kept Yishmael around, Yitzchak might
be a good influence on him. Sarah was concerned that Yishmael would be a bad influence on
Yitzchak. These are not mutually exclusive – they could both be true! It just a question of
prioritizing one outcome over the other.

In halacha, there’s a Talmudic principle of eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim chayim – “these and these are
both the words of the Living God” (Eiruvin 13b). When two authorities differ, we may have to
choose one course of action, but that doesn’t mean that the other is necessarily wrong.

Another important idea is to choose your battles. Consider Mishlei (Proverbs) chapter 26. Verse
4 says not to answer a fool because you will appear equally foolish. Verse 5 says that we should
answer a fool so that he doesn't think his words are wise. These two verses blatantly contradict.
The Talmud (Shabbos 30b) explains that one should answer a fool in matters of Torah, but not
in other areas. So not every debate is worth participating in.

Finally, one’s motivation is supremely important. The Mishna in Avos (5:17) teaches: Any
dispute that is for the sake of Heaven will endure; one that is not for the sake of Heaven will not
endure. An example of a dispute for the sake of Heaven is the dispute between Hillel and
Shammai. An example of a dispute that is not for the sake of Heaven is the dispute of Korach
and his followers.

Korach wasn’t sincere. He had ulterior motives. He prepared responses for anything Moshe
might say because he wasn’t interested in the truth, he only wanted to “win.” You may recall
that things did not end well for Korach and his followers.

Hillel and Shammai, however, had one goal in mind: they wanted to find the truth. We may
finally have to rule like one of them or the other, but both opinions are respected and enduring.

I think this also applies to modern-day political debates. My go-to example is usually gun
control, but let’s shake things up and use immigration. Let’s say, hypothetically, that Politician X
advocates for a policy of “let everybody in.” Politician Y, however, advocates for a policy of
“keep everybody out.” Does each of them agree to the importance of humanitarianism? I’d like

to think so. Does each of them agree to the need for security? Again, I’d like to think so. So, are
they taking such extreme positions because they truly believe these are the best courses of
action, or are they merely toeing the political party line? Can you imagine how much more
productive and efficient government would be if everyone worked sincerely to find the best
answers instead of taking immovable positions based on which side of the aisle they’re on?

Throughout the Talmud, nobody disagrees more than the school of Hillel and the school of
Shammai. Their disagreements, however, were based upon mutual respect and a shared
interest in reaching the truth. Despite their debates on many, many subjects, the Talmud
(Yevamos 14a) tells us that they did not refrain from marrying into one another’s families. Yes,
they each adhered to their own understandings of the law, but they also knew that they could
rely upon one another.

So that’s my best disagreement advice: Recognize the value in your opponent’s position.
Choose your battles. Seek the truth rather than a victory. And, of course, be respectful. You
can’t make the other person be respectful, but you can always take the high road instead of
stooping to their level. And if you suspect that someone is simply trying to bait you, I
recommend that you decline to engage.

Sincerely,

Rabbi Jack Abramowitz, JITC Educational Correspondent

Follow Ask Rabbi Jack on YouTube

If you found this content meaningful and want to help further our mission through our Keter, Makom, and Tikun branches, please consider becoming a Change Maker today.