Beyond Dispute

The stroke of genius was to present difference, even fundamental divides, as a positive value – in today’s terminology, not a bug but a feature. Argument, which had always been considered a danger and threat to social cohesion, would now come to be seen as something to be cherished, and dissent not as treachery but an asset to be welcomed. The rabbis would develop a new conception of truth, as something that could not be known authoritatively by any single individual or sect, but as something to be divined through collaborative effort. ... The Sadducees, the most aristocratic Jewish sect of the Second Temple period, made little effort to adapt to the post-destruction environment. Far from welcoming a plurality of views, they remained entrenched in the confidence of their own opinions (the very name ‘Sadducees’ comes from the root sadak – to be right).

While we may not be experts at persuading others, we all seem to have a talent for persuading ourselves.

Why was Moses commanded to keep these broken fragments alongside the whole tablets in the Ark? Generations of Bible commentators have offered a multiplicity of reasons, but it seems to me that they were simply too dangerous not to be locked safely away. If they were not closely guarded, the separate pieces might have been grabbed by different sections of the community, and each brandished as holy and absolute truth in its own right. Instead, they were to be placed in the holy Ark, next to the complete tablets, an eternal reminder that truth is not to be found in any one fragment that we might hold, but only in the whole, when we bring all the pieces together.

Beyond being a pedagogical technique, the havruta methodology reflects the conviction that the search for knowledge is of necessity a collaborative enterprise. As a result, argument is not a clash of rival and disparate truths. Rather, it is a fiery crucible for the creation of something new.

It is in this in-between zone that the horizontal and vertical axes come together. The Bible itself hints at the unique holiness of this horizontal place of meeting in describing the dedication of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. After weeks of preparation, Moses enters the Holy of Holies to hear the voice of God. Strikingly, as described in the book of Numbers, the divine voice emerges not from the Ark itself, which contained the holy tablets, but from the carved statues of angels on its lid, or more precisely, from the space between them: ‘When Moses entered the tent of meeting to speak with the Lord, he heard the voice speaking to him from between the two cherubim above the atonement cover on the ark of the covenant law. In this way the Lord spoke to him.’

I don’t think we can say that some people are impossible to engage with on the basis of the views they hold. What I do believe though, is that some people are impossible to engage with because of the way they disagree

The business of insight and discovery is more likely to happen in creative dialogue than in solo pondering

Why does the Mishnah take such pains to ensure that the rejected dissenting opinions are preserved? The Mishnah itself provides the answer. Why is mention made of the opinion of a single person in connection with that of many, when the final decision is invariably with the majority? In order that when a court should happen to approve of someone’s opinion it might base its decision thereon, for no court may annul the decision of another court, unless it be superior to the latter both in erudition and number. If, however, it be superior only in one respect, in either erudition or number, it cannot annul; it must be superior in both.10 While it may not have won the day, the minority opinion speaks to a certain truth. In a different time, in a different context, it may even provide the basis for an alternative ruling. It too is a fragment of the tablets, preserved with reverence in the Ark of the tradition. This Mishnah, discussing arguments, is itself, as might be expected, the subject of an argument, and it goes on to record a dissenting view. ‘Rabbi Yehuda says the minority opinion is recorded so that if anyone says “But I have a tradition that rules a different way”, they can be told it is recorded here in the name of this rabbi, and it has been rejected.’ The minority view is recorded not to be legitimised, says Rabbi Yehuda, but rather to prove that it was considered and rejected. As my friend Tal Becker has pointed out, this presents us with a rather splendid paradox. Rabbi Yehuda, who argues that minority views are not to be relied on, is himself a minority opinion. If he is right, then he is wrong. And only if he is wrong might his argument be regarded as having truth!

seek out the very best expression of opposing views that you can find

Education per se may not help counter bias, but curiosity does

Isaac Asimov wrote: ‘Great discoveries often begin not with “Eureka” but with “That’s funny!”

Einstein had doubts about whether the education system recognised the importance of questioning. ‘It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education,’ he said

If you want your arguments to be credible, they have to resonate with the lived reality. While the Talmud does have its occasional moments of esoteric wondering, with contemplations about the meaning of dreams and the end of days, for the most part it shies away from abstractions. Its discussions are almost always rooted in concrete, tangible examples so that the real-world implications are never far from mind. A discussion about returning lost property will never refer to an abstract ‘item’, but will present a concrete example. As the discussion continues, the tangible example used will change according to the particular circumstance under discussion. Considering the various principles at play in the obligation to return lost property the object in the Talmudic discussion will seamlessly morph from a bunch of figs to a loaf of bread or a pottery jug, or from a lost object to a stolen one, each item and situation having different characteristics, but all subtly reminding the arguers that the discussion is not purely theoretical but rooted in the real world. Keeping our discussions tethered to real-world examples continually tests our ideas against reality

Talmudic thinking pushes back against the notion that abstract theoretical thinking is one of the highest forms of analysis, uncluttered by the muddiness of the real world. To the contrary, in Jewish thinking, knowledge that is tried and tested in the real world is on a far higher level

Just as there is more to Shabbat than not working, so is there more to silence than not speaking

Recognising there are truths that need the trappings of humour to come forth into the light of day suggests that we should make space for humour in our lives – and in our arguments.

We often think that children need to be taught in simple, clear categories, and that nuance is something that should be introduced later in their education. But the Jewish tradition encourages the introduction of complexity at an early age.

Some arguments need to be resolved. But not every difference needs a resolution. Or perhaps not now. In the Talmud, many arguments remain unresolved and yet it turns out we can live with difference. ... Pending the arrival of Elijah, whom tradition describes as heralding the future arrival of the messianic age, we agree to live in uncertainty, open to a variety of possibilities

The better the relationship, the better the argument we should be able to have. But so too in reverse. The better the argument, the more it strengthens and deepens our relationship. Our highest aspiration is not to resolve our arguments but to have meaningful ones, which bring us closer not only to the truth but to each other