In the last two articles, we discussed the prohibition of machlokes. This week we conclude the series by taking a deeper look at machlokes: Why does all of mankind always default into machlokes? What prevents people from living in peace and harmony? Do all those who preach peace actually bring peace? Why is it that often, wars and bloodshed come in the name of peace and humanitarian ideals? Is Eisav the symbol of peace -- or of war? Why is the numerical value of "Eisav" equal to "shalom," while "shalom rav" equals "machlokes"? How can we know if machlokes will ultimately lead to unity, or calls for peace -- lead to conflict? Is it permissible to separate from others peacefully, with love and friendship? Why is machlokes with an authority figure considered more severe? What does having a Torah authority obligate us, and why is preserving it so important? May a talmid disagree with his rebbe in matters of halachah?
These questions and many more are the subject of this week's article.
How to Split Up
This week's parashah tells us about Moav's attempt to curse Am Yisroel. But our relationship with that nation didn’t begin then. Our common history begins much earlier, with Lot, the devoted nephew who wouldn’t leave his uncle, Avraham Avinu, and accompanied him on his journey to an unknown land. Eventually, due to friction between their shepherds, Avraham insisted that they separate. Yet despite the separation, when Lot was in danger, Avraham risked his life to rescue him.
As history unfolded, Lot’s descendants, Ammon and Moav, became bitter enemies of Klal Yisroel. In this week's parashah, we find Moav spending enormous amounts of money to try and destroy Am Yisroel through Bilaam's curses, although Am Yisroel had showed them no hostility. When Moav refused to allow them to pass through their land, the Jewish people simply encircled it instead of entering their territory.
Once again, the Torah presents us with what appears to be a contradiction. On the one hand, there is a strict prohibition against waging war against Ammon and Moav or taking even a small portion of their land. On the other hand, the Torah uniquely forbids seeking their peace and welfare, and prohibits male converts from Ammon and Moav from marrying into the Jewish people, even generations later.
Yet, paradoxically, the highest positions in Am Yisroel descended from Moav and Ammon -- Dovid HaMelech and the Melech HaMoshiach. And when Bilaam was forced against his will to bless the Jewish people, his blessings culminated with the prophecy of Dovid HeMelech’s kingdom and the coming of Moshiach.
A careful study of this chapter in history can provide us with tools to address one of the oldest and still relevant questions in the world: How should one conduct himself in a machlokes? In particular, we will focus on the importance of authority in Judaism, and why stirring opposition against legitimate authority is considered so severe.
Defining Machlokes
In previous articles, we explained that machlokes is not necessarily an argument or difference if opinion. Rather, machlokes means separation, division. Creating an independent group detached from the broader community is considered machlokes, even when it is done with love, friendship, and mutual respect.
The Midrash (Bereshis Rabbah 4:6) explains that Hashem said "ki tov" on every day of Creation except the second day because on the second day Hashem separated the upper waters from the lower waters. The waters did not separate in a fight, nor did they trade unkind words. All they did was separate into two entities, and as such, their separation in called machlokes. Since machlokes was created on that day, Hashem does not say "ki tov."
The Midrash adds that Rabbi Taviyomi derived from here that even a separation that is necessary for the world’s existence cannot be called “tov” -- good. How much more terrible is a machlokes that leads to hatred, strife, and destruction.
Machlokes Doesn’t Last
The Shelah (Lech Lecha, Torah Ohr 25) defines machlokes as something characterized by change and division. In this sense, this world is characterized by machlokes since it is a world of constant change.
This explains Chazal's statement that a machlokes l'shem Shomayim "will endure." Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai were not destroying one another. Each side, through his own understanding, added another dimension to the Torah. Even if practically we can only follow one opinion, the other opinion remains true and retains its place in Torah. Since both are "divrei Elokim Chaim," their machlokes will endure forever. Therefore, while the dispute between Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai appear like machlokes, in truth, it is an eternal construction.
On the other hand, machlokes that is not l'shem Shomayim sows only strife and destruction. One who separates himself from the tzibbur merely creates another faction. Since he is not contributing to the eternal structure of Torah and Klal Yisroel, his accomplishments will not endure.
Separation = Peace
From all that we have discussed it appears that every separation, even one done peacefully, is called machlokes. However, we all know there are times when separation is least of two evils, the way to avoid quarrels. Avraham Avinu and Lot were the prime example: "Let there be no strife between me and you, and between my shepherds and your shepherds, for we are brothers. Is not the whole land before you? Separate, please, from me. If you go left, I will go right; if you go right, I will go left" (Bereshis 13:8-9).
The Baal HaTurim (Bereishis 13:11) explains that Avraham's separation from Lot was an act of peace. Through interpretation of the final letters of the pasuk he learns that, "that they separated in order to make peace."
The Baal HaTurim adds that although the Torah forbids us to establish close ties with Ammon and Moav or seek their welfare, one day peace will exist between the descendants of Lot and Klal Yisroel. Thus, while the Torah requires keeping a distance from them, it also commands us not to wage war against Moav and Ammon. Embedded within the separation itself lies a hint of future peace.
I once heard from my rebbe, Rav Shlomo Breuer shlita, an explanation of Chazal's statement: "If there is no da'as, how can there be havdalah?" Da'as means connection. In fact, the Torah uses the word "vayeida Adam es Chavah" to describe the deepest connection possible between two human beings. Yet someone who cannot distinguish and separate is incapable of creating a true connection. And conversely, one who cannot create a genuine bond is equally incapable of separating properly. Separation and unity are not opposites. They are two sides of the same coin, expressions of the same energy.
What is this energy? How does it work?
Man is naturally driven by powerful instincts. The Chazon Ish (Emunah U'Bitachon, ch. 4) writes that all bad middos come from allowing one's natural tendencies to run unchecked. There is no need to learn bad middos — they come naturally. One who frequently gets angry, even at resha'im, risks becoming an angry person. One who constantly speaks critically about others eventually develops a critical disposition himself.
The same is true with regard to peace and division. Not every display of harmony is true shalom, and not every separation is machlokes. If peace, unity, or, conversely, division and distance are simply expressions of one's natural inclinations, they are not the product of thoughtful choice. Such a person is merely being carried along by his instincts.
True shalom comes when one does not react instinctively. Before getting angry, before criticizing, before distancing himself from others, he stops and thinks. And if, after careful consideration, he concludes that separation is necessary, he parts with a sigh: "What a pity it has come to this, but we have no choice." Because his decision was born of judgment rather than emotion, he does not become a ba'al machlokes. Even in separation, he remains a man of peace.
This is exactly what we see with Avraham Avinu. He did not take the dispute with Lot personally. On the contrary. When Lot found himself in danger, Avraham Avinu risks his life to save him, despite Lot’s relationship with the evil people of Sedom, Avraham Avinu’s antithesis.
Avraham's separation from Lot had not been driven by instinct, neither was his war to save him. Rather, he examined every situation carefully and acted according to what was truly right at that moment.
To illustrate this idea, I would like to share an inspiring story from recent years.
Two roshei yeshivah founded a yeshivah together. As time went on, they realized that they held different views about how the yeshivah should be run. Neither side doubted the sincerity of the other, but their approaches were simply not compatible. Eventually, they decided to part ways, and each established his own yeshivah.
Had the story ended there, one might still have called it a machlokes. But in truth, it was something entirely different.
At times, a bochur would arrive at one yeshivah, but the rosh yeshivah would sense that the boy would do better in the other yeshiva. Without the slightest hesitation, he would send him there. After all, what mattered was not where the bochur learned, but where he would grow the most.
The same held true when it came to finances. One of the yeshivos had a more demanding and costly educational model and, at one point, found itself in serious financial distress. Yet the rosh yeshivah of the other institution readily directed donors to his colleague to help him keep the yeshivah afloat.
And if one had a donor who felt a stronger affiliation with the ideals and approach of the other yeshivah, they would send him there as well. They understood that it was better for a person to support a place with which he truly identified.
Their conduct revealed that there had never really been a machlokes between them. They had not become divided; they had merely taken different paths toward the same goal. Both sought to increase kavod Shomayim, and that shared purpose kept them united even while each built his own yeshivah.
Peace Impossible
If machlokes is so destructive, why can’t mankind simply live in peace? The Maharsha (Shabbos 10b) explains why, among all of Hashem's attributes, only "Shalom" is called one of His Names. We do not find "Merciful," "Gracious," or "Truth" as being His Name, although they are Hashem’s attribute.
The reason, explains the Maharsha, is that in this world man is incapable of true peace. Human existence is essentially one of disagreement. Each person sees things differently, understands differently, and naturally struggles to contain worldviews opposite their own. Only Hashem can embrace all opposites and unite conflicting forces in the same destination.
The Maharsha points to the famous Midrash (Bereshis Rabbah 8:5). Before creating man, Hashem consulted with the ministering angels. The angels of kindness argued that man should be created because he performs acts of kindness. The angels of justice said that he should be created because he pursues righteousness. But the angels of truth protested, for man is full of falsehood. And the angels of peace opposed his creation because man is full of strife. Hashem cast truth to the earth and declared that it would grow from below, as the verse says: "Kindness and truth have met, righteousness and peace have kissed. Truth shall spring forth from the earth, and righteousness shall look down from heaven" (Tehillim 85:11-12).
For this reason, writes the Maharsha, Aharon HaKohen is called a "pursuer of peace." Man cannot attain peace itself. All he can do is pursue it and add another measure of peace to the world. But real, enduring, final peace – is Divine.
The Chasam Sofer (Derashos, Likkutei Amarim, p. 822) explains the expression "rav shalom." At first glance, peace implies perfection. Either there is peace or there is not. What does “more peace”, or “much peace” mean?
Complete harmony does not exist in this world. However, we can make the world “more peaceful”. This is why talmidei chachamim are called "builders." Every explanation they discover and every difficulty they resolve adds another stone to the world’s edifice of Torah, and of true peace.
Thus the Gemara says (Brachos 64a): "Talmidei chachamim increase peace in the world," as it says, "All your children shall be taught by Hashem, and great shall be the peace of your children." Do not read banayich (your children), but bonayich (your builders). And, "Great peace have those who love Your Torah, and they have no stumbling block."
The Chasam Sofer points out another interesting fact. The numerical value of "machlokes" equals that of "shalom rav." Yet the numerical value of "shalom" equals that of "Esav." He explains that when a talmid chacham does what appears to us as division, he is often building "great peace." And the opposite -- when people far removed from Torah speak about "peace," the result may appear cultured, enlightened, and humanitarian, but really it produces the world of Esav, whose defining trait is war -- "By your sword shall you live."
This idea appears in Maseches Kallah Rabbasi and is cited by the Baal HaTurim. The gematria of "Esav" equals "shalom." Since Esav's nature is to generate war, he needs some measure of peace to prevent his immediate destruction. Peace, in our world, is therefore only a temporary ceasefire, so the world won’t be destroyed all at once.
Machlokes Against Rabbonim
The Meiri (Sanhedrin 110a) writes that although all machlokes is terrible, rebellion against Torah authority is particularly abhorrent, because he is considered as having rebelled against Hashem. Therefore, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 110a tells us): "Whoever rebels against the kingdom of the House of David deserves to be bitten by a snake." And "Whoever argues with his rebbe is considered as if he argued with the Shechinah." Korach's rebellion against Moshe Rabbeinu was not merely opposition to a leader. It was opposition to Hashem Himself.
Rebelling Against Malchus Beis Dovid
One of the prime examples of a Jewish Torah authority is Malchus Beis Dovid.
On the one hand, Chazal say that whoever rebels against the kingdom of Beis Dovid deserves the bite of a serpent. Since Hashem granted the monarchy to Dovid HaMelech and his descendants, separating from that authority creates a connection to the original serpent of Bereshis, the symbol of the yetzer hara, division, and way. Such a connection ultimately brings death.
On the other hand, Achiyah HaShiloni, one of the great transmitters of Torah and a true prophet, split the kingdom based on a Divine prophecy. How can this contradiction be reconciled?
The Midrash explains that when Achiyah informed Yerovam that the kingdom would be divided, he tore his new garment. Why? Because righteous people mourn when Malchus Beis Dovid is divided. When circumstances force a division, the one compelled to carry it out grieves over it. He tears his garment in pain. Such a split can only be a temporary necessity. But when division is accompanied by enthusiasm and excitement, its source is impure, and one must flee from it like fire.
Similarly, the Midrash asks how Avner, Shaul's general, could crown Ish Boshes, thereby creating two kingdoms. Was he not opposing the monarchy of Dovid HaMelech?
The Midrash answers that Avner understood from the psukim that two kings were destined to emerge from Binyamin before the monarchy would pass to Yehudah. Therefore, he believed that appointing Ish Boshes was his obligation.
This teaches us that even when tzadikim create what appears to be division, it is never because they seek conflict. Rather, they do so only because they believe that this is what Hashem wants from them at that moment. And even then, they do so with pain, not excitement.
The Midrash makes a similar point. It quotes a pasuk: "You sit and speak against your brother; against the son of your mother you cast reproach" (Tehillim 50:20). After Edom refused to allow Klal Yisroel to pass through their land, the people spoke negatively about Edom. "You speak against your brother." Soon afterwards, they spoke against Moshe Rabbeinu himself: "The people spoke against Hashem and against Moshe."
Separating from Edom was necessary. In fact, Chazal teach us that getting close to Edom contributed to Aharon HaKohen's passing. Yet once the people accustomed themselves to speaking critically, that same middah was directed against Moshe Rabbeinu himself. In separating from evil, they had aroused within themselves the very middah of machlokes.
Even when criticizing resha'im is necessary, it must come from pain, not from glee, “Oh great! Now we can talk lashon hara!” Otherwise, while we distance ourselves from evil we will be corrupting our core middos, and ultimately be drawn into even worse forms of machlokes.
Disagreeing With One's Rebbe
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 110a) states that one who argues with his rebbe is considered as though he argued with the Shechinah. Rashi explains that this refers to one who establishes a separate yeshivah.
The Be'er Sheva explains Rashi according to the Rambam: A student who establishes his own beis medrash without his rebbe's permission, even if the rebbe lives elsewhere, is considered having created a machlokes.
As noted, machlokes does not necessarily involve insults or heated arguments. Machlokes means separation. A student who creates an independent institution without receiving permission from the authority figure in his life has essentially created a split.
Obviously, this Gemara does not refer to simply reaching a different halachic ruling. On the contrary, the Be’er sheva explains that if a talmid has reached the proper level in learning and has carefully examined the issue, he may — and at times must — disagree with his rebbe’s ruling.
The Terumas HaDeshen writes explicitly that a student who possesses clear proofs may disagree with his rebbe. Indeed, examples of this abound throughout Torah history: Rebbi was a Tanna who frequently disagreed with his father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rava was an Amora who often disagreed with his rebbe Rabbah. The Rosh was a Rishon who frequently disagreed with his rebbe, the Maharam of Rothenburg. Indeed, the Gemara is filled with examples of students disagreeing with their teachers, even in their youth.
Summary
Our world is one of dispute, disparity, and conflict. No human being can fully enter another person's mind. Each of us grasps only part of the picture, and there will always be things we cannot fully understand.
Yet man is called upon to contribute his part to building of the world of peace. For this reason, peace is one of the greatest values. But shalom is not something we naturally possess. It is something we must actively cultivate and pursue.
Shalom that is detached from Torah ultimately leads not to harmony, but to chaos and war.
Only when one submits himself to the authority established by Hashem — whether the kingdom of Beis Dovid or the Torah leaders of his generation — even when he does not fully understand, can he hope to reach true, full peace.
For peace is not the absence of differences. It is the ability to unite around the truth that stands above them.
