Argument for the Sake of Heaven and Democracy (mahloket l’shem shamayim)
by Charles E. Savenor
At a time when political discourse often descends into personal attacks and partisan gridlock, the 2018 memorial service for Republican Senator John McCain offered a powerful counter-narrative. “The greater cause to which he devoted his life was America, not so much the country defined by its borders, but the America of our founding values, freedom, human rights, opportunity, democracy, and equal justice under law.”^1 These words by Senator Joseph Lieberman are an example of the eulogies delivered by Democratic party leaders – including President Barack Obama, then former Vice President Joe Biden, and former Senator John Kerry – that reflected deep respect for McCain despite their political differences on the national ballot and Senate floor. These eulogies served as a rare and striking reminder that it is possible to fiercely disagree on policy while maintaining genuine personal relationships and a shared commitment to our country.
In an age of intense political polarization, it’s an important reminder that while arguments make the headlines, personal relationships and shared goals form the foundation of respect. As division dominates the public square, we must reclaim the Jewish value of mahloket l’shem shamayim ^2, arguments for the sake of heaven, as a democratic imperative.
Judaism operates with the expectation that there will always be differences of opinion. The problem, however, arises when we begin to question the motives behind the arguments.
In Pirkei Avot 5:17 (Ethics of our Fathers), the rabbis ask: “What is an argument for the sake of Heaven? The argument between Hillel and Shammai. What is an argument not for the sake of Heaven? The argument of Korach and his company.” Hillel and Shammai were study partners – and later the founders of two schools of thought – dedicated to uncovering the essence of Jewish law and the higher truth of Torah. By contrast, Korach’s rebellion against Moses and Aaron was rooted in a quest for power
The story of Korach climaxes with a divine showdown and the miraculous downfall of this biblical antagonist. Generations later, the Talmud showcases another example of how unhealthy debate can lead to intractable conflict, thereby dividing a community. Rabban Gamliel, the Nasi (head) of the Sanhedrin, takes offense at Rabbi Yehoshua questioning his positions, so much so that he humiliates Rabbi Yehoshua publicly on several occasions. By the third time, the community decides that this domineering, and frequently condescending, approach runs counter to the spirit of Jewish learning and ethical leadership, and the vignette ends with Rabban Gamliel being removed from his position (BT Berakhot 27b–28a). Thankfully, we can be emboldened by our ancestors’ stand against ego- and power-driven leadership tendencies and in favor of dialogue as a societal norm.
At first glance, this Talmudic tale simply shows us what can happen when an argument for the sake of heaven turns into a struggle for control. However, the background of Rabban Gamliel, who was the descendant of Hillel himself, invites us to ask how this situation could have happened in the first place. We see that even our most cherished values can be forgotten or ignored when they are not intentionally nurtured and passed down to the next generation.
The ethos of mahloket l’shem shamayim needs to be cultivated day by day, week by week, year by year, lest we risk losing these vital skills. We see the same phenomenon with civic education, which was a fixture of American schooling until the end of the Cold War before losing its prominence in American schools.
The building block of productive arguments for the sake of heaven is the traditional chavruta model: learning in pairs over text. The Talmud asserts: “Two scholars sharpen one another” (BT Taanit 7a). Far from avoiding disagreement, Judaism embraces spirited debate to dive deeper into texts, values, and the pressing issues of our times. It is as much an intellectual opportunity as it is a relational one. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks writes: “The Divine Presence is to be found not in this voice as against that, but in the totality of the conversation.” ^3 Thus, arguments for the sake of heaven do not diminish the bonds of community; rather, they are the bricks that form its foundation.
A key ingredient in keeping our conversation aimed toward a higher purpose is the willingness to truly hear other opinions. Stephen R. Covey, the author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, gives us insight into how we can best interact with one another. He writes:
We have such a tendency to rush in, to fix things up with good advice. But we often fail to take the time to diagnose, to really, deeply understand the problem first. … Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply. ^4
In an age when students often communicate screen-to-screen, face-to-face communication is a skill that needs to be developed, nurtured, and strengthened. Students today often struggle with conflict. Like swiping away an app on a smartphone, it’s easier to disengage than to lean in and listen with genuine curiosity. Too often today, conversation in the classroom, conference room, and dining room can feel like a winner-takes-all gladiator sport, the antithesis of an argument for the sake of heaven.
In Talking to Strangers, Danielle Allen writes: “Distrust can be overcome only when citizens manage to find methods of generating mutual benefit despite differences of position, experience, and perspective. The discovery of such methods is the central project of democracy.” ^5 Allen reinforces that education today cannot just be about content knowledge. In addition to teaching the foundational documents of our nation, we need to generate a civics renaissance that encompasses training in civil discourse, media literacy, and collaboration across differences. In his book Liberalism in Dark Times, Joshua Cherniss emphasizes that conflict is not a bug in the democratic system, but rather an integral part of the operating system.
America has a history of political rivalries and principled disagreements going back to the founding of this great nation. The archetype is John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The personal friendship, patriotic collaboration, and political rivalry of Jefferson and Adams spanned five decades. After fighting together to establish the new nation, they clashed over the direction it should take. They differed over the powers of the federal government, how we should interpret the Constitution, our foreign relations with France and Britain, as well as the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. The animosity was so intense that our second president chose not to attend his successor’s inauguration.
Years later, their personal cold war began to thaw through scores of letters in which each had the chance to give his version of the events that shaped the nation and how he saw himself in the story. On January 21, 1812, Jefferson wrote to his “frenemy”:
A letter from you calls up recollections very dear to my mind. It carries me back to the times when, beset with difficulties and dangers, we were fellow laborers in the same cause, struggling for what is most valuable to man, his right of self-government. Laboring always at the same oar, with some wave ever ahead threatening to overwhelm us and yet passing harmless under our bark, we knew not how, we rode through the storm with heart and hand, and made a happy port. ^6
Their correspondence is a gift to our nation because it shows how two fierce political rivals could be so divided in their opinions, and yet so committed to shared aspirations for their country. Adams and Jefferson come to mind as we imagine an American example of debate partners engaged in mahloket l’shem shamayim, an argument for the sake of heaven.
It is not hard to feel disheartened by our intensely divisive political era. However, hope and resilience can grow from embracing our national roots. Joseph Ellis frames this dynamic in his book Founding Brothers: “The revolutionary generation found a way to contain the explosive energies of the debate in the form of an ongoing argument or dialogue … But the key point is that the debate was not resolved so much as built into the fabric of our national identity.” ^7
Years later at the funeral of his former political rival, President Obama echoed these sentiments at McCain’s funeral: “He understood that if we get in the habit of bending the truth to suit political expediency or party orthodoxy, our democracy will not work. That's why he was willing to buck his own party at times, occasionally working across the aisle on campaign finance reform and immigration reform. That's why he championed a free and independent press as vital to our democratic debate.” ^8 What stands out in this relationship and those of Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia, and countless others is the commitment to dialogue, discussion, and debate.
While this passionate dialogue over 250 years attests to our commitment to the American experiment, the application of arguments for the sake of heaven can redirect our energies toward shared civic goals.
Today, the United States stands to gain immensely by embracing the chavruta model, learning in partnership, engaging with complexity, and debating ideas with integrity and a sense of common cause. As we look ahead to the next 250 years of the American experiment, let us recommit to a democracy grounded not only in founding documents, but in principled, passionate, and enduring dialogue.
If we answer this call, if we choose to argue not for dominance but for understanding, then our disagreements will no longer divide us. Instead, arguments for the sake of heaven will become the engine of American democracy.
^1 “Joe Lieberman Full Text Eulogy for John McCain (Transcript),” AZCentral, September 1, 2018, https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2018/09/01/joe-lieberman-full-text-eulogy-john-mccain-transcript/^2 https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/678697?lang=bi^3 Jonathan Sacks, "Argument for the Sake of Heaven," Covenant & Conversation, 2018, https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/korach/argument-for-the-sake-of-heaven/.^4 Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change, 25th anniversary ed. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989), 237. ^5 Danielle S. Allen, Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), xix.^6 Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, January 21, 1812, Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-04-02-0334; original source: The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Retirement Series, vol. 4, 18 June 1811 to 30 April 1812, ed. J. Jefferson Looney (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 428–30.^7 Joseph J. Ellis, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000), 15-16.^8 Barack Obama, "Eulogy for John McCain," New York Times, September 1, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/us/politics/barack-obama-john-mccain-funeral-eulogy.html.