Mahloket l’shem shamayim sofa le-hitkayem

The following source sheet was created by Danielle Kranjec, Associate Vice President for Jewish Education at Hillel International, during her Fellowship in the American Jewish Civics Seminar, a cohort of leading Jewish scholars and educators convened in 2025 by A More Perfect Union and the Shalom Hartman Institute to nurture the emergence of a new field: American Jewish Civics.

This is part of a collection of source sheets on key Jewish themes outlining the Principles of American Jewish Civics, a framework and foundation to inspire and guide civic learning for American Jews.

"Argument for the sake of Heaven will, in the end, endure"
מחלוקת לשם שמים סופה להתקַיים

Healthy liberal democracies demand a robust exchange of ideas and a culture that embraces principled disagreement. The principle of mahloket l’shem shamayim emerges from deep epistemic humility. As Jews, we engage in serious disagreement because it shapes our character and leads to the best outcomes. To that end, we resist the dismissal of conflicting voices and broadly reject the notion of a unitary or monolithic truth. Dispute, both within Jewish communities and across American society, is not about convincing the “other side,” but is a mode of interaction that respects difference and the learning that comes from engaging with it.

Centuries of recorded rabbinic disagreement have taught us the value of treating minority opinions with respect and engaging in robust discussion while avoiding factionalism and fragmentation – it’s not for nothing that the Talmud contains more than 1,500 disparate voices. When we assume that our interlocutors are arguing for their version of the ideal community and engage them accordingly, disputation sharpens our own arguments and cultivates trust. And further, we are more likely to arrive at wise outcomes. To invoke John Stuart Mill, “conflicting doctrines, instead of being one true and the other false, [often] share the truth between them.” This means that we should learn to recognize that disagreement is not a signal of fragility, but a mark of enduring strength, and that we are and must remain in community with those with whom we disagree. Disputes that are truly for the sake of heaven, the rabbis taught, will reappear again and again, forever offering new opportunities for enlightenment.

Discussion Questions:

How do you distinguish between a healthy argument and a destructive one? What characterizes an argument that is “for the sake of Heaven”?
In a time of deep political polarization in the U.S., how might the Jewish tradition help us build a culture of principled disagreement?
What might it look like to “prioritize the words of Beit Shammai” before your own, in an argument with someone you disagree with?
What practices (in meetings, conversations, or protests) could help ensure your disagreements remain “for the sake of Heaven”?
How might your synagogue, Hillel, or Jewish organization cultivate a culture where disagreement that sharpens wisdom rather than sows division?

משנה אבות ה׳:י״ז

(יז) כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:

Pirkei Avot 5:17

(17) Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.

Discussion Questions:

What do you think it means for a disagreement to “endure”? Is an enduring disagreement a good thing?
The Mishnah contrasts Hillel/Shammai (constructive) with Korach and his followers (destructive). What made each of these disagreements different in intent or outcome?
In your community or civic experience, how can you tell when a disagreement is not "for the sake of Heaven"? What are the warning signs?

עירובין י״ג ב

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל, הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ, וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ. יָצְאָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים הֵן, וַהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים, מִפְּנֵי מָה זָכוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לִקְבּוֹעַ הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתָן? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹחִין וַעֲלוּבִין הָיוּ, וְשׁוֹנִין דִּבְרֵיהֶן וְדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּקְדִּימִין דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְדִבְרֵיהֶן.

Eruvin 13b

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.

Discussion Questions:

What does it mean that both sides of a disagreement can be “the words of the living God”? How does that challenge modern notions of truth or winning an argument?
Why do you think humility and respect for opposing views earned Beit Hillel the halakhic authority? What can we learn from that for political or communal leadership today?
How might civic discourse in the U.S. change if public figures were expected to cite and honor opposing perspectives like Beit Hillel did?

דרך חיים ה׳:י״ז:ג׳

(ג)ואין צריך בכאן שתהיה 'אהבה לשם שמים', כמו שהוא אצל המחלוקת, כי אצל המחלוקת, אם אין המחלוקת לשם שמים בודאי אין קיום למחלוקת, מצד כי ההפכים אין קיום להם ביחד, והם שני ההפכים בנושא אחד. גם כי החלוק והפירוד הוא התחלת ההפסד, כאשר אינו שלם. ולפיכך צריך שתהיה המחלוקת לשם שמים, אשר הוא יתברך מאחד ההפכים, כמו שהתבאר. אבל אהבה שהיא אינה תלויה בדבר אינה בטילה לעולם, כי היא האחדות, אשר ראוי מצד עצמו אל הקיום, הפך המחלוקת. רק אותה שהיא תלויה בדבר, אותה בודאי בטילה, כיון שבטל הדבר שהוא סבת האהבה והקשור.

Derekh Chayyim 5:17:3

(3)And it is not necessary here that the love be for [the sake of] Heaven's name, like it is with argument. For with argument, if the argument is not for [the sake of] Heaven's name, there is certainly no endurance to the argument from the angle that two opposites do not have endurance together, and they are two opposites in one subject. Also since division and separation are the beginning of destruction, since it is not complete. And therefore the argument needs to be for [the sake of] Heaven's name - since He, may He be blessed, unifies opposites, as was explained. But love that is not dependent on something does not ever perish, since it is unity, which is appropriate for endurance from the angle of itself - which is the opposite of argument. Only the one that is dependent on something certainly perishes, when that [thing] that was the reason of the love and the connection perishes

Discussion Questions:

The Maharal teaches that division without higher purpose leads to destruction. What does this say about today’s political polarization?
Is there a civic equivalent to “sake of Heaven”? What might be a shared civic ideal or higher purpose that can unify people across disagreements?
How can we tell when a disagreement is rooted in ego, power, or self-interest—and what do we do about it?