Toldot 5787: Two Jews, Three Opinions

GOOD MORNING! As Americans watch the results of the 2026 midterm elections slowly fade in the news cycle, they must deal with the fact that polarization is probably the defining legacy of American politics in the 21st century. While this stark divide has already been true for at least ten years, it has gotten progressively worse.

Notwithstanding the current triumphalism of the Democratic Party as the “Blue Wave” washed over America, the Democrats themselves admit that there is a fierce battle being waged within for the very soul of the party. This political fracturing has led to further splintering of the American people. There are no longer honest ideological conversations about policy; it’s become a war following the credo of “might makes right.”

Dr. Vaile Wright, a clinical psychologist and senior director of health care innovation at the American Psychological Association (APA), explains: “In recent years, Americans have started to fuse their identity with their political affiliation, which was not seen in 2016.”

In 1960, only 4% of Democrats and 4% of Republicans said they would be disappointed if their child married someone from the opposite political party. In 2014 the numbers had risen to 19% of Democrats and 22% of Republicans would be disappointed. By 2024 the numbers rose to 45% of Democrats and 33% of Republicans saying so, according to a Monmouth Poll of April 2024.

As Jews, we are no strangers to disagreement. I remember once overhearing a high school senior advising his younger brother who was entering his freshman Talmud class; “If you find yourself drifting off or not paying attention in class and the teacher calls on you with a question, just answer that it’s a machloket (a matter of dispute) – you will almost always be right.”

Still, Judaism’s view of disagreements is very enlightening and can certainly give us direction on how to cope with the polarization resulting from these political arguments and also presents us with tools to diffuse them.

In the classic work on Jewish values known as “Pirkei Avot – Ethics of our Fathers” we find the following statement: “Any dispute that is for the sake of heaven shall endure; a dispute not for the sake heaven shall not endure. What is a dispute for the sake of heaven? The disputes of Hillel and Shammai” (Pirkei Avot 5:20).

The disputes between the school of Hillel (Beit Hillel) and the school of Shammai (Beit Shammai) were legendary – there are over three hundred recorded disagreements. Yet regarding these arguments the Talmud (Eruvin 13b) makes a remarkable statement; “Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The law is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The law is in accordance with our opinion.

“A heavenly voice emerged and proclaimed: ‘Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the law is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.’” The Talmud then asks: “Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have to have the law established in accordance with their opinion?”

The Talmud answers that the reason the law follows Beit Hillel is that they were agreeable and forbearing; they showed restraint when affronted. Additionally, when they taught a subject they would teach both their own opinions and the opinions 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.

According to the Talmud the arguments of the schools of Hillel and Shammai never devolved into personal attacks. They actually got along and had a deep respect and fondness for one another. The ultimate proof? The Talmud records that they often married into each other’s families.

Thus, the key to an “honest” dispute is trying to see the issues from another perspective. Whether one agrees or not is not nearly as important as admitting that there might be another viewpoint. It is often difficult to see things from another perspective, but the key is to try and accept the fact that there are other valid ways of looking at an issue. Each person will form their own opinion based on their personality, life experiences, and many other factors. As long as they are open to other people forming their own opinions based on their unique experiences, there is room for respectful disagreement.

Of course this week’s Torah portion contains a lesson with a prime example of seeing things from another’s perspective. In this week’s Torah reading we find “Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebecca for a wife, the daughter of Besuel the Aramean from Padam Aram and sister to Lavan the Aramean” (Genesis 25:20).

The famous biblical commentator known as Rashi wonders why the Torah feels it necessary to reiterate that Rebecca was the daughter of Besuel the Aramean and the sister of Lavan the Aramean. After all, last week’s Torah reading (just a few sentences earlier) clearly identifies Rebecca’s lineage and homeland. Why does the Torah repeat it again?

Rashi answers that the Torah is teaching us that even though Rebecca grew up with a wicked father and brother, and came from a place of wicked people, she didn’t learn from their evil ways.

Still this explanation requires further clarification. In last week’s portion we already saw that Rebecca was a kind and generous person, as well as one of great modesty. Why is it necessary to once again highlight the difference between Rebecca and her wicked relatives from a wicked place?

Furthermore, it is odd that the Torah repeats by both her father Besuel and her brother Lavan that they were Aramean. Why is there a special emphasis on their Aramean nationality?

Jewish law is derived from the Talmud, the ancient compilation of discussions regarding all areas of Jewish Law. Yet the Talmud is primarily written in Aramaic, the language of Aram, instead of Hebrew, the language of the Jewish people. Why are our laws not written exclusively in our native tongue?

The Aramean language is one of understanding another’s perspective. As an example, the word chessed in Hebrew means kindness, yet Rashi tells us (Leviticus 20:17) that in Aramaic it means shame. How can the same word mean both kindness and shame? It’s all a matter of perspective; the giver feels that he is doing a kindness, but the recipient feels shame at having to accept charity. The Arameans focus on the other individual’s perspective – hence in Aramaic chessed means shame.

This is why the majority of the Talmud is written in Aramaic. When we have an argument in law, we want each opinion to be sensitive to the other’s perspective before we decide on the proper approach. Only in understanding the other sides’ perspective can we properly distill our own perspective. This was precisely Beit Hillel’s approach and the reason we almost always follow their view.

This ability to see something from another’s perspective is deeply rooted in the very essence of the Aramean culture. Unfortunately, like every great talent this incredible ability can be used for good or for evil. Both Rebecca’s father and brother used this ability to become confidence men (“con men”). A con man enters the reality of the “mark” and knows exactly how to manipulate him to gain “confidence” and get his desired end result. This comes from an uncanny ability to see the world from another’s perspective.

The reason that Rebecca’s lineage is repeated in this week’s portion is because it becomes very relevant to the story line. The Torah is teaching us that Rebecca too had this ability. After all, it was her idea that her son Jacob enter into Isaac’s reality and, through a subtle subterfuge, receive the blessings that were intended for her wicked son Eisav. Thus Rebecca, being from Aram, had the innate ability of insight into another’s perspective, but she used it to make sure that her righteous son prevailed over her wicked son.

When we try to see issues from another’s perspective we validate them as people. Validating them does not itself mean agreeing with them, approving of them, or waiving your own rights. You can still take appropriate actions to protect or support yourself or others. You are merely accepting the reality of the other person. You may not like it, you may not prefer it, you may feel sad or angry about it, but at a deeper level, you are at peace with it.

That alone is a blessing, and usually your shift to acceptance of that reality can help resolve conflict and polarization. After all, God created every one of us differently – as the sages in the Midrash point out; “Just like their faces are different so too are their viewpoints.” God didn’t create a world with a monolithic society. The differences in opinions gives us a collective strength. God created a world in which we can come to appreciate our differences and still work together to build a better society.

Toldot, Genesis 25:19 - 28:9

Rebecca (Rivka) gives birth to Esau (Eisav) and Jacob (Yaakov). Esau sells the birthright to Jacob for a bowl of lentil soup. Isaac (Yitzchak) sojourns in Gerar with Avimelech, king of the Philistines. Esau marries two Hittite women bringing great pain to his parents (because they weren’t of the fold).

Jacob impersonates Esau on the counsel of his mother in order to receive the blessing for the oldest son from his blind father, Isaac. Esau, angry because of his brother’s deception caused him to lose the firstborn blessings, plans to kill Jacob, so Jacob flees to his uncle Lavan in Padan Aram – on the advice of his parents. They also advise him to marry Lavan’s daughter.

Esau understands that his Canaanite wives are displeasing to his parents, so he marries a third wife, Machlath, the daughter of Ishmael.