For three years there was a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, the former asserting, “The law is in agreement with our views,” and the latter contending, “The law is in agreement with our views.” Then a bat kol, a voice from heaven, announced, Eilu v’eilu divrei Elohim chayim, “These and those are the words of the living God, but the law is in agreement with the rulings of Beit Hillel.”
Since, however, “Eilu V’eilu, both are the words of the living God,” what was it that entitled Beit Hillel to have the law fixed according to their rulings? Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beit Shammai, and were even so humble to mention the words of Beit Shammai before their own. (Eruvin 13b)
“These and those.” Two conflicting opinions can both be valid. Furthermore, there are conflicting points of view which cannot exist without the other. The phrase Eilu V’eilu emphasizes the incompleteness of any single opinion. The v’, which means “and”, is essential, uniting and complementing the two opinions without choosing one or compromising the integrity of either. Both “are the words of the living God;” the debate between Hillel and Shammai is a machloket l’shem shamayim—an enduring dispute in the name of Heaven. Pirke Avot 5:17 distinguishes between machloket l’shem shamayim (dispute for the sake of Heaven) and machloket lo l’shem shamayim (dispute not for the sake of Heaven). What is a dispute for the sake of heaven? One in which the intent of the dialogue is to teach others, despite their differences. The text about Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai above is the given example. And what is a dispute not for the sake of Heaven? It is suggested that Korach and his group who rebelled did so not to teach but rather to lead others astray.
Above is our “mission statement” for our monthly exchange of ideas with Eilu V’eilu. We attempt to find issues of interest and concern of our readers where we believe that there is not an unequivocal response to the question or statement posed. The purpose is to be thought provoking and to share ideas and opinions for the sake of an informed dialogue. For those of you who are new to our dialogue you might not be aware that there have often been times when our contributors sat on dramatically opposite sides of the subject matter. However, with some of our volumes over the past six months, we have been struggling with our initial intent for Eilu V’eilu. We seek to find writers that will represent differing opinions. We are still searching for the best vehicle to present two clearly different and opposing perspectives on issues that matter to Jews in general and to Reform Jews in particular. We know that there is diversity of thought and practice within the Reform Movement. Indeed, we celebrate that diversity. We need your help in order to for Eilu V’eilu to realize its potential.
To that end we are coming to you, our readers for thoughts and ideas. Please share with us what topics you think might make for a substantive divergent dialogue. The link here (http://urj.org/torah/ten/eilu/archives/) allows you to see our archived volumes. Here you will be able to see the topics we have already engaged in and the opinions shared in those dialogues. We want to be responsive to you, our reader; help us by sharing your ideas of topics we can explore from differing sides of the aisle.
Connect with 
Multimedia: 