D’var Torah – Disagreeing l’shem shamayim

Written by Rabbi Hannah Kingston — 25 April 2025

This week singer-songwriter Lola Young topped the nominations for the 2025 Ivor Novello Awards. She received three nominations, including best song musically and lyrically for ‘Messy’ which went viral on TikTok and reached no.1 in January.

The song tells of Lola’s internal struggles of feeling ‘messy’. How her personality, her flaws and insecurities, contribute to difficulties in her relationships. She grapples with the pressure of perfection, of saying and doing the right thing, in her raw and honest songwriting style.

The chorus lyrics, with expletives removed are as follows:

Cause I’m too messy, and then I’m too clean

You told me, “Get a job”, then you ask where I’ve been

And I’m too perfect till I opеn my big mouth

I want to be me, is that not allowed?

And although I may seem young to some of you, to the TikTok generation I am incredibly old, yet this song still resonates with me, and I’m sure with many of us in the room. The pressure many of us feel to do the ‘right’ thing, to act in a certain way, projected onto us by society and by the communities we are part of. The world often feels set up to not allow us to act in a way that truly expresses our own values, instead confined to the societal norms set up by others.

And this too can be said of how we should live our Judaism. We, Progressive Jews, can be perceived by more Orthodox society as picking and choosing which halachah, Jewish ritual law, we follow, as not doing Judaism in the perceived ‘right’ way. Whereas we would argue that we make decisions from knowledge, choosing the ritual that has meaning and reflects our values.

Two people, who perhaps fell foul of this need to do things in the ‘right’ way, are Nadav and Avihu, two of Aaron’s sons, who we read of in this weeks parasha. When working in their role as priests we are told they offered Alien fire to God, and were met with a return fire which consumed them, with them dying at the instance of God.

As you can imagine, the commentators speak at length about this extreme punishment. They comment that Nadav and Avihu cross boundaries, ignore protocols or in the words of Ibn Ezra they acted on their own and not under instruction.

The commentators focus on doing the ‘right’ thing. They blame Nadav and Avihu for an error in their explicit action.

Medieval French commentator Rashi, on the other hand, criticises not the action, but the way the action is carried out. He comments that Nadav and Avihu gave decisions on religious matters in the presence of their teacher, Moses or that they entered the Sanctuary intoxicated by wine.

He concludes that Nadav and Avihu were not punished for what they did, but for how they did it.

The slight difference in angle, between Rashi and between our other commentors, shows that there is space for differences, space for different actions, different opinions, as long as approach those differences in the right way.  The challenge is not in the disagreement. It is how we express it, and how we hear an opinion different to our own.

The news has once again felt difficult over the past week, and what has felt perhaps even more painful is that our community has turned to speaking badly to and about one another.

Rabbi Elliott spoke last week on Erev Shabbat about the ability to disagree and the strength that comes from holding different opinions to one another. Pluralism in our Judaism can feel difficult and can bring hurt. But it can also bring joy when we learn to celebrate our differences and see them as moments for learning.

Judaism is built on a tradition of disagreement. Two of our most well known sages, Hillel and Shammai are often described as disagreeing. In fact there are 316 different matters over which they dispute.

But what is special about the disputes of Hillel and Shammai is that their disagreements are identified in the Mishnah as being l’shem shamayim – for the sake of heaven. They are seen as the exemplars of arguing.

What is it that makes their disputes for the sake of heaven, in contrast to many of the disputes that we have seen this week that have felt painful?

Despite differences of opinions, the disciples of Hillel and Shammai maintained good relationships and did not include personal attacks. Their arguments were motivated by serving God, rather than serving their own egos. The listened wholly to one another and were open to learning from others. And finally both opinions were preserved, showing that though they disagreed, they saw merit in the other.

In our communities we will disagree, especially when we are talking about the things we are passionate about. The letters that were published this week may have challenged us, or they may have expressed views that we ourselves have struggled to articulate. But they were written b’shem shamayim, for the sake of heaven, and those who disagree with them, should try to do so in the same spirit.

Disagreemant is inevitable. It is how we disagree that frames our ability to move forward. We must strive for respectful dialogue, for not abusing power, and continuing to see that we are all created in the divine image. And although it can feel hard, we must be open to hearing opinions other than our own, and seeing the merit in them even when we disagree.