Shelach lecha 5770: Viewpoints

This week we have the well known portion of the spies, Moses sends ten spies, one from each tribe into the land of Israel to scout out what is there. On their return, ten of the spies start by giving a positive report, only to tell the people that there are people inhabiting the land are unconquerable.

27 And they told him, and said: 'We came unto the land where you sent us, and surely it flows with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it. 28 Yet, the people that dwell in the land are fierce, and the cities are fortified, and very great; and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. 29 Amalek dwells in the land of the South; and the Hittite, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, dwell in the mountains; and the Canaanite dwells by the sea, and along by the side of the Jordan.' ... the men that went up with him said: 'We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.'

Two, Joshua and Caleb report other wise.

30 And Caleb stilled the people toward Moses, and said: 'We should go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.'

When the people believe the ten spies, and want to go back to Egypt, God punishes them by the 40 years wandering in the desert effectively killing off this generation by attrition. The twelve spies saw the same things but came to very different conclusions. I hear such opposing voices all the time. It indeed makes it difficult to watch the news for me. There seems to be only two polarized voices shouting at each other. One is wrong and one is right. To even acknowledge the legitimacy of the oppositions point of view is considered a sign of weakness.

Indeed, even an opposing view is given a name connoting evil, "the devil's advocate." Such a term again shows there is a right way and a wrong way, and to even acknowledge the wrong way is evil. However, a wrong way may not be wrong, just different.

Rabina said in the name of Samuel: The Cherubim [made by Solomon] stood by a miracle; for it is said, And five cubits was the one wing of the Cherub,’ and five cubits the other wing of the Cherub,’ from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits, where, [then] were their bodies standing? Consequently it must be inferred that they stood by a miracle. Abaye demurred: They might have been standing [with their bodies] protruding [under the wings] like [those of] hens! Raba demurred: perhaps they did not stand opposite one another! R. Aha b. Jacob demurred: They might have been standing diagonally. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua demurred: The house might have been wider from above! R. Papa demurred: Might not their wings have been bent? R. Ashi demurred: Their wings might have been overlapping each other![Baba Bathra 99a]

In this discussion in the Talmud we see an interesting idea not in the content but how it was argued. When we have a cherub who is ten cubits long from wing tip to wing tip, yet each wing is five cubits long it leaves no room for a body. How could such a statue, found in the temple stand? Instead of one answer which is definitive, we have six different answers, each taking a very different approach and adding a piece of information to make their approach work. This is not keeping one right opinion, but listening and understanding all of them which is important. The truth is not a coin with two sides, but a precious gem of many facets. In another example, the rabbis, ever practical and spiritual come up with reasons for wiping with the left hand when going to the bath room:

Why should one wipe with the left hand and not with the right? — Raba said: Because the Torah was given with the right hand, as it says, At His right hand was a fiery law unto them.Rabbah b. Hanah said: Because it is brought to the mouth. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Because one binds the tefillin [on the left arm] with it. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Because he points to the accents in the scroll with it. A similar difference of opinion is found among Tannaim. R. Eliezer says, because one eats with it; R. Joshua says, because one writes with it; R. Akiba says, because one points with it to the accents in the scroll.[Brachot 62a]

Here the rabbis have a theme of course. A hand that has touched fecal matter should not come into contact with Torah scrolls, Tefillin, food or our mouths. They are, of course, all correct. Indeed it is our tradition that when there are multiple viewpoints at the table, then we have a holy understanding. Perkei Avot makes this rather clear:

Mishnah 3. R. Simeon said… if three have eaten at one table, and have spoken there words of Torah, [it is] as if they had eaten at the table of the all-present, blessed be he, as it is said, this is the table before the lord. (Ezek 41:22)

Mishnah 6. R. Halafta [a man] of Kefar Hanania said: [When there are] ten sitting together and occupying themselves with Torah, the Shechinah abides among them, as it is said: God stands in the congregation of God.(Ps. 82:1)[Avot 3]

There is not one viewpoint but many. We are all witnesses to Creation and all that is in it. That means we will all be different. Identical testimony in court according to the Talmud indicates a lie, since no one has identical viewpoints.
In my own thinking, I try to avoid putting situations in the good/bad flip of the coin. There is always facets. To think of a viewpoint other than your own as a devils advocate is highly inaccurate. Caleb and Joshua both held a minority opinion, but it held merit. While we call the 10 spies evil, they did have a viewpoint, though based primarily on fear and not trust in God. This all could have gone differently, if there were more consensus and less position taking. In the end, the 10 spies doomed their generation, and their “devils advocate” lead the next generation into the land of Israel.
I believe when we think, we need to consider all views, even if they are a bit uncomfortable. Even if we do not agree with another view, we at least gain the ability to talk in the same language as someone not agreeing with us. Ideally, they will do the same. I tend to do this and work out everyone else’s view first before my own. My only problem with this is other people misinterpreting my view as the ones I'm trying to appreciate first.

I have no idea what to do about others. It is a great puzzle to me how to communicate that there are many facets to any situation. I am not championing a point of view but exploring it, to understand it and acknowledge the truth of that and any other viewpoints. All I know so far is to listen to other viewpoints, and understand where the other has validity. To scoff categorically at another's viewpoint accomplishes nothing.
There is the old joke about two Jews, three opinions. The rabbis personified this type of thinking. The third opinion was a synthesis of all viewpoints, and that synthesis, not polarity, was a holy thing, one where we find God. I'm still a beginner in such Jewish thinking, but it is something we should all strive for.