There are few experiences more horrifying than watching a machlokes close-up particularly if one is close to either of the parties involved. Once one joins the battle winning becomes everything.

Chazal teach us “Acquire for yourself a friend” and the commentators explain that means even a friend who may not be at your intellectual or spiritual level. Why is that? Because on any important question about which you seek his advice he has one huge advantage that outweighs any innate superiority you may possess: He is not nogei’a b’davar — i.e. he has no personal interest and you do. Personal interests cloud all judgment and cause one to forget his principles.

In the throes of machlokes people seem to suffer from temporary insanity. People of stature for example may contemplate going to arka’os (a non-Jewish court) in order to achieve the most ephemeral advantage. And the ability to make even the most basic cost-benefit analysis disappears. Parties to a dispute will sink sums into litigation far larger than the monetary value of the matter under dispute for “the principle” involved.

Rabbi Berel Wein relates in Vintage Wein the story of heirs to a huge fortune — more than enough to maintain at least two generations in luxury — who became so embroiled in litigation that they couldn’t sell their real estate holdings which were all being held in escrow by the court when real estate markets went down. By the time they were done they were left with almost nothing besides their huge legal fees. I do not think the parties to that dispute were Torah Jews but we do not have to leave our world to find parallel examples.

The greatest price of machlokes is the destruction of middos that it brings in its wake. Rav Shach often warned those who were contemplating going to beis din even where their cause was just and the matters at stake significant to reconsider because the toll on their menuchas hanefesh and on their middos would be so great. And the longer the machlokes festers the greater and more permanent the toll.

Even bnei Torah — the epitome of refinement in the world — who are seized with the spirit of machlokes are capable of actions that would have been unfathomable only a few months earlier: insulting even physically assaulting great talmidei chachamim or hiring and consorting with goons. Over time as the machlokes continues to broil these things seem like the normal course of doing business especially if the machlokes is l’sheim Shamayim.

Machlokes is like a whirlpool; it sucks all who are nearby into its vortex. Those who seek to preserve their middos often have no choice but to flee. At least two of the talmidei chachamim with whom I’m closest ran away from important institutions when they caught the first hint of machlokes. They did not stop to ask who was right or who was wrong and ended up incurring the anger of both the principals involved. But they felt they had no choice if they wanted to protect all that they had worked to achieve in terms of their own middos over a lifetime.

Those in the throes of a machlokes often reach the point of wanting to destroy the one with whom they are locked in combat. Matters don’t usually come to murder. But there is something inherently murderous about machlokes especially if it is prolonged. Any such trace of murderous intent is fundamentally at odds with the Creator. He created each person with a purpose and in the midst of a machlokes we imagine the world would be better off without that person.

In addition we deny the fundamental interdependence of all beings which is Hashem’s handiwork. Korach was the epitome of a bar machlokes and that began with separating himself from everyone else. Rabbeinu Bachye links Korach in a straight line to the leaders of the dor haflagah (the generation that built the Tower of Babel) and to the anshei Sdom (the men of Sdom). The former sought to build a tower to the Heavens to wage war so to speak on the Upper Realms and to sever the connection between the upper and lower realms.

The men of Sdom sought to force another separation: they argued that each person had to be entirely self-sufficient. No person had any right to ever seek the assistance of another. Nor could one proffer assistance to another — on pain of death. In place of a world of interdependence and harmony the people of Sdom envisioned a world of atomistic self-sufficient beings.

That vision is the ultimate denial of Hashem. Shalom is one of the names of Hashem. It cannot for instance be uttered in the bathhouse. The difference between a “name” and a “quality” of Hashem such as emes (truth) is that a “name” means is something that has no existence except in relationship to Hashem. There can be no true shalom in the world without a connection to Hashem and through Him to each of our fellow men.

Talmidei chachamim who have a unique connection to Hashem through their study of His blueprint are called chaverim because they can form the deepest connection to one another and between men. They “increase peace in the world.”

Machlokes that is not l’sheim Shamayim thus constitutes a denial of Hashem and His Torah — a denial of the essential unity of the world that He created according to the Torah. We must all be wary of coming close to machlokes perhaps never more so than when the yetzer seeks to convince us that we are acting l’sheim Shamayim.

Two Messages from a Delayed Parade

The current issue of Commentary (July/August) recounts a fascinating historical vignette from 1788 also discussed in last week’s Mishpacha by Rabbi Yaakov Feitman.

In the summer of that year a constitutional convention was in progress inPoughkeepsieto determine whetherNew Yorkwould ratify the proposed US Constitution. Nine states had already done so which was sufficient to bring theUnited Statesinto existence. Yet the failure ofNew York the nascent country’s leading commercial center to ratify would have been a severe blow to the young country’s prospects.

Federalist supporters of ratification had planned an elaborate parade inNew York Cityfor July 22. Five thousand ofNew York City’s 20000 residents at the time were expected to participate. Time was of the essence if the parade was to have any impact on the deliberations inPoughkeepsie.

Yet the parade was postponed to the next day because it fell on the 17^th of Tammuz. At the timeNew York City’s Jewish population numbered only 20 to 30 families. The majority of families were of Ashkenazic descent by 1788 but the community continued to follow the Sephardic ritual of its founders. (Because of this historical curiosity the participation of the Jewish community in a festive parade the next day was not problematic despite the onset of the Three Weeks.)

Nothing of how the clash in dates was brought to the attention of the organizers or their decision-making process is known. But that the parade was rescheduled late in the day is established.

I extract two lessons from this tale — one positive and the second sad. The first is the affinity that existed between the Jews and founders ofAmericafrom the very beginning. The Pilgrims for instance self-consciously viewed themselves as the New Israel and builtBoston— “the city on the hill” — as a new Jerusalem.

The sadder realization is that once the entire Jewish population ofNew York Cityknew the meaning of Shivah Asar B’Tammuz and acted accordingly. (I have the same feeling reading Rabbi Berel Wein’s description of tens of thousands of Chicago Jews performing Tashlich on Rosh HaShanah and realizing that not even that many know what Tashlich is today.)

Making Ourselves Clear

Writing in Tablet last week Lee Smith quotes a variety of American defense officials dating back to the Bush II administration — including former defense secretary Robert Gates former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen and current defense secretary Leon Panetta — to the effect that an American strike on the Iranian nuclear program would set the program back no more than one to three years.

Smith calls into question that estimate as based on so many implicit assumptions as to be almost meaningless. It should be understood he argues as an excuse for inaction rather than as a serious intelligence judgment.

But even Smith misses the most obvious reason why the estimate is nonsense. An American strike would make clear in the most uncertain terms that theUnited Stateshas no intention of lettingIrango nuclear. As former British diplomat Harold Nicolson once said (in politically incorrect language) “One can never be certain what is in the mind of the Oriental but we must leave the Oriental no doubt what is in our mind.” A strike onIranwould leave no doubt about what is on our minds.

And once that is done what does it matter how long it would takeIranto rebuild unimpeded? As long as it still had no means to defend against another American attack rebuilding would remain an exercise in futility for the Iranians.

A few months back former CIA director James Woolsey told me that it would make no sense to take out the Iranian nuclear installations without at the same time striking hard at the chief assets of the Revolutionary Guard — “the head of the state” in his words. Without the Revolutionary Guard Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini’s ability to retain power is questionable. And thus he would have another great incentive not to start another round with theUnited States: the danger of dramatically increasing the likelihood of the overthrow of the Islamic Revolution.

In short a powerful American strike would completely change the entire calculus for the Iranian regime by removing doubts about American willingness and capabilities and deliver a clear message to the Iranian regime that restarting its nuclear program could well result in their own demise.