Our Gemara on Amud Beis records a reaction of Rabbi Yirmiya to a suggested legal argument from a Babylonian scholar: “Foolish Babylonians! Because they dwell in a dark land, they state halachos that are dim.”

Such a statement about the relative dimness of the Babylonian scholars versus those from Israel is particularly ironic, since Rabbi Yirmiya himself originally emigrated from Babylonia. Abaye and Rava in Kesuvos (75a) make this exact point:

“Abaye said: And one of the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael is superior to two of us, Babylonians. Rava said: And one of us Babylonians, when he ascends to Eretz Yisrael, is superior to two people born and raised in Eretz Yisrael. 

The Gemara cites a proof for Rava’s claim: As Rabbi Yirmeya, when he was here, in Babylonia, did not even know what the Sages say. He was not considered an important scholar. But when he ascended there, it was he, and not the other Sages of Eretz Yisrael, who called us foolish Babylonians. Evidently, he became even greater than they were.”

There is a double-double effect: the scholars of Eretz Yisrael have a superior level of study or wisdom more than double the Babylonian (due to the merit or holiness of the land, see Ritva ibid.). Additionally, should a Babylonian scholar emigrate, he now can potentially grow to more than double the scholar from Eretz Yisrael. The Ritva (ibid.) elaborates and offers two reasons for this effect. (1) Since the Babylonian scholar took the extraordinary step and sacrifice of gravitating toward holiness and traveling to Israel, he merits divine inspiration. (2) The act of leaving behind the distraction of family and the familiar enhances dedication and focus on study.

I think there is an additional factor. Whenever there is a successful synthesis after a confrontation of differences, the end product tends to be superior. The scholar from Babylonia has his set of beliefs and methodology. When he is confronted by the superior and deeper traditions of Israel he does not merely discard his prior approaches. Rather he combines, integrates, and synthesizes aspects of his prior methodologies with his new source of knowledge and ideas.

In the sphere of relationships and parenting, having differences is not the problem. Being different is actually a potential asset so long as the confrontation of differences occurs with respect, curiosity, dialogue, and collaboration. Then both parties can challenge their beliefs and blind spots, and synthesize new ideas as a result of exposure to their spouse’s viewpoints. In addition, even if not integrated, respectful dialogue allows for each to compensate for the other’s weaknesses. One might be more intuitive or empathic and another might be more disciplined and logical. Research shows that children thrive and feel more secure when parents have what is known as constructive conflict. Constructive conflict is marked by cooperation, problem solving, support, physical affection, and working toward a resolution (Warmuth KA, Cummings EM, Davies PT. “Constructive and destructive interparental conflict, problematic parenting practices, and children’s symptoms of psychopathology.” J Fam Psychol. 2020 Apr;34(3):301–311).

When children observe these discussions, exchanges, and negotiations instead of feeling confused or receiving mixed messages, they internalize models of communication, assertiveness, self-analysis, and finding common ground which gives them confidence, empowerment and emotional security.