Our Gemara on Amud Aleph lists a series of notable sages, whose lifetimes and careers embodied a close of an era.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Nasan are the end of the Mishna, i.e., the last of the tanna’im, the redactors of the Mishna. Rav Ashi and Ravina are the end of instruction, i.e., the end of the period of the amora’im, the redacting of the Talmud, which occurred after the period of the tanna’im.
There is something about the idea of pairs. The Megalleh Amukos (Eschanan 1) notes that most of the sages listed in the beginning of Pirke Avos also seem to come in pairs. He goes as far as to use that to deepen Moshe Rabbenu’s argument to God to enter the promised land. According to this idea, he wasn’t asking to hold back Yehoshua from his promotion and destiny as leader of the Jewish people. Instead, he just wanted to remain a leader as well, and they will follow the model of pairs which seemed to be the prevalent system.
What is the value of a paired leadership? On the one hand, we have the aphorism utilized by the Moon at the dawn of creation: “Is it possible for two kings to serve with one crown?” (Chulin 60b). And yet, the most fundamental unit of humanity, and the model for all relations, begins with a pair. Husband and wife, mother and father. Pairing offers many advantages: Company and support, as well as perspective from someone who knows you well enough but also can be more objective about matters when personal bias is powerful. This latter point is known in the psychological literature as complementarity, where differences in style and perception act as parts of a more complete whole, instead of frustrations.
We all know this to be true, and there is no shortage of psychological books on how best to use these differences, and bridge gaps in emotional language, affect, and cognitive style. In this article, I will focus on an interesting discovery about complementarity by researchers Vanessa K. Bohns et. al. (Social Cognition, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2013, pp. 1–14, “Opposites Fit: Regulatory Focus Complementarity And Relationship Well-Being.”)
What the researchers found was that marital harmony did indeed depend on shared goals, and in that way, lack of congruence led to dissatisfaction. However, once the goal is agreed upon, complementary and different self-regulation styles actually promote more success and satisfaction. In plain english, there are people who are more comfortable with risk, and others with security. To succeed in most goals, ranging broadly from parenting to investing, there needs to be a balance of risk-taking and caution. If the goal is shared, the means to accomplish it, and the amount of risk versus security measures can be dynamically adjusted, based on the different perspectives that each person brings to the table. When one is being overly timid, the risk-taker can confront and/or take the lead in certain areas. Yet, if the risk taker is over-exposing to danger, the security-minded person can balance this out. That is why major financial decisions should be made as a team, and if one partner sees an opportunity and the other a foolish risk, it needs to be sorted carefully with respect. Each person is doing their job so to speak, but it is only a half-job, if they do not allow for cross influence.
This idea has implications for every aspect of relationships and parenting. First establish a degree of goal congruence, so you are both able to aim in the same direction. Then notice how you each manage regulation of risk. As one example, parents might have the same goal to raise a child who is not selfish; other parents might have a goal of promoting confidence; while a third set of parents may prioritize raising a child who pursues excellence. The primary goal of what the chinuch is supposed to accomplish should be in harmony. After that, methods may vary greatly. One parent may be more afraid that the child will not feel cared for, and take a softer approach. Another parent may believe the child must be challenged and held accountable. Many struggles happen on this continuum. It is important to first make sure that the goal is agreed upon, and then ongoing dialogue needs to happen where the vigilant party and the more risk-taking party can continuously work together in a complimentary fashion.
It is conjecture, but perhaps those great teams of Rabbis, Shammai and Hillel, Ravina and Rav Ashi, and many others, represented different degrees of regulation of vigilance versus action, and their ability to work together and counterbalance offered the best leadership, because the goals were the same.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)