I am in Jerusalem participating for a second summer in the Shalom Hartman Institute’s Rabbinic Leadership Initiative (RLI), which brings together 26 North American rabbis of different denominations to study together and explore some of the critical issues facing Judaism and Israel today.
There’s a lot going on in Israel. (When is that not the case?)
On Wednesday night, the British rock band, Radiohead, played a sold-out concert in Tel Aviv. It was a big story as the group had been under intense pressure to cancel the concert over Israel’s policies regarding the Palestinians. Radiohead responded to the pro-BDS pressure campaign that their playing in Israel does not signify approval of the government’s policies.
I can’t say I’m a fan, but Radiohead’s Thom Yorke made a great point that can apply to the harsh disagreements which seem to always “rock” the Jewish community.
Music, art and academia is about crossing borders not building them, about open minds not closed ones, about shared humanity, dialogue and freedom of expression.
Why can’t Judaism and Jewish ideas - even divergent ones - accomplish something similar?
It seems like Jews cannot tolerate that others have differing views. If there is ever going to be progress or even just civility in the Jewish community (or in any community), we need to start having less shouting and more talking. Our communities need to stop making comments about “the other” and start finding ways to engage each other.
Recently, the Israeli government suspended an agreement to expand and enhance the area near the Kotel for non-Orthodox prayer services as well as to appoint an interdenominational commission to oversee the area. It was a terrific compromise for a very complex issue, and it was abandoned due to coalition politics.
This decision angered the leadership of much of the Diaspora Jewish community and has led to an angry war of words between both sides.
Does the suspension of the Kotel Compromise really mean that the State of Israel doesn’t care about American Jews? Can’t reasonable Jews disagree over the propriety or importance of egalitarian prayer?
Chareidim are intent on denying any ounce of legitimacy to non-Orthodox Jews or, really, any Jews with whom they disagree. They should try and understand where non-Orthodox are coming from instead of writing them out of the Jewish people. Non-Orthodox Jews should try and understand the utra-Orthodox position as well as recognize how the average Israeli may not view egalitarian prayer at the Kotel as an important issue.
I get it. I think the Israeli government decision is terrible. I think there needs to be a path for non-Orthodox Jews to express themselves religiously in the State of Israel. I think the Chief Rabbinate is deeply flawed and in need of replacement.
At the same time, I want to move forward. There is too much anger surrounding these issues and not enough appreciation for the need for genuine conversation and mutual respect.
There are many areas of disagreement in the Jewish world. Reasonable people can disagree about the importance or necessity of an egalitarian prayer space at the Western Wall. How Judaism confronts the changing dynamics of relationships, family life, and sexuality in the modern word are complex issues. At the same time, is anything positive accomplished with shouts, insults, threats, or exclusion?
The appropriate response is to engage.
The Talmud (Eruvin 13b) famously teaches that the bat kol (heavenly voice) sided with Beit Hillel in their disputes with Beit Shammai. Even though “eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim chaim - these and these are the words of the living God,” the law follows Beit Hillel. Why is this is so? If both sides are the words of the living God, why follow one and not the other? The Talmud answers that Beit Hillel would study and teach both their opinion and that of Beit Shammai, and moreover, they would teach the view of Beit Shammai before their own.
We can be committed to our own views, but we are more effective when we include consideration and discussion with those who maintain an opposing view. It worked for Beit Hillel, and it can work for us.
Dr. Tal Becker is a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem and also serves as principal deputy legal adviser at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As a senior member of the Israeli peace negotiation team, he is no stranger to disagreements. He quotes the Rambam (Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1, Chapter 5) that a person “should not decide any question by the first idea that suggests itself to his mind, or at once direct his thoughts and force them to obtain knowledge of the Creator…”
Humility and patience are important traits in our intellectual endeavors and should also be brought to our arguments. We shouldn’t view our disagreements as zero sum exercises with one side winning and one side losing. Becker writes:
We should want a Jewish debate that reflects the pluralism, complexity and contradictions of our tradition and experience. And we should engage in argument, not mainly in order to persuade, but in order to refine and broaden our understanding. This does not mean the argument should be any less rigorous, or that poorly reasoned positions should not be weeded out. It means that the objective of an argument is to learn and not to win. It is a pedagogical exercise, not a competitive one.
Professor David Hartman, founder of the Shalom Hartman Institute, had a similar approach:
My desire is to speak to all Jews. This does not mean that if I speak to them, I legitimate them...I talk with Jews because if I do not talk with them, I cannot influence them. And not only do I talk to them, I also listen to them. For if they do not feel that I listen to them and take them seriously, they are not prepared to listen to me.
(“Judaism in a Secular Society” in Orthodoxy Confronts Modernity, p. 27)
The battles being waged in the Jewish world will not be won with angry pronouncements. They won’t be won at all if they are viewed as battles that need to have winners and losers. We should not focus on who screams louder or makes the more outrageous or even heartfelt statements.
The path forward is pretty simple. In the words of the late Joan Rivers, “Can we talk?”
Each of us should find someone with whom we disagree and ask them to explain their position. Don’t let our understanding of opposing positions come from the most egregious quotes and soundbites that make it to the media.
In addition, we would benefit from exploring issues in greater depth. What are the sources relating to the Kotel or conversion or the Middle East peace process? Might there be legitimate reasons behind the views of those with whom we disagree so vehemently?
The issues we face are the future of Judaism. We need to start a conversation between differing worldviews about what matters to each of us. We need to have the humility to acknowledge there are views which differ from our own. We need to open our hearts to those with whom we disagree in order to deepen our commitment to our own values. This can lead to a better understanding between people and genuine progress towards creating a positive relationship between different segments of the community.
Let’s stop shouting past each other and begin engaging with one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment