Viewpoint Diversity and Jewish Thought
Save
Copy
Add to Collection
Export to Google Docs
Share"Our Technology Sickness - And How to Heal It", by Micah Goodman
Guided by the belief that one can draw closer to God by studying sacred texts, Jews have long sanctified learning and scholarship. Surprisingly, they largely concentrated on the Talmud, not the Bible. And what’s in the Talmud? Let’s start with what is not in it: no clear and straightforward list of laws to be observed. Anyone who opens the Talmud finds many more disputes than legal decisions. Jews of all stripes, from sages to daily laborers, have studied this text as an essential element of their religious lives. They fulfilled the obligation to study not by examining the word of God as expressed in the Torah, but by examining the words of humans voiced in the Talmud.
The absence of an orderly list of laws and statutes in the Talmud does not mean those laws and statutes are inconsequential. Jewish tradition demands not just studying books but observing laws. The first requirement is intellectual: Jews are required to study texts. The second is practical: Jews are required to obey laws. Intellectually, Jews are expected to be conversant with all sides of a controversy, but in their lived behavior they are expected to follow one position among many. Jews are expected to know the opinion of Abaye, but to uphold the opinion of Rava; to study the positions of Shammai but live according to the positions of Hillel.
In studying the Talmud, we’re enjoined to grapple with all sides of a dispute but in the end to live our lives in accord with only one of those sides. This model informed my last two books—a model that I believed might help heal the wounds of Israeli society. My two most recent books, Catch-67 (2018) and The Wondering Jew (2020), were about relationships between groups of people: left and right, Israelis and Palestinians, religious and secular Jews. With Catch-67 I tried to elucidate the ideological war in Israel over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict using a Talmudic lens. I attempted to show the left that the positions of the right are grounded in a deep and compelling philosophy; I tried to show the right that left-wing positions are shaped by fascinating schools of thought. In my most recent book, The Wondering Jew, I endeavored to present the profound thinking of secular positions to religious Jews, and to present the wisdom contained in religious schools of thought to secular Jews. In both cases, the organizing idea was Talmudic: not to persuade anyone to change their practice, but to broaden readers’ worldviews.
Guided by the belief that one can draw closer to God by studying sacred texts, Jews have long sanctified learning and scholarship. Surprisingly, they largely concentrated on the Talmud, not the Bible. And what’s in the Talmud? Let’s start with what is not in it: no clear and straightforward list of laws to be observed. Anyone who opens the Talmud finds many more disputes than legal decisions. Jews of all stripes, from sages to daily laborers, have studied this text as an essential element of their religious lives. They fulfilled the obligation to study not by examining the word of God as expressed in the Torah, but by examining the words of humans voiced in the Talmud.
The absence of an orderly list of laws and statutes in the Talmud does not mean those laws and statutes are inconsequential. Jewish tradition demands not just studying books but observing laws. The first requirement is intellectual: Jews are required to study texts. The second is practical: Jews are required to obey laws. Intellectually, Jews are expected to be conversant with all sides of a controversy, but in their lived behavior they are expected to follow one position among many. Jews are expected to know the opinion of Abaye, but to uphold the opinion of Rava; to study the positions of Shammai but live according to the positions of Hillel.
In studying the Talmud, we’re enjoined to grapple with all sides of a dispute but in the end to live our lives in accord with only one of those sides. This model informed my last two books—a model that I believed might help heal the wounds of Israeli society. My two most recent books, Catch-67 (2018) and The Wondering Jew (2020), were about relationships between groups of people: left and right, Israelis and Palestinians, religious and secular Jews. With Catch-67 I tried to elucidate the ideological war in Israel over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict using a Talmudic lens. I attempted to show the left that the positions of the right are grounded in a deep and compelling philosophy; I tried to show the right that left-wing positions are shaped by fascinating schools of thought. In my most recent book, The Wondering Jew, I endeavored to present the profound thinking of secular positions to religious Jews, and to present the wisdom contained in religious schools of thought to secular Jews. In both cases, the organizing idea was Talmudic: not to persuade anyone to change their practice, but to broaden readers’ worldviews.
כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:
Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.
כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁאַנְשֵׁי הַמַּחֲלֹקֶת הַהִיא מִתְקַיְּמִים וְאֵינָם אוֹבְדִין, כְּמַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי שֶׁלֹּא אָבְדוּ לֹא תַּלְמִידֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְלֹא תַּלְמִידֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. אֲבָל קֹרַח וַעֲדָתוֹ אָבְדוּ. וַאֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי, פֵּרוּשׁ סוֹפָהּ, תַּכְלִיתָהּ הַמְבֻקָּשׁ מֵעִנְיָנָהּ. וְהַמַּחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, הַתַּכְלִית וְהַסּוֹף הַמְבֻקָּשׁ מֵאוֹתָהּ מַחֲלֹקֶת לְהַשִּׂיג הָאֱמֶת, וְזֶה מִתְקַיֵּם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ מִתּוֹךְ הַוִּכּוּחַ יִתְבָּרֵר הָאֱמֶת, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר בְּמַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי שֶׁהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל. וּמַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, תַּכְלִית הַנִּרְצֶה בָּהּ הִיא בַּקָּשַׁת הַשְּׂרָרָה וְאַהֲבַת הַנִּצּוּחַ, וְזֶה הַסּוֹף אֵינוֹ מִתְקַיֵּם, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּמַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וַעֲדָתוֹ שֶׁתַּכְלִית וְסוֹף כַּוָּנָתָם הָיְתָה בַּקָּשַׁת הַכָּבוֹד וְהַשְּׂרָרָה וְהָיוּ לְהֶפֶךְ:
Every argument that is for [the sake of] heaven's name, it is destined (literally, its end is) to endure: That is to say that the [parties to] the argument are destined to endure and not perish, as with the argument between Hillel and Shammai, [whereby] neither the students of the School of Hillel nor the students of the School of Shammai perished. But Korach and his congregation perished. And I heard the explanation of “its end” is its purpose that is sought from its subject. And [with] the argument which is for the sake of Heaven, the purpose and aim that is sought from that argument is to arrive at the truth, and this endures; like that which they said, "From a dispute the truth will be clarified," and as it became elucidated from the argument between Hillel and Shammai - that the law was like the school of Hillel. And [with] argument which is not for the sake of Heaven, its desired purpose is to achieve power and the love of contention, and its end will not endure; as we found in the argument of Korach and his congregation - that their aim and ultimate intent was to achieve honor and power, and the opposite was [achieved].
כַּלָּה כְּמוֹת שֶׁהִיא וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים כַּלָּה נָאָה וַחֲסוּדָה אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה חִיגֶּרֶת אוֹ סוֹמָא אוֹמְרִים לָהּ כַּלָּה נָאָה וַחֲסוּדָה וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה מִדְּבַר שֶׁקֶר תִּרְחָק אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי לְדִבְרֵיכֶם מִי שֶׁלָּקַח מִקָּח רַע מִן הַשּׁוּק יְשַׁבְּחֶנּוּ בְּעֵינָיו אוֹ יְגַנֶּנּוּ בְּעֵינָיו הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר יְשַׁבְּחֶנּוּ בְּעֵינָיו מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים לְעוֹלָם תְּהֵא דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מְעוֹרֶבֶת עִם הַבְּרִיּוֹת
One recites praise of the bride as she is, emphasizing her good qualities. And Beit Hillel say: One recites: A fair and attractive bride. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: In a case where the bride was lame or blind, does one say with regard to her: A fair and attractive bride? But the Torah states: “Keep you from a false matter” (Exodus 23:7). Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your statement, with regard to one who acquired an inferior acquisition from the market, should another praise it and enhance its value in his eyes or condemn it and diminish its value in his eyes? You must say that he should praise it and enhance its value in his eyes and refrain from causing him anguish. From here the Sages said: A person’s disposition should always be empathetic with mankind, and treat everyone courteously. In this case too, once the groom has married his bride, one praises her as being fair and attractive.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל, הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ, וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתֵנוּ. יָצְאָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹקִים חַיִּים הֵן, וַהֲלָכָה כְּבֵית הִלֵּל.
Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.
וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹקִים חַיִּים, מִפְּנֵי מָה זָכוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לִקְבּוֹעַ הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתָן? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹחִין וַעֲלוּבִין הָיוּ, וְשׁוֹנִין דִּבְרֵיהֶן וְדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּקְדִּימִין דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְדִבְרֵיהֶן.
The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.