- Text 1: TORAH IN COMMUNITY
- Text 2: THE MANY VOICES OF TORAH
- Text 3: FAMILY CONFLICT
- Text 4: NATIONHOOD TO NEIGHBORHOOD
- Text 5: RISING ABOVE CONFLICTING TRUTHS
KEY EDUCATIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THIS SECTION:
- How can a plurality of voices, opinions and Jewish expression enhance the Jewish collective?
- What are the limits?
- What are useful paradigms to talk about difference within the Jewish people? (family? neighborhood? other?)
Text: Torah in Community
In this text Rabbi Amy Eilberg argues that it is only through our collective belonging to a community that we can understand and carry out the Torah.
For us as Jews, this greatest of all gifts [Torah] comes to us primarily in community. While today, each of us must accept and wrestle with Torah in our own ways, we must also be willing in some sense to be part of a community of God-wrestlers and students of Torah. For Torah was a gift given to us as a collective, and continually reinterpreted by our people’s evolving wisdom. In a sense, Torah is only Torah if we stand in relationship with our people as we study it.
Rabbi Amy Eilberg: Bamidbar: Are you Ready to Receive the Torah Again? 1998
Explanation of text:
This 1998 piece is taken from an article written on Erev Shavuot by Rabbi Amy Eilberg who was ordained in 1985 as the first woman rabbi of the Conservative movement, following on the heels of women rabbis who had been ordained by the Reform and Reconstructionist movements.
The article, which urges in general the relevance of Torah for all Jews (recognising Shavuot as the holiday which celebrates the giving and receiving of Torah by the Jewish people), encouraged each individual to find their own relationship with Torah and as such expressed a typical pluralistic and individualistic approach such as has characterized liberal forms of Judaism over the last generation or so.
However Rabbi Eilberg brackets this appeal to the individual by a series of comments highlighting the importance of the individual finding their own path within the framework of the Jewish community. This attempt to balance the role of the individual in Judaism and the role of the community highlights a major challenge for large parts of the Jewish collective and as such for the whole enterprise of the Jewish People.
Judaism, far more than Christianity has always emphasized the place of the individual within the community. That is one of the essential dimensions of Jewish Peoplehood. The demands of Jewish people always emphasized the communal. Whether in the prayer setting which stressed the importance of the Minyan as a communal framework in which ideally prayers should be said and the relationship of the individual with God should be expressed or in a hundred other dimensions of Jewish life, the Jew was always seen as living his or her life within a communal framework.
It seems no exaggeration to say that as Rabbinic Judaism developed over millenia, the emphases of the Rabbis made it impossible for an individual to live a full Jewish life in isolation from a surrounding community.
However as Jews became part of the modern world and as that world began to de-emphasize the communal in favour of personal autonomy and (in some circles) an unbridled individualism, the communal ideals of Judaism began to be challenged and undermined. Movements within Judaism such as the Chavurah movement of the 1960’s and the Renewal movement of more recent years have tended to emphasise a search for personal meaning and spiritual searching within a congregational context that turned away from the large established movements of North American Jewry.
This tendency has grown with the proliferation of individual minyanim that do not necessarily affiliate with larger collective Jewish frameworks. The rise of the idea of Judaism as a basis of individual spiritual searching has for some Jews rendered redundant the need for any wider framework whatsoever.
As as number of studies of western Jewry have made clear, there are many self-identified Jews especially in the younger generations who accept the fact of their own Jewishness but find no need to connect with any wider framework. “Making Kiddush for oneself” has become a philosophy that many accept for themselves. This constitutes a major threat to the idea that all Jews should see themselves as part of the Jewish People.
There is a need for a new calibration of the relationship between the individual and the community in order to find a balance which was once completely natural and taken for granted as a component of Jewish life. It is the need for that balance that Rabbi Eilberg addresses here.
Extension Activity
KEY EDUCATIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THIS SECTION:
- How can a plurality of voices, opinions and Jewish expression enhance the Jewish collective?
- What are the limits?
- What are useful paradigms to talk about difference within the Jewish people? (family? neighborhood? other?)
Text: The Many Voices of Torah
In this text Rabbi Yehiel Michael Epstein argues that the Torah is a harmonious combination of distinct and different voices, all of which add to its beauty.
All the disputations of [the rabbis throughout the ages] represent the words of the living God….Indeed, that’s the magnificence of our Torah. The entire Torah is one song, and it is the harmonic combination of different and distinctive voices that makes listening to a choir a transcendent experience. Indeed, that is the very essence of the pleasure we derive from it.
וכל מחלוקת התנאים והאמוראים והגאונים והפוסקים….דברי אלוקים חיים המה… זוהי תפארת תורתינו….וכל התורה כולה נקראת שירה, ותפארת השיר היא כשהקולות משונים זה מזה, וזהו עיקר הנעימות
Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein: Aruch HaShulchan. 1880s
Explanation of Text:
Rabbi Yechiel Michael Epstein (1829-1908) was a 19th century Lithuanian Halachist who is often remembered as “Aruch HaShulchan” his important work summarising the sources and opinions of the 16th Halalchic code, the “Shulchan Aruch”. He stands in the centre of Eastern European orthodoxy in his time and the quote brought above is thus a particularly interesting statement concerning the breadth of the Jewish tradition and its ability to contain different points of view.
The Rabbinic tradition in Judaism, as a tradition which has for thousands of years seen its major task as elucidating the will of God through a minute and often creative dissection of the Torah and the Tanach and the secondary literature that has accumulated within the Rabbinic tradition itself (such as the Talmud), has walked a very delicate tightrope between two different tendencies.
On the one hand it has allowed much freedom in interpretation, recognising that an intellectually based Rabbinic elite must be free to suggest independent interpretations and analyses of the Torah tradition. On the other hand, since ultimately it has believed that God’s will must be expressed in a system of actions that must obligate all Jews, it has tended to encourage a final decision between the various practical implications of the alternative interpretations. In other words it has encouraged freedom of thought much more than freedom of action.
In terms of the interpretations the breadth of acceptable interpretations is quite astonishing as any student of Midrash (the ultimate interpretative layer in the Jewish tradition) will immediately recognise.
But the task of the “poskim” (the Halachic experts who made it their business to make final decisions on practical issues) was to make the “right decision” in practical terms and this balance between parshanut (interpretation) and psika (final practical decisions) is one that characterises Rabbinic tradition at most periods.
Rabbi Epstein in his book takes the role of the posek and that is one of the things that makes the quote so interesting. As he explains the legal bottom line in each subject under discussion, he elevates the distinct and often opposing voices in the Jewish tradition to an ideal of harmony between those voices. That is what makes the study of Torah so pleasurable.
His opinion here reflects the famous Talmudic dictum about the frequent disputes between two schools of Rabbinic study, Bet Hillel and Shammai, “Elu v’elu divrei elohim chayim” – both opinions are the words of God – which of course was narrowed by the acceptance of the idea that the ultimate Halacha (practical decision) went according to the house of Hillel.
Thus the Jewish tradition has been one of pluralism of thought far more than of practical action concerning real life matters. However, despite the radical nature of much of the interpretation (once again, especially though not exclusively in the field of Midrash) ultimately the assumption has been that all those who indulge in legitimate interpretation buy into the assumptions of the system and this is the difficulty of extending the idea of pluralism to cover modern times.
The last centuries have seen Jews moving away from the traditional assumptions of the system and although modern ideas and interpretations continue to abound, the traditional Jewish world has not tended to accept such interpretations as legitimate unless they come from somewhere within their own ideological world.
Those outside of that system have tended to reject the traditional authorities, thus creating a reality of alternative systems of authority (including many ideological systems which reject altogether the idea of authority, elevating the idea of personal autonomy and personal responsibility to heights never before seen in Judaism).
The question here then is whether there can be meaning to peoplehood when there are no accepted common points of authority in the Jewish world. Do people see themselves belonging to the whole Jewish People (“Klal Israel) or only to those with whom they share ideological kinship?
KEY EDUCATIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THIS SECTION:
- How can a plurality of voices, opinions and Jewish expression enhance the Jewish collective?
- What are the limits?
- What are useful paradigms to talk about difference within the Jewish people? (family? neighborhood? other?)
Text: Family Conflict
The important point to remember is that the survival of Jewish life is by no means dependent upon unity among Jews or uniformity in Judaism. What a noted sociologist has said for the family applies with equal truth to the Jewish people. ‘the family does not depend for its survival’ writes E.W. Burgess, ‘on the harmonious relations of its members, nor does it necessarily disintegrate as a result of a conflict between its members. The family lives as long as interaction is taking place and only dies when it ceases’. The advantage of a category like ‘civilization’ as descriptive of Jewish life is that it suggests the basis of and material for interaction among the most divergent elements of Jewry, by reason of the large consensus of Jewish interests and purposes which it connotes. Perhaps, like the modern family, Jewish life is henceforth destined to be “an experiment in antagonistic co-operation.
Mordechai Kaplan, Judaism as a Civilization, 1934
Explanation of text:
Through the use of the family model Kaplan coveys the idea that “the survival of Jewish life by no means dependent on unity among Jews or uniformity in Judaism”. The key to the survival is not a consensus or sense of harmony but rather the interaction between the various participants. For Kaplan, Jewish life in modern times, much like the modern family, is destined to be an “an experiment in antagonistic co-operation”.
The framework of “Judaism as a civilization” is important because a civilization, unlike an ideology, provides “the basis of and material for interaction among the most divergent elements of Jewry”. The large consensus of Jewish interests can be expressed in the concept of civilization and allow for both a collective conversation and the pluralism of opinions. The civilization actually thrives on the internal debates and disagreements that engage Jews and keep the Jewish conversation lively and dynamic.
It is interesting to note that Kaplan does not discuss here the merits of pluralism as a value. His approach is instrumental. His clear conclusion is that pluralism serves the cause of the Jewish collective much more than unity or uniformity.
KEY EDUCATIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THIS SECTION:
- How can a plurality of voices, opinions and Jewish expression enhance the Jewish collective?
- What are the limits?
- What are useful paradigms to talk about difference within the Jewish people? (family? neighborhood? other?)
Text: Nationhood to Neighborhood
My vision for peoplehood reflects another –hood paradigm—not nationhood, but ‘neighborhood.’… Peoplehood based on a neighborhood, rather than a nationhood model promotes understanding Jewish collectivity as the sum of divergent processes of Jewish exploration and community building…’Neighborhoods’ broadly construed either in-person or via focused global networks, create a platform for engagement, meaning creation, and innovation, with Jewish communities looking to develop what the software community calls open-source standards. (Noam Pianko, The Future of Peoplehood: From Nationhood to Neighborhood, Peoplehood Papers 11, 2013)
A sense of connection to a larger entity will be generated most authentically—and thus enduringly–from the bottom-up. Grassroots communities provide open spaces to raise questions about Jewish identity and what, if anything, binds Jews to one another. It is the very act of engaging with these local and personal issues that engages individuals in the meaning of peoplehood. Smaller communities whose mission does not necessarily include promoting peoplehood are not a threat to peoplehood; instead, the emergence of group differentiation around interest, location, or age cohort creates the building blocks of the Jewish people. A foreign center and the abstract claims of shared set of values will only continue to lose their efficacy as rhetoric of unity. Only Judaism itself–and by that I mean the exploration of Jewish tradition and Jewish life in its manifold expressions–can inspire a global sense of interconnectedness.
Explanation of text:
Noam Pianko offers an alternative to the current paradigm of Peoplehood as a global collective entity – or “nationhood” as he frames it. He proposes that Jewish collectivity will be generated from the bottom up by local and virtual Jewish communities and networks. “The emergence of group differentiation around interest, location or age cohort creates the building blocks of the Jewish people”. In other words he opposes the current paradigm – “A foreign center and the abstract claims of shared set of values will only continue to lose their efficacy as rhetoric of unity” – and proposes to follow pluralism to the extreme and rebuild the collective approach from scratch. According to Pianko only the “exploration of Jewish tradition and Jewish life in its manifold expressions – can inspire a global sense of interconnectedness”.
Pianko’s innovative idea is not without challenges. Unlike Kaplan who calls for pluralism in the context of an accepted notion of Jewish civilization, Pianko rejects such global collective concepts (see Jewish Peoplehood – an American Innovation, Pianko, 2015). What in his model guarantees even an interest in Jewish Peoplehood? Pianko himself says: “Grassroots communities provide open spaces to raise questions about Jewish identity and what, if anything, binds Jews to one another”. The risk that his pluralistic vision will yield an atomistic and disintegrated Jewish world is not unfounded.
The answer here just like in all of the themes discussed may be in seeking a compromise between the two extreme positions. While encouraging the local and diverse expressions of the Jewish collective enterprise we may still seek some broad context that frames and anchors the collective conversation. As we seek a more democratic and leveled Jewish collective field we may still want to assure that it still understood as collective in some fashion. At the end of the day we want to encourage a Jewish pluralistic collective but not individual Jewish atomism.
I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.
KEY EDUCATIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THIS SECTION:
- How can a plurality of voices, opinions and Jewish expression enhance the Jewish collective?
- What are the limits?
- What are useful paradigms to talk about difference within the Jewish people? (family? neighborhood? other?)
Text: Rising above Conflicting Truths, Larry Moses
… over time, we have come to realize that our differences are profound and enduring, and that as a people we would be naïve to believe that these differences could be subservient to an all-embracing sense of what binds us as a people. If indeed we find ourselves in an “age of pluralism,” then we are well-served to engage in a sober assessment of how we can reconcile our widening diversity with the near dreamlike sense of oneness that resonated so strongly in prior decades…
Pluralism, therefore, necessitates a “workable” agreement around the common good, a unifying factor that enables the diverse parts of a society and people to function around larger needs and purposes.
Pluralism is a commitment “to be at the table more than a commitment to anything that comes of the deliberation.
Larry Moses, Jewish Pluralism Revisited – Rising Above Conflicting Truths, Peoplehood Papers 10, 2013
Explanation of text:
This text grapples with the inherent tension between pluralism and the drive to remain united as a People. It begins by stating that making the differences in beliefs and perspectives in the Jewish world subservient to the need to be unified is naive. Those differences are both too profound and enduring to change the wheels of history back. Larry Moses recommends that we “engage in a sober assessment of how we can reconcile our widening diversity” with the sense of oneness. He is calling for a redefinition of that sense of oneness in the age of pluralism.
His proposal is to develop a workable agreement on the “common good, a unifying factor” that will enable Jews to unite around while holding on to their diverse and sometimes conflicting Jewish perspectives. For example Jews can differ on prioritizing between Jewish interests and working for Tikkun Olam. But if they understand that the two are not mutually exclusive and can both serve the common good, they can conduct an internal Jewish debate on finding the balance between them. Similarly Jews could make the creation of the various religious streams a cause for splitting the Jewish world. But instead they understood that allowing them to co-exist will enrich Judaism and enable the continuity of the collective enterprise.
Moses captures the difference in approach which the age of pluralism requires through the following quote: Pluralism is a commitment “to be at the table more than a commitment to anything that comes of the deliberation.” This is a pretty radical demand from Jews who take their opinions seriously but actually describes the reality in which Jews live today. But if the agreement on substantial issues will not be the source of Jewish unity the overall interest in being at the table needs to be rich and compelling enough. Jews do not have to agree on issues but they need to agree that addressing them collectively and having conversation about them is of value.
I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.