RSS Feed
Guest Blogger: We Believe but God Knows
First in a series of Wednesday "Guest Blogs"
By Rabbi Or N. Rose
“Rabbi, what do you love about your religious tradition?” asked a young African American woman with gentle curiosity.
The question took me by surprise. I had come to this large urban public high school to participate in a panel discussion about religion and public life and was very concerned about interacting respectfully and modestly with the my fellow panelists—Christian, Muslim, and Buddhist—and with the diverse student body, teachers, and staff. While there is much about Judaism that I love, I did not want to stumble into a triumphalist discourse.
Further, as a progressive rabbi and academic I spend a great deal of time engaging in conversation about the thornier elements of my faith tradition—patriarchy, chauvinism, and the like—feeling that grappling with these difficult questions is crucial to fashioning an intellectually honest and ethically responsible Jewish life.
But the question from this gracious student served as an important corrective, as it reminded me of the importance of reflecting on the riches of my religious heritage and the value of sharing these insights with others who might also find them meaningful.
And so, after taking a deep breath and clearing my mind I proceeded to share the following brief teaching from the Babylonian Talmud (composed between 200-500 CE) with the assembled group of teens and adults:
For three years there was a disagreement between the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel… Then a Heavenly Voice announced, “The utterances of both are the words of the living God” (Eruvin 13b).
What I love about this ancient story is that it communicates in a matter of two sentences an appreciation for the central role of human interpretation in the creation of a vibrant religious community. The disciples of the great sages Hillel and Shammai (1st century BCE) attempted to reshape Jewish life after the Roman conquest of the land of Israel and the destruction of the holy Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE). They did so primarily by engaging in spirited conversations about the meaning of the Hebrew Bible in their lives.
As this text demonstrates, more often than not the rabbis held divergent opinions. But rather than shut down conversation, insisting that one scholar or school was correct and the other incorrect, they participated in intense debate, opening themselves to the opinions of others. This respect for dialogue is captured in the seemingly paradoxical statement that the opinions of Hillel and Shammai, as carried forth in their academies, were both the “words of the living God.”
This does not mean that the rabbis did not take strong positions on a range of issues, but they did so with a combination of assertiveness and humility, knowing that human beings are finite creatures and that God’s truth is more complex than any one person or school can ever fathom.
It is my belief that the dialogical approach of the ancient rabbis can serve as a model for both intra- and inter-faith relations, even if the conversation originally took place within an exclusively Jewish context. Just as the sages participated in impassioned discussions about the nature and meaning of life, so too can people of different religious beliefs and practices. The goal of such conversation is not unanimity, but a respectful exchange in which individuals listen to one another, learn from one another, critique one another, and agree to disagree about matters of substance.
The importance of engaging respectfully in these sacred deliberations is spoken of powerfully in the continuation of our Talmudic text:
If both [the opinions of Hillel and Shammai] are “the words of the living God,” what was it that entitled the School of Hillel to have the law fixed according to them? Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of the School of Shammai, and they [were even so humble as to] mention the opinions of the School of Shammai before theirs.
Given the tragic record of religious disputation and violence throughout the ages, this insight is particularly important for contemporary interfaith dialogue. The Talmud presents us with both an inspiring model and a serious challenge (one that was surely not always fulfilled by the early rabbis themselves): can we participate actively in meaningful religious discourse, articulating our beliefs and opinions strongly while also maintaining respect for our interlocutors, even when they hold opposing views? Can we follow the path of Hillel, embodying his spirit of kindness and humility as we strive to create vibrant communities within and across faith lines?
May we be blessed with the courage to engage in this sacred project, opening ourselves to the Divine as manifest in the words of our discussion partners.
* * * * * * * *
Rabbi Or N. Rose is associate dean of the Rabbinical School of Hebrew College and a leader of the interfaith collaborative of Hebrew College and Andover Newton Theological School. He recently co-edited "Righteous Indignation: A Jewish Call for Justice (Jewish Lights Publishing)."
The content of this blog reflects the views of its author and does not necessarily reflect the views of either Eboo Patel or the Interfaith Youth Core.
By
Eboo Patel
|
June 24, 2008; 5:57 PM ET
| Category:
Interfaith Issues
,
Personal Religion
,
The Faith Divide
,
Theology
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: A Book That Peers into Eternity |
Next: "Self Renewal"
Posted by: sally | July 3, 2008 6:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Rabbi Rose raises the issue of triumphalism in his introduction to his thoughts, but then backs away from exploring it. It is the triumphalism of both Christianity and Islam that makes dialog so difficult between the 3 religions derived from Judaism. When you think that your religion has superseded the word of God to the previous religion(s), then that surely inhibits dialog and amity. This may be especially true for Islam, which has yet to go through an encounter with Enlgihtenment rationality. I think it is a bit easier for Judaism to accept that there may be other paths to God than Judaism for non Jews, than for the succeeding triumphalist universalist religions to grant this grace.
Posted by: captn_ahab | June 28, 2008 8:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Halocezel, Christians were persecuted for the first three centuries. Hitler did not commit genocide in the name of Christianity but German ethnic nationalism. NAZI stands for national socialists.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2008 1:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Halozcel, agreed Allah was the name of an Arab pagan god. Mohammad raised Allah to the monotheistic status of YHWH by doing away with the daughters of Allah that Arab pagans worshiped in addition to Allah. He also integrated other Arab pagan gods into Islam with his insight that there is only one God who is worshiped under different names. So the Allah known by different names in the Quran is probably the names of the Arab pagan gods people worshiped in his time. In that way Arab pagans did not really have to abandon their gods, merely have a new insight about them. With that insight they could abandon all the different gods without any conflict. Islam is a different religion because of its uniqueness.
Deborah is against all dialogue with Christians and Muslims. Dialogue is the only way to heal the wounds.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 28, 2008 12:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anonymous,
*You got it wrong.Mohammed insisted that the Jews had got their own Scripture wrong(didnt the Jews know what their Scripture was) and he was their messiah.The Jews in Mecca didnt agree(Should they agree *two plus two makes five*?)
Bridge can not be built on Hypocracy and Sophistry.
Bridge can not be constructed on Stone Age Mentality and Cult of Violence.
Bridge can not be established on the enslavement of women.
Bridge is Human Right.
Bridge is Contempopary Value.
Bridge is Democracy.
Besides,islam believes in allah,not God.
*Allied Forces who stopped WW II were not Jews* can not be the reply to what Deborah wrote.
Bridge is Civilization.
Posted by: halozcel | June 27, 2008 8:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Deborah, if Germans and Jews can get along after the Holocaust, is it not possible to build bridges with Christians, Muslims and people of other faiths, no matter what may have happened in the past? That is what Rabbi Rose writing about.
The world has divisions enough. More and more bridges are needed. That is what Mr Eboo Patel is trying to build as best as he can. Why not be part of the bridge building?
Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2008 2:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Deborah:
Unfortunately, like the Romans, the followers of Jesus, and, later, Mohammad, himself, would not allow Jews to follow their own paths, and chose, instead the way of murder. This bloody decision precluded and continues to preclude discussion.
These folks who cannot speak, let alone interpret, hold out little hope for dialogue. With the Christians' expropriation of the Tanakh, the Muslims' expropriation, they initiated a textual colonialism that finds expression in the material world.
There can be no dialogue with such them. You don't welcome ravenous wolves into your home.
June 26, 2008 1:10 AM
****************
Deborah, your pain about Jewish history notwithstanding, you might like to consider the following from a Christian standpoint.
In my understanding, in the time of Jesus, the Jews did practice their religion freely under Roman rule, only they had to pay extra tax to Rome. The Romans only detested political rebellion, they were not interested in the religious practice of the Jews as long as it didn't interfere with their political power over the Jews.
Jesus happens to be a Jew. All of His followers were Jews. Paul who brought Christianity to the Gentiles in a big way was a Pharisee. Christianity was a religion of the Jews which was merely spread among Gentiles in accordance with the commandment of Jesus to go out into the world with His message. Jews who did not convert to Christianity were not happy. But it was a Jew who founded Christianity, so why should not Jews not use their own Scripture as basis for their new religion which was to include Gentiles?
If you are referring to the Holocaust, maybe you should keep in mind that the Allied Forces who stopped WW II were not Jews.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 27, 2008 12:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Ibrahim Mahfouz:
Rabbi Rose suggests that there should be a respectful dialogue between the different religions with the underlying premise that there is more than one path to the truth. Such policy should have been adopted by the Jewish Rabbis of Medina during the time of the Arab prophet Muhammad. Those Rabbis were so sure that their path was the only true path that they in essence denigrated the message of Muhammad. A big mistake, because when he had enough followers he “cleansed” Arabia of anything Jewish.
*********************
You got it wrong. Mohammad insisted that the Jews had got their own Scripture wrong and he was their messiah. The Jews in Mecca didn't agree. The rest is history.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2008 5:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Unfortunately, like the Romans, the followers of Jesus, and, later, Mohammad, himself, would not allow Jews to follow their own paths, and chose, instead the way of murder. This bloody decision precluded and continues to preclude discussion.
These folks who cannot speak, let alone interpret, hold out little hope for dialogue. With the Christians' expropriation of the Tanakh, the Muslims' expropriation, they initiated a textual colonialism that finds expression in the material world.
There can be no dialogue with such them. You don't welcome ravenous wolves into your home.
Posted by: Deborah | June 26, 2008 1:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Rabbi Rose suggests that there should be a respectful dialogue between the different religions with the underlying premise that there is more than one path to the truth. Such policy should have been adopted by the Jewish Rabbis of Medina during the time of the Arab prophet Muhammad. Those Rabbis were so sure that their path was the only true path that they in essence denigrated the message of Muhammad. A big mistake, because when he had enough followers he “cleansed” Arabia of anything Jewish.
Posted by: Ibrahim Mahfouz | June 25, 2008 4:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Seems more and more singles want to find online friends to talk about relationship, love, marriage or others... I heard that the single club---- ++++ (((((( UKinterracialmatch . c o m))))) +++++ ---- is a wonderful place for all singles to have fun together...