Thursday Jul 30, 2009

How do you say pluralism in Hebrew?

Posted by Rabbi Michael Marmur
Comments: 16
BOOKMARK or SHARE: technorati digg del.icio.us reddit newsvine facebook What's this?
Print  |  
Decrease text sizeDecrease text size
Increase text sizeIncrease text size

Some fifteen years ago I was a serving as rabbi in the wonderful Leo Baeck Education Center in Haifa. The relationship between the City of Haifa and the Jewish community of Boston was just beginning to develop, and a delegation was sent out from the Middle East to the North East to discuss terms and details.

I was in my office one day when I received a call from an acquaintance who was part of the Haifa group. I was surprised, since I knew he was in the States and it was the middle of the night over there. When I inquired as to the purpose of his apparently urgent call, he explained: "I have spent the day with representatives of the Boston CJP [the Federation equivalent]. All day long they have talked to me about their commitment to pluralism, and I have nodded furiously and agreed vociferously.

"But tomorrow they want me to say something about our commitment to pluralism, and I realize I know nothing at all about the subject. Rabbi, you're both Reform and born in Britain, but you have been in Israel a while and seem OK. So tell me, what are they talking about when they say pluralism?"

My nocturnal caller was not alone. Fifteen years ago the term "pluralism" was hardly used in Israeli discourse, and more often than not it emerged when an Anglophone philanthropist mentioned it as an interest or a priority. In Hebrew, our Movement's Israel Religious Action Center is called the Center for Pluralism, and I am informed that to this day they receive calls from would-be clients convinced they are talking to the Center for Floralism (in Hebrew it looks the same without the vowels). They still have to turn away orders for wreaths and bouquets.

In the years following my call from Boston, however, there has been a distinct increase in the use of the term 'pluralism' in a variety of contexts. This week a major conference on the theme of Pluralistic Jewish Education was sponsored jointly by the Melton Center for Jewish Education at the Hebrew University and my own institution, the Hebrew Union College. It attracted presenters and participants from around Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom and even Finland, and it marks a distinct upgrade in intellectual discourse about this important yet elusive concept.

In one session, a panel comprising principals from four Israeli schools discussed dilemmas of pluralism as they encounter them every day in the field. It is interesting to note that this discussion included important figures from the Modern Orthodox community, as well as the "usual suspects." Increasingly, it is becoming clear that the divisions in Israeli society are not between those who belong to one team and those who belong to another - the Sharks against the Jets, Middle East Side Story. Rather, the conflict is between those who insist on imposing their will exclusively on the rest of us, and those of us who prefer to live in the midst of difference and diversity.

It is such an apt message for this period, the month of Av. In my remarks at the opening of the conference, I cited a Midrash on the first verse of the Book of Lamentations. That verse includes twice the word rabati, indicating greatness, abundance. The Midrash expresses that while one term relates to the great number of inhabitants in the city of Jerusalem before destruction, the second term indicates rabati be-de'ot. While this is usually interpreted as meaning that there was great knowledge among the people Israel, I suggested that the term bore a further meaning - namely that there was a multitude of opinions.

Some see this multiplicity as a weakness or a sin, as the very cause for the destruction of Jerusalem. Others, I among them, would argue that it is not plurality which caused our downfall - it is simply a fact of life: there is more in heaven and earth than my philosophy or yours can adequately contain in banal generalities. Rather, the challenge our people has always faced is to create conditions which allow for a broad range of beliefs and opinions. Our people at its best fulfills the Biblical description which Jews around the world recite on the Ninth of Av - rabati am, which I choose to translate as: a people of pluralism.

Together with my colleague, an Orthodox woman dedicated to "thick" pluralism in Israeli society, I presented a paper which used another Biblical phrase, emet ve-anava, truth and humility. It is quite true that Jerusalem has never stood for amoral passivity, for complicity with evil. But at the heart of Jerusalem there should also be an essential humility, an understanding that infallibility is a Divine attribute, not a virtue monopolized by some self-appointed arbiter of rectitude. I am always aware that my bitterest adversary across the denominational and theological divide carries within them a spark which I wish to protect, not extinguish.

We often describe our Jewish story as the stubborn fight to protect Truth against all lies. As we mark Ninth of Av this year against the backdrop of rancor and anger and impatience and indignation, we might tell another story - one in which the Great Truth beyond any of us emerges when we find a way of relating to each other in respect, in decency, in causeless love.

One Orthodox rabbi present at our conference noted that there can hardly be a more pressing question on Israel's social agenda than that of pluralism. After all, the essence of the question is whether we will be able to live together in this country - Jews of different stripes and strictures, customs and costumes, modernists and traditionalists, Rightists and Leftists - and also Muslim, Christian, Druze and more. We need to find a language of pluralism within the Jewish community and beyond it, if we are to have a chance of surviving our threats and challenges.

Fifteen years ago there was hardly a way of talking about pluralism in this country. There are still many pockets of society in which this word is either dirty or invisible. But slowly, inexorably, under the radar and far from the headlines, a new voice is emerging. If we are not to be doomed to recite new Lamentations, we need to rediscover the rabati am, the people of diversity, the people of pluralism. As you mark the ninth of Av this year in Jerusalem or Jersey, in Netanya or Nepal, chew on that.

BOOKMARK or SHARE: technorati digg del.icio.us reddit newsvine facebook What's this?
Print  |  
1  |   Avrohom - Israel, Friday Jul 31, 2009 The blogger writes, "rabati be-de'ot, .. While this is usually interpreted as meaning that there was great knowledge among the people Israel, I suggested that the term bore a further meaning - namely that there was a multitude of opinions." In Torah we cite valid sources when we present meanings of Torah. We do not make them up. In Torah, we accept Torah from Sinai from Hashem and we accept oral and written Torah from Hashem. We accept the Torah-based thinking of our elders who live life through Torah. Is this blogger correct in his idea? Find a valid source or it is serendipity.
2  |   Terry - Eilat, Israel, Sunday Aug 02, 2009 We don't need ''pluralism'' especially of the Reform variety. Reform is a dead-end, a door out of Judaism. It's better to be secular with a good education in Jewish history & cultural development. This is just more liberal BS with a generally left-wing bias. I'm completely secular & even I feel uncomfortable in a Reform ''temple'' - it's definitely un-Jewish, I call this ''Uncle Tom'' Judaism, Judaism to please the Gentiles. And what I find most offensive is all the effort made for ''inter-faith'' dialogue, meaning being good dhimmis & kissing the tuchas of Muslims.
3  |   Chris USA, Wednesday Aug 05, 2009 To Avrohom: Perhaps what is needed is 10 rabbis to confer on an appropriate interpretation. To Terry: It is entirely possible that yours and all Istael's existence could depend on this. While you meditate on this possibility remember that Judaism is greater than you and your understanding of it. Torah is not a jewish phenomena: Moses gave it to 12 tribes of which Judah is only the remainder. Above all Torah comes from the Lord and manifests His greatness, not yours.
4  |   Lloyd, Wednesday Aug 05, 2009 The Rabbi says: "the essence of the question is whether we will be able to live together in this country". Whether you call it pluralism or something else, the reality remains that Jewish life both in Isreael and in the Diaspora involves a broad plurality of approaches to life and Judaism. Can we "find a way of relating to each other in respect, in decency, in causeless love"? I continue to view this as a necessity for survival. Avroham's and Terry's answers seem to be a resounding no, albeit for completely different reasons, and regardless of the consequences.
5  |   Avrohom - Israel, Thursday Aug 06, 2009 Chris, you wrote, "what is needed is 10 rabbis to confer on an appropriate interpretation." Not at all. We have no such need in Torah. The issue is simple: Torah, oral & written come from Hashem at Sinai. Understandings of Torah are part of our unbroken heritage since Sinai. When someone puts forward an interpretation of Torah we require sources for the interpretation. Sources are not hidden, they are available to all of us. If this blogger proposes an interpretation he needs valid Torah sources to justify his idea. Nobody in Torah requires what you ask. The blogger lacks any valid sources.
6  |   Avrohom - Israel, Tuesday Aug 11, 2009 Lloyd #4, you wrote, "Avroham's and Terry's answers seem to be a resounding no, albeit for completely different reasons, and regardless of the consequences." Sorry you misunderstand. If you insist on closing your eyes to what I write, you at least owe it to others to explain how you derive your errors through my post. Causeless love does not require accepting obvious and sometimes intentional missue of Torah. If we want to live with each other we need to be honest with each other. Making up Torah is not honest. At least be straight, Lloyd.
7  |   Lloyd, Tuesday Aug 11, 2009 Avrohom, you characterize every understanding of Torah that is different than yours as mis-use and dishonest. You do not have to change your point of view to accept that others may honestly hold a different view. If you could do that, it would be a long step forward to living together better. But it appears repeatedly that you cannot, or choose not, and so you leave your relationships with your fellow Jews at in impasse. And you are left telling me (and Rabbi Marmur) that I am dishonest. How does that foster living together?
8  |   Avrohom - Israel, Wednesday Aug 12, 2009 LLoyd, once again you read but do not bother thinking about what is written. I said nothing about a particular perspective of Torah. Where do you see that I characterized a specific opinion as a mis-use or dishonest? The blogger proposed a 'new' perspective as Torah and it needs to be presented in the manner of Torah; with valid sources. Serendipity is not Torah, and without valid sources for his 'new' ideas, they are serendipity and not Torah. If the ideas are Torah he will find a source to support them. How is this calling you 2 dishonest? If you want to discuss Torah, do so in a Torah way.
9  |   Avrohom - Israel, Wednesday Aug 12, 2009 Lloyd continued, all of this in my last post pertained to discussions about Torah. In other words, it may be possible for the blogger to find a valid source in Torah that points to this interpretation. If so, ashreinu! Living together & accepting each other is wonderful. It is the way of Torah. Challenging misrepresentations of Torah is also Torah. One cannot adhere to one & be blind to the other. But one cannot present any foreign idea and present it as torah and then complain when a Torah-based argument arises. Torah sets parameters for mankind to develop Torah throgh the ages, not man.
10  |   Miche Norman Hod Hasharon, Saturday Aug 15, 2009 Avrohom - you are missing the point. There are two important relationships in Judaism, that between man and our creattor and that between Man and his fellow man. Even if we accept, which some of us do not, that "orthodox judaism" has it down to a T on the relationship between man and his creator, that you know all that there is to know, that you are the experts, then by the same scale it seems patently obvious that "religious jews" like the learned Rabbi Marmur, are saying exactly what needs to be sade about the relationship between man and his fellow man
11  |   Avrohom - Israel, Thursday Aug 20, 2009 Miche Norman Hod Hasharon #10, there is nothing in Torah that supports the views of the blogger here. How can he be called a religous Jew when his group does not even believe in Torah from Hashem. Relations between man and his fellow man are in Torah, not in manmade rules and humanistic perspectives pushed in the reform Jewish club. If you think Torah is only about issues between man and God you do not understand Torah, I am sorry to tell you.
12  |   Miche Norman Hod Hasharon, Friday Aug 28, 2009 Avroham, how convenient to twist what someone else has written to try and prove your point - And sorry but it is not up to you to define who is religious and who is not. I write there are two relationships, so please do not read that as meaning one. We all believe that the Torah was given by g-d - some of us are not crass enough to beleive that it is only "proper jews like us" who own the interpretations. Religious readers like the learned Rabbi Marmur have a lot to offer, to repair the damage caused by orthodox self-styled owners of our religion.
13  |   Avrohom - Israel, Thursday Sep 10, 2009 Miche Norman, actually reform Jewish group does not accept Torah from Sinai, not from Hashem, and that it is manmade. I am sorry if facts get in the way of your beliefs. And it is not proper in Torah to interpret Torah willy nilly, and without valid Torah sources. Again, if you choose to ignore facts, why do you even bother commenting. It is crass to think one can intepret Torah without Torah itself as the foundation and source for the intepretation. That is the problem of Mr. Marmur. Your error in understanding the role of true Rabbanim is just your lack of understanding Torah. L'shana tova.
14  |   Miche Norman Hod Hasharon, Sunday Sep 20, 2009 Avrohom - Gmar Hatima Tova and wishing you a happy new year. I was not aware that Rabbi Marmur has a problem - and he truly is an exceptionally good Rabbi. Please forgive me, I did not know that the Torah is the exclusive property of the orthodox, I thought, in my ignorance that it was given to the Jewish people. I cannot remember reading anywhere that it was given exclusively to one section of the people. I also did not realize that it is only the orthodox who have anything to say that is worth commenting and that the rest of us are just crass mules, as your friend Mr. Joseph describes us.
15  |   Cember, Tuesday Oct 20, 2009 Anyone can interpret any book, including the Torah, in his own way. Rabbi Marmur has the intelligence to arrive at his own conclusions, based solely on his own interpretations. Is original thought a sin? He is, after all, merely translating a term into English; not denying the right of the native Hebrew speaker to understand the term in Hebrew. Languages don't translate word for word, and therefore any translation is a work of interpretation. I would guess that Avrohom does his understanding in English, and so sees the translation as outside source, when it's only outside the language.
16  |   Sarah America, Wednesday Nov 18, 2009 I am not Jewish, and I hate to admit that I know little of the faith. I read this article for a class in college and am writing a paper on pluralism. I found it very interesting as I had absolutely no idea that there were variations in Judaism! I have seen the differences in Christianity and how they have torn apart and seperated people who fundamentally have the same core beliefs. Christ should bring us together not tear us apart. Language is complex and the meaning comes from our own interpretations. It is sad to have such things come between people. Divided we fall! Great discussion everyone
Add your comment remaining characters
Name and Location *

NOTE: Comments are moderated and will not appear on this blog, until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting.

For more information, please see our
Readers' Submission Policy.

E-mail * (will NOT be published)
Your Blog/Website
--------------------------------
* All fields are required

About this blog

Reform Reflections

Michael Marmur is the Vice-President for Academic Affairs of the Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion, and is based in Jerusalem.

Search this blog

Archives
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs

Most Popular

Top Rated Posts

Recent Comments

Sarah America: I am not Jewish, and I hate to admit that I know little of the faith. I read this article for a class in college and am writing a paper on pluralism. I found it very interesting as I had absolutely no idea that there were variations in Judaism! I have seen the differences in Christianity and how they have torn apart and seperated people who fundamentally have the same core beliefs. Christ should bring us together not tear us apart. Language is complex and the meaning comes from our own interpretations. It is sad to have such things come between people. Divided we fall! Great discussion everyone
David Newton, USA: Israel O' Israel Shalom Rabbi Marmur If you keep putting off Yeshua your future children will not be the annointed Prophet's because the Prophet's of today, believe in Yeshua because he was the final sacrifice for sin. The B'rit Hadasha supports Isaiah 9v6. What books or other stories are recorded to support a child being born on earth called mighty God, Everlasting Father and Prince of Peace. Your bar/bat mitzvah's for years have been speaking of Yeshua...now is the time to accept him to teach Israel the right path..... Your annointed Prophet
Maskil: #1 @YM, Halacha and Mesorah can be part of the relationship, but they are no longer the whole relationship. They are exclusive, i.e. they exclude all those Jews (the majority right now) who do not have a dialog with their Judaism. Halacha today is also a concept that divides rather than uniting, mainly because today’s interpreters of Halacha are the most backward, misogynistic and xenophobic in our entire history.