[Avodah] Beyond BT: Antidote for Baseless Hatred

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

I thought this piece was both thoughtful and quite timely for the Three
Weeks, so I wanted to share.

-micha


Home > Achdus > Antidote for Baseless Hatred
By Rebbetzin Tziporah Heller

I'd like to talk about loving each other freely, and Jewish unity.

An interesting gemara (statement from the Talmud) tells us something we
already know: Jews are the most quarrelsome of people. And the talmidei
chachamim (Torah scholars) are the most quarrelsome of Jews.

Everyone knows the joke about the island where the man built two
synagogues: the one he'll go too, and the one he won't set foot in.
I've been to places like this, where there are several synagogues and
none of them has a minyan (quorum). We do this to ourselves. In Israel,
if there weren't a law requiring that every political party have at
least somebody voting for it, there'd be 5 billion political parties.

There's a famous joke that dates from the beginning of the state.
President Weissman visited President Truman, and Truman asked him,
"So, isn't it something, being a president?" Weissman replied,
"It's incredibly burdensome." Truman said, "What do you mean? I'm the
president of 186 million Americans. You're the president of only one
million Israelis." To which Weissman replied, "No, I'm the president of
one million presidents." This is who we, the Jewish people, are.

The Fragmentation of Truth

The Maharal asks why Jews are so divided. He brings a gemara that lists
many predictions about the world before Mashiach (the Messiah) comes.
One is: "Truth will be absent from the world." The word for absent is
nehederet, which Rashi (the foremost medieval commentator) explains
comes from the word eder, flock. Before Mashiach comes, truth will be
such that every group is like a little flock. And within each flock will
be sub-flocks. The fragmentation will be enormous.

The reason for this, the Maharal explains, is that to Jews, truth is
very significant. We can't be laid-back and say, "You have your truth;
I have my truth; they're both true." It doesn't sit right with us.

At the same time, we each have our own individual access to truth --
and this is what divides us. What do I mean by "access to truth"?

There's a gemara that says that when G-d created the world, He conferred
with all His attributes. He asked Kindness, "Should I create the
world?'" Kindness said go for it. Then He asked Justice. Justice was
much more equivocal.

Then He asked Truth. If you were Truth, what would you say? "Forget it!
There's no place for me in Your world. I can't exist there." Why?
Because the world is defined by time and space, which are subjective.
And subjectivity means no truth.

So what did G-d do? He picked up Truth and smashed it to the earth
so that it shattered. Concerning this, it says in Tehillim (Psalms):
"Truth will sprout forth from the earth" -- meaning there's a little
piece here and a little piece there.

But because we're Jews, when we find our own little piece of truth,
we see it as the whole picture. To give in and say "Maybe what you see
as true is also true" is very painful -- because how can I be tolerant
of your view and still be a person of truth?

Because of this, the gemara says Torah scholars are the least accepting
people, because for them truth is The issue. Either something is true,
or it's not.

In the era before Mashiach, the yearning for the whole picture, in which
each fragment of truth joins with the others and forms something larger,
becomes very great. But it's presently beyond our grasp.

Different Kinds of Truth

This is one reason for our disunity. It's not just ego. It's not just
limitation. It's the fact that we care about truth, and we're unwilling to
move from our position. The question is: Is this something we should adapt
to, or move beyond? And if we move beyond it, do we still retain truth?

We can get an idea by looking at the classical example of Beit Hillel
(the house/school of Hillel) and Beit Shammai (the house/school
of Shammai). They disagreed about a lot of things. And the Talmud's
conclusion, "These and these are words of the living God" -- i.e. they
both speak truth -- doesn't seem to work. How could they both speak
truth while saying different things? It's nice, but is it honest?

Let's look at an illustration of their differences. In the times of the
Mishnah, people would dance before the bride singing songs about her.
The Mishnah asks: How do you dance before the bride? -- i.e. what do you
sing about her? Shammai's school of thought was: Tell it like it is.
"The bride is nasty, vindictive, selfish" -- say the truth. Hillel,
on the other hand, said that no matter what she's like, say that she's
kind and nice (as the groom undoubtedly thinks).

The gemara explains that this dispute is really about the nature
of truth. Is truth in the mouth of the speaker or in the ear of the
hearer? Shammai would say it's in the mouth of the speaker. If you
believe in truth, make sure nothing false comes out of your mouth.

Hillel disagreed: Truth is in the ear of the hearer. What's important
is not so much what you say as how it's received.

Let me give you an example. Suppose I said about my neighbor, "He isn't
going to be arrested." If he's done nothing criminal, that's certainly
true, but what image is created in the listener's mind? Or how about,
"He's not being charged with wife-beating." Again, this is true, but
the image that he may be beating his wife is false. And that image is
created because the listener is who she is.

Now, Beit Shammai would say that's the listener' problem -- let her
learn not to hear what isn't said. Hillel would say you can't expect
her to do that -- hearing what isn't said is the human condition. The
halacha (Jewish law) is according to Hillel. But both are equally valid
interpretations of truth.

When Mashiach comes, we'll rule according to Shammai, meaning that
we'll have to take responsibility for how we hear truth. If we yearn for
messianic perfection, what does this mean? It means we have to learn to
hear the truth, no matter what it sounds like or whom it's coming from.

Dealing with Differences

We see truth differently because we have different personalities and
experiences. Imagine a nice, empathetic person, the kind who could
easily attach to anything -- the kind who cries when she sees ads for
Kodak moments. If you convince her that someone is persecuted, she'll
immediately side with him.

Now picture an entirely different person -- one who loves reality. "I
don't want to know your feelings about the sunrise -- I want to know how
hot it is. The people in the Kodak moment are not real -- they're actors
who don't even know each other. Lassie will not come home." Such a person
won't automatically empathize with someone portrayed as a victim. She'll
be concerned with truth and justice.

So the first problem in dealing with interpersonal differences is that
we tend to see the world through our own eyes. The only person who rose
above this was Moshe (Moses). The gemara says that Moshe saw through an
"aspaklaria meira," "clear glass." The rest of us see things through
the shadings of our personality and experience. So two people can see
the same thing, but not see the same thing.

The other factor influencing our vision is experience -- our circumstances
and upbringing. Different people are raised to see the world in different
ways, and can wind up with completely different frames of reference.

For example, a student of mine, before she was religious, had an abortion
clinic. She's an extraordinarily compassionate person who believes
very strongly in life. But her education taught her to see only the
mother's life and needs. She therefore concluded that abortion equals
compassion. As soon as she realized that compassion includes the unborn
child, her perspective changed.

Unfortunately, none of us will ever see things as clearly as Moshe. Our
middot (character traits) aren't perfect, and neither is our education.
So we see as far as we can, but it's not far enough. The only truth we
can rely is the Torah, because it comes from G-d and not us.

One rule, then, for getting beyond the issue of "your truth" versus "my
truth" is to question whether or not your picture of truth fits G-d's
truth. If the answer is no, then you may have to accept the fact that
your vision is limited.

Posted in Achdus

(C) 2016 Beyond BT