Let's see, we have Rabbis tearing each other apart over kashrut, which is an issue that is totally irrelevant to the vast majority of Jews, the Jerusalem Post, a right-leaning newspaper in Israel publishing the self-serving (and publicly contradicted) words of an American Orthodox rabbi telling us that the technological capacity of the Agriprocessors plant in Postville, Iowa is so impressive that he can not believe there are real problems there, and the Forward, a liberal Jewish weekly offering an editorial which defends the practice of rabbis withholding Kosher certification from establishments which permit mixed dancing. All we need now is Alice, and the tea party will be complete!
Rabbis claim to be leaders of the Jewish people, but have almost nothing to say about issues that matter to most Jewish people. The Orthodox community continues, by and large, its tradition of protectionism, defensiveness, and paralysis in the face of a real challenge. And the liberal community continues to demagogue an issue that, were it an "orthodox cause", it would have shoved to the back pages weeks ago.
What I find especially disturbing is how each side loves to find Talmudic proof texts which justify their respective positions, isolate them from all texts which teach a different view, and sloganeer away as if they were running for president. Well here's an idea that reflects the entire process which produced that Talmud which all sides love to quote. How about making sure that whatever opinion one offers about the issue of the kashrut of Agriprocessors, be it ritual, ethical, or otherwise, be offered in a way that invites the participation of those with opposing views?
The Talmud reflects a conversation that lasted for hundreds of years - one in which there was fierce disagreement, often about matters of ultimate importance, the death penalty, the definition of a good life, etc. And yes, even about kashrut. But in all of these debates, the rabbis conducted themselves in a way that assured and demanded that they would hang in with each other and keep the conversation going. In fact, the evidence all points to a mindset in which having the conversation was the only thing more important than winning it.
How about we bring back that sacred tradition as we slaughter each other over the issues of kosher meat, and over so many issues as well?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
This post suggests that rabbis and other participants in the present agriprocessors debate would do well to conduct themselves as the rabbis did in the talmud -- ostensibly, a spirt of warm public debate in the pursuit of shared goals, not narrow-minded and self-serving criticism. The good rabbi suggests that both sides are reading their own agendas (narrowly) into the talmud. The true spirit of the talmud, he says, is broader and more open to alternative viewpoints.
But is it so clear that the world of the talmudic rabbis was an agora, not an abbatoir? Let's remember, first, that the talmud we have today is not a contemporaneous record of weekly newspapers or broadsides (which, of course, didn't exist in a pre-printing press world), but a much-later redaction and compilation of a lengthy series of debates among rabbis who, in the broader scheme of things in judaism at the time, were part of only one strand of observance. So the kinds of interchanges we see today most probably existed, but are lost in history.
And even the talmud itself conveys hints of greater strife. In particular, the story of hillel and shammai and their respective schools of disciples: one account even tells us that the school of hillel "slaughtered" the school of shammai (i may have it backwards, i confess), and some commentators accept this as literal. Now THAT makes Agriprocessors seem moderate by comparison.
It's always good to point out that each of us acts on our own unconcsious biases and agendas. But sometimes our urge to make that point leads us, like everyone else, to identify our own views in the authorities we hold dearest.
The Forward article does not defend the practice of Rabbis withholding certification of Kashrut over what to the untrained eye appear to be side issues. The article makes the observation that based on common practice, and in a few instances like Shmirat Shabbat halachic dictum, a link between certification and other non food related practices exists.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.