Pluralism and the Spectrum of Judaisms

כָּל מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, אֵין סוֹפָהּ לְהִתְקַיֵּם. אֵיזוֹ הִיא מַחֲלֹקֶת שֶׁהִיא לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי. וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם, זוֹ מַחֲלֹקֶת קֹרַח וְכָל עֲדָתוֹ:

Pirkei Avot 5:17

Every dispute that is for the sake of Heaven, will in the end endure; But one that is not for the sake of Heaven, will not endure. Which is the controversy that is for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which is the controversy that is not for the sake of Heaven? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his congregation.

יבמות י״ג ב:א׳-ב׳

חָלְצוּ — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. נִתְיַיבְּמוּ — בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַכְשִׁירִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל פּוֹסְלִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵלּוּ אוֹסְרִים וְאֵלּוּ מַתִּירִין, אֵלּוּ פּוֹסְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַכְשִׁירִין — לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מִלִּישָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל, וְלָא בֵּית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי. כָּל הַטְּהָרוֹת וְהַטְּמָאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אֵלּוּ מְטַהֲרִים וְאֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין — לֹא נִמְנְעוּ עוֹשִׂין טְהָרוֹת אֵלּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי אֵלּוּ.

Yevamot 13b:1-2

If any of the rival wives of the brother performed ḥalitza, Beit Shammai disqualify her from marrying into the priesthood, as in their opinion these rival wives were fit for levirate marriage, which means that the ḥalitza was fully valid. Consequently, they are disqualified from marrying a priest, like all other women who perform ḥalitza. And Beit Hillel deem them fit, as they maintain that no legal act of ḥalitza was performed here at all. If they entered into levirate marriage, Beit Shammai deem them fit for the priesthood, as in their opinion, this is a fully legal levirate marriage. And Beit Hillel disqualify them, because they engaged in licentious sexual relations as the rival wives of a forbidden relative. § The mishna comments: Although Beit Hillel prohibit the rival wives to the brothers and Beit Shammai permit them, and although these disqualify these women and those deem them fit, Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel refrain from marrying women from Beit Shammai. Furthermore, with regard to all of the disputes concerning the halakhot of ritual purity and impurity, where these rule that an article is ritually pure and those rule it ritually impure, they did not refrain from handling ritually pure objects each with the other, as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel frequently used each other’s vessels.

יבמות י״ד א:ו׳-י״ד

וּמַאן דַּאֲמַר עָשׂוּ, קָרֵינַן כָּאן ״לֹא תִתְגּוֹדְדוּ״ — לֹא תֵּעָשׂוּ אֲגוּדּוֹת אֲגוּדּוֹת! אֲמַר אַבָּיֵי: כִּי אָמְרִינַן ״לֹא תִתְגּוֹדְדוּ״ — כְּגוֹן שְׁתֵּי בָּתֵּי דִינִים בְּעִיר אַחַת, הַלָּלוּ מוֹרִים כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְהַלָּלוּ מוֹרִים כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. אֲבָל שְׁתֵּי בָּתֵּי דִינִים בִּשְׁתֵּי עֲיָירוֹת — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל כִּשְׁתֵּי בָּתֵּי דִינִים בְּעִיר אַחַת דָּמֵי! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כִּי אָמְרִינַן ״לֹא תִתְגּוֹדְדוּ״ — כְּגוֹן בֵּית דִּין בְּעִיר אַחַת, פְּלַג מוֹרִין כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וּפְלַג מוֹרִין כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. אֲבָל שְׁתֵּי בָּתֵּי דִינִין בְּעִיר אַחַת — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. תָּא שְׁמַע: בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָיוּ כּוֹרְתִים עֵצִים לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּחָמִים בְּשַׁבָּת לַעֲשׂוֹת בַּרְזֶל. בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי הָיוּ אוֹכְלִים בְּשַׂר עוֹף בְּחָלָב. בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר — אִין, בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא — לָא. דְּתַנְיָא, כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: כׇּל מְלָאכָה שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹתָהּ מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת — אֵין דּוֹחָה אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת. וְהַאי מַאי תְּיוּבְתָּא? מְקוֹמוֹת מְקוֹמוֹת שָׁאנֵי! וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ — מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ?! סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא מִשּׁוּם חוּמְרָא דְשַׁבָּת — כְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד דָּמֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ כִּי אִיקְּלַע לְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הֲוָה מְטַלְטֵל שְׁרָגָא. וְכִי אִיקְּלַע לְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, לָא הֲוָה מְטַלְטֵל שְׁרָגָא. וְהַאי מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? וְלָא אָמְרִינַן מְקוֹמוֹת שָׁאנֵי? אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, הֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכָא הָכִי, וְהֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכָא הָכִי? רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, וְכִי מִקְּלַע לְאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא הֲוָה מְטַלְטֵל מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹדוֹ דְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וְהָאִיכָּא שַׁמָּעָא! דְּמוֹדַע לֵיהּ לְשַׁמָּעָא.

Yevamot 14a:6-14

And yet the question remains: According to the one who said that Beit Shammai acted in accordance with their opinion, we should read here: “You shall not cut yourselves” (Deuteronomy 14:1), which is interpreted to mean: Do not become numerous factions. Abaye said: When we say that the prohibition: “You shall not cut yourselves” applies, we are referring to a case where two courts are located in one city, and these rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai and those rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. However, with regard to two courts located in two different cities, we have no problem with it. Rava said to him: But the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is considered like a case of two courts in one city, as these two schools of thought were found everywhere, not in any specific place. Rather, Rava said: When we say that the prohibition: “You shall not cut yourselves” applies, we are referring to a case where there is a court in one city, a section of which rules in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai and another section rules in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. However, with regard to two courts located in one city, we have no problem with it. § The Gemara cites other relevant sources. Come and hear: In the locale of Rabbi Eliezer, where his ruling was followed, they would cut down trees on Shabbat to prepare charcoal from them to fashion iron tools with which to circumcise a child on Shabbat. In Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, not only does the mitzva of circumcision override Shabbat, but also any action required for the preparation of the tools necessary for the circumcision likewise overrides Shabbat. The baraita adds: In the locale of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili they would eat poultry meat in milk, as Rabbi Yosei HaGelili held that the prohibition of meat in milk does not include poultry. The Gemara infers: In the locale of Rabbi Eliezer, yes, they would act in this manner, whereas in the locale of Rabbi Akiva, for instance, no, they would not do so, as it is taught in a baraita that a principle was stated by Rabbi Akiva: Any prohibited labor that can be performed on Shabbat eve does not override Shabbat even if it involves a mitzva. A mitzva whose proper time is on Shabbat overrides Shabbat only if its performance was impossible earlier, e.g., the act of circumcision itself, which cannot be performed earlier. The Gemara asks: And what is this refutation? As stated above, it is different when dealing with numerous places, and the baraita explicitly states that this practice was followed in Rabbi Eliezer’s locale. Consequently, there is no violation of the prohibition against splitting into factions. The Gemara asks: He who asked it, why did he ask it, i.e., what is the basis for the question in the first place? It is obvious that the baraita is referring to a specific place. The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that due to the severity of Shabbat, it, i.e., the world, is considered like a single locale. In other words, one might have thought that the permission to tolerate diverse customs in different places applies only to other prohibitions, whereas the prohibition of Shabbat is so severe that it is unacceptable to allow different customs, as this might lead people to disrespect Shabbat. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that even in the case of Shabbat there can be different customs in various locales. § The Gemara cites another relevant case involving Shabbat: Come and hear that Rabbi Abbahu, when he happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, would move an oil lamp [sheraga] after the flame that had been lit for that Shabbat had burned out, as Rabbi Yehoshua accepted the ruling that it is permitted to carry items of this sort that had been set aside. But when he happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who prohibited carrying items of this kind that had been set aside on Shabbat, he would not move an oil lamp. This indicates that divergent customs are followed in different places. Again, the Gemara asks: And what is this difficulty? Didn’t we say that it is different when dealing with numerous places? The Gemara explains that this is what we are saying: With regard to Rabbi Abbahu himself, how could he act in this manner here and how could he act in that manner there? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Abbahu holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that it is permitted to carry this item. And when he happened to come to the place of Rabbi Yoḥanan he would not carry it, in deference to Rabbi Yoḥanan, so as not to act contrary to his ruling in the place where he was the authority. The Gemara asks: But there was a servant accompanying Rabbi Abbahu who would see him carrying these types of articles that had been set aside. Wasn’t Rabbi Abbahu concerned that the servant might carry them in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s locale? The Gemara explains that he would inform the servant and explain to him the reason for his change in behavior.

The trip was short. The work is long: High notes from Cantors Assembly trip to Israel

ejewishphilanthropy.com/the-trip-was-short-the-work-is-long-cantors-assembly-members-experience-israel/

June 23, 2022

Opinion

Paradigm shift

By Rabbi Cantor Hillary Chorny

June 23, 2022

In Short

Throughout the 75-year history of the Cantors Assembly, we have no formal history of engaging with political Israel affairs as an organization. As with so many aspects of the cantorate today, the shape of our role in the Jewish landscape is evolving. We are full clergy, full stop. Israel is a source of pride, strength, and inspiration for CA members, and our current leadership was more driven than ever to be involved in Israel conversations.

Last Monday, eJewishPhilanthropy featured an opinion piece by Idan Roll, Israel’s deputy minister of foreign affairs. Roll suggested that we are due for a paradigm shift in the realm of Israel-Diaspora relations. He wrote:

“A chief challenge that the Jewish Diaspora faces today is how to connect younger generations to their Jewish identity and Israel. I argue that these two are interconnected. A strong Jewish identity leads to a natural affinity toward Israel, and a deep connection to Israel creates a link to our people’s history and tradition and our current state of affairs.”

Courtesy of the Cantor's Assembly

That same week, I traveled with a delegation of 11 leaders from the Cantors Assembly (CA) to Israel, where our docket included a meeting with Deputy Minister Roll. This mission itself, with a spotlight on cantors, represented a paradigm shift that we believe will be key to alliances between the two largest Jewish populaces in the world.

When You Don’t Have a Seat at the Table, Pull Up a Chair

Throughout the 75-year history of the Cantors Assembly, we have no formal history as an organization of engaging with political affairs in Israel as an organization. As with so many aspects of the cantorate today, the shape of our role in the Jewish landscape is evolving. We are full clergy, full stop. Our membership comprises 600 plus cantors, identifying as male and female, impacting thousands upon thousands of Jewish lives through ritual and educational engagement. Israel is a source of pride, strength and inspiration for CA members, and our current leadership was more driven than ever to be involved in Israel conversations.

Close to a year ago, our leadership reached out to the leadership of Masorti Israel and Mercaz Olami to ask how and when we, as cantors, might visit as a delegation of passionate, educated Zionists. Our primary goals were education and solidarity, demonstrating our continued commitment to the thriving of the State of Israel in all its diversity. The Israeli movement partners met our enthusiasm with their own high energy embrace. They built us a full docket that took us from the Jerusalem mayor’s office to the shuk; from the Kotel family platform to Har Herzl; from the Knesset to the Fuchsberg Center; from Machon Shechter to a North African cultural center – all within a span of four days.

“We [were] here to build bridges between American and Israeli Jews and to affirm that there are a number of valid ways to live meaningful Jewish lives,” said Hazzan Luis Cattan of Westport, Connecticut, current president of the assembly. “We are excited to work with our brothers and sisters in the Masorti movement and affirm the unique and powerful ways in which we cantors can make a difference and sometimes remove obstacles.”

Watch Your Language

When piloting this program, the Cantors Assembly considered what might be their criteria for building the delegation. One factor was language: Cattan requested that we stretch to do all our business in Hebrew. There are doors that open wider when we yield to the native language of the environment we enter, particularly in the realm of politics.

From the start of our interactions on Monday, we conducted our meetings in Hebrew. Whether we were listening to Tammy Gottlieb, vice president of communications for the Masorti Movement, Israel, describe the retzef yahadut (spectrum of Judaism); or whether huddled in conversation with MK Mansour Abbas of the Ra’am Islamic party, Hebrew was a device for egalitarian conversation, yielding our own eloquence for the sake of the comfort and freedom of expression for our hosts. We therefore experienced a version of each meeting without the gloss of translation, raw and challenging, and utterly worth the effort.

Singing is Just the Beginning

Did we sing together on this trip? You might have thought that would be the purpose of a cantors’ trip to Israel, but performance and song are only small slices of our profession. The success of this delegation and the bridges we have begun to build come from tapping into our skills and toolboxes as pastoral caregivers, as educators and as community organizers. With the ministry of foreign affairs, we dreamed about organizing community trips in time for Yom HaZikaron next year. We planned pedagogic exchanges with newfound colleagues at the Ashira program within Machon Schechter. And we nodded in understanding as Father Alberto Pari spoke of the tremendous challenges he faces as director of interfaith music programs in the heart of Jerusalem.

When we did sing, it was a spontaneous pause at Theodore Herzl’s grave to chant El Male Rachamim. Again, an unplanned moment of song arose when MK Alon Tal, arms outstretched for a group picture, broke into a congregational rendition of Etz Chayim Hi. The songs of Israel reentered our hearts, inspiring us to return.

Next Year, And the next, in Jerusalem

If what we have set in motion by completing our initial Cantors Assembly mission is a precedent for an annual trip in support of our Masorti and Mercaz partners in Israel, dayyeinu – it would be enough. We hope, though, that we have done so much more.

The trip was short. The work is long. And we know that we are neither alone in the work of refining the dream of Israel, nor are we free from engaging with it. Each of us who attended this mission is individually reinvigorated, committed to building a World Zionist Congress in 2025 that mirrors the pluralistic Israel that is growing every day. We are the naturally positioned shepherds to do the work that Deputy Minister Roll sees as our shared challenge: to connect younger generations to their Jewish identity and Israel.

Cantor Rabbi Hillary Chorny is the cantor at Temple Beth Am in Los Angeles, California, where she lives with her husband and their two kids, Ella and Yossi. She is an avid writer, and she proudly serves as an officer of the Cantors Assembly, on the advisory board of the Jewish Sacred Music Foundation, and as an instructor at the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies.