א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים הן והלכה כב"הוכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן
Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.
(ד) בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַתִּירִין הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִים. חָלְצוּ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִים. נִתְיַבְּמוּ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַכְשִׁירִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל פּוֹסְלִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵלּוּ אוֹסְרִין וְאֵלּוּ מַתִּירִין, אֵלּוּ פּוֹסְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַכְשִׁירִין, לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מִלִּשָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל, וְלֹא בֵית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי. כָּל הַטָּהֳרוֹת וְהַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אֵלּוּ מְטַהֲרִין וְאֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין, לֹא נִמְנְעוּ עוֹשִׂין טָהֳרוֹת אֵלּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי אֵלּוּ:
(4) Beit Shammai permit the rivals to the brothers [for marriage], but Beit Hillel forbid [them]. [If these women] had performed Chalitzah Beit Shammai disqualify them from [subsequently marrying] priests, but Beit Hillel allow them [to do so]. [If these women] had undergone Yibum, Beit Shammai permit them [to subsequently marry priests], but Beit Hillel disqualify them [from such a union]. Even though these [one school] prohibit and these [the other school] permit, these disqualify and these allow, Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from Beit Hillel, nor did Beit Hillel [refrain from marrying women] from Beit Shammai. [With regard to] purity and impurity where these ruled [a matter] pure and these ruled [it] impure, they did not refrain from using [utensils] the other deemed pure.
מי סברת עשו ב"ש כדבריהם לא עשו ב"ש כדבריהם ור' יוחנן אמר עשו ועשו ובפלוגתא [דרב ושמואל] דרב אומר לא עשו ב"ש כדבריהם ושמואל אמר עשו ועשואימת אילימא קודם בת קול מ"ט דמ"ד לא עשו ואלא לאחר בת קול מ"ט דמ"ד עשואי בעית אימא קודם בת קול ואי בעית אימא לאחר בת קול אי בעית אימא קודם בת קול וכגון דב"ה רובא למ"ד לא עשו דהא ב"ה רובאומ"ד עשו כי אזלינן בתר רובא היכא דכי הדדי נינהו הכא בית שמאי מחדדי טפיואי בעית אימא לאחר בת קול מ"ד לא עשו דהא נפקא בת קול ומ"ד עשו רבי יהושע היא דאמר אין משגיחין בבת קולומ"ד עשו קרינן כאן (דברים יד, א) לא תתגודדו לא תעשו אגודות אגודות אמר אביי כי אמרינן לא תתגודדו כגון שתי בתי דינים בעיר אחת הללו מורים כדברי ב"ש והללו מורים כדברי ב"ה אבל שתי בתי דינים בשתי עיירות לית לן בהאמר ליה רבא והא ב"ש וב"ה כשתי בתי דינים בעיר אחת דמי אלא אמר רבא כי אמרינן לא תתגודדו כגון ב"ד בעיר אחת פלג מורין כדברי ב"ש ופלג מורין כדברי ב"ה אבל שתי בתי דינין בעיר אחת לית לן בהתא שמע במקומו של רבי אליעזר היו כורתים עצים לעשות פחמים בשבת לעשות ברזל במקומו של ר' יוסי הגלילי היו אוכלים בשר עוף בחלבבמקומו של רבי אליעזר אין במקומו של רבי עקיבא לא דתניא כלל אמר רבי עקיבא כל מלאכה שאפשר לעשותה מע"ש אין דוחה את השבתוהאי מאי תיובתא מקומות מקומות שאני ודקארי לה מאי קארי להס"ד אמינא משום חומרא דשבת כמקום אחד דמי קמ"לת"ש דרבי אבהו כי איקלע לאתריה דרבי יהושע בן לוי הוה מטלטל שרגא וכי איקלע לאתריה דר' יוחנן לא הוה מטלטל שרגאוהאי מאי קושיא ולא אמרינן מקומות שאני אנן הכי קאמרינן ר' אבהו היכי עביד הכא הכי והיכי עביד הכא הכירבי אבהו כר' יהושע בן לוי סבירא ליה וכי מקלע לאתריה דרבי יוחנן לא הוה מטלטל משום כבודו דרבי יוחנן והאיכא שמעא דמודע ליה לשמעאת"ש אע"פ שאלו אוסרים ואלו מתירים לא נמנעו ב"ש מלישא נשים מב"ה ולא ב"ה מב"ש אי אמרת בשלמא לא עשו משום הכי לא נמנעו אלא אי אמרת עשו אמאי לא נמנעובשלמא ב"ש מב"ה לא נמנעו דבני חייבי לאוין נינהואלא ב"ה מבית שמאי אמאי לא נמנעו בני חייבי כריתות ממזרים נינהווכי תימא קסברי ב"ה דאין ממזר מחייבי כריתות והאמר רבי אלעזר אף על פי שנחלקו ב"ש וב"ה בצרות מודים שאין ממזר אלא ממי שאיסורו איסור ערוה וענוש כרת אלא לאו שמע מינה לא עשולא לעולם עשו דמודעי להו ופרשיוהכי נמי מסתברא דקתני סיפא כל הטהרות וכל הטמאות שהיו אלו מטהרין ואלו מטמאין לא נמנעו עושים טהרות אלו על גבי אלו
Reish Lakish said to him: Do you hold that Beit Shammai actually acted in accordance with their own statement? Beit Shammai did not in fact act in accordance with their own statement, as the dispute was merely theoretical. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Beit Shammai certainly did act in accordance with their opinion. The Gemara comments: And this is also reflected in the dispute between Rav and Shmuel, as Rav says: Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their own statement, and Shmuel said: They certainly did act in that manner.The Gemara inquires: When does this question apply? If we say that it is referring to the period prior to the Divine Voice that declared that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, then what is the rationale of the one who said that Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their opinion? But rather, if one would say it is referring to after the Divine Voice, what is the reason for the one who said that they did act in accordance with their opinion? After all, the Divine Voice established that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.The Gemara answers: Neither of these options poses a difficulty. If you wish, say that it is referring to the period prior to the Divine Voice, and if you wish, say instead that it is after the Divine Voice. The Gemara elaborates: If you wish, say it is prior to the Divine Voice, and it is referring to the period when Beit Hillel formed the majority of the Sages. Therefore, according to the one who said that Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their opinion, the reason is that Beit Hillel was the majority, and the halakha is in accordance with the majority.And the one who said that they did act in accordance with their opinion maintains that when do we follow the majority? It is in a case where the disputing parties are equal in wisdom to one another. Here, however, Beit Shammai are sharper than Beit Hillel, and therefore they acted in accordance with their own opinion despite the fact that they were in the minority.And if you wish, say instead that it was after the Divine Voice. The one who said that Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their opinion would say that this was due to the pronouncement of the Divine Voice. And the one who said that they did do so, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said, with regard to the Divine Voice that emerged and proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of the oven of akhnai (Bava Metzia 59b), that one disregards a Heavenly Voice. Just as he disregarded the Divine Voice in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, so too, one disregards the Divine Voice that proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.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 continues to discuss the question of whether Beit Shammai followed their own rulings. Come and hear that which is taught in the mishna: Although Beit Hillel prohibit and Beit Shammai permit, and these disqualify the 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. Granted, if you say that Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their opinion, it is due to that reason that they did not have to refrain from marrying women from Beit Hillel. However, if you say that they did act in accordance with their opinion, why didn’t they refrain from marrying one another?The Gemara elaborates: Granted, Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying into Beit Hillel, as even if Beit Shammai maintain in a certain case that a rival wife required levirate marriage or ḥalitza, if she went ahead and married another man their children are born to a union whose partners are liable by a regular prohibition: “The wife of the dead man shall not be married outside” (Deuteronomy 25:5). Since this transgression does not entail karet, the children of this relationship are not mamzerim.However, why did Beit Hillel not refrain from marrying into Beit Shammai? In the opinion of Beit Hillel the children of these rival wives who entered into levirate marriage are born of a union whose partners are liable to receive karet, as the prohibition of a brother’s wife was never nullified in this case, which means that the children are mamzerim. If so, how could Beit Hillel allow these marriages? ... Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from here that Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their own opinion?The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No; actually, Beit Shammai did act in accordance with their opinion. As for the problem with these marriages, the answer is that they would inform Beit Hillel and Beit Hillel would withdraw from the match. When those who acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel would come to marry women from those who followed the rulings of Beit Shammai, they would be notified that certain children were born of rival wives and that those people were considered mamzerim in the opinion of Beit Hillel, who therefore declared them forbidden in marriage.The Gemara comments: And so too, it is reasonable that this is the case, as the mishna teaches in the latter clause: With regard to all of the disputes concerning the halakhot of ritual purity and impurity, where those, Beit Hillel, rule an article ritually pure and these, Beit Shammai, rule it ritually impure, they did not refrain from handling ritually pure objects each with the other.
§ The Gemara continues to discuss the question of whether Beit Shammai followed their own rulings. Come and hear that which is taught in the mishna: Although Beit Hillel prohibit and Beit Shammai permit, and these disqualify the 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. Granted, if you say that Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their opinion, it is due to that reason that they did not have to refrain from marrying women from Beit Hillel. However, if you say that they did act in accordance with their opinion, why didn’t they refrain from marrying one another?The Gemara elaborates: Granted, Beit Shammai did not refrain from marrying into Beit Hillel, as even if Beit Shammai maintain in a certain case that a rival wife required levirate marriage or ḥalitza, if she went ahead and married another man their children are born to a union whose partners are liable by a regular prohibition: “The wife of the dead man shall not be married outside” (Deuteronomy 25:5). Since this transgression does not entail karet, the children of this relationship are not mamzerim.However, why did Beit Hillel not refrain from marrying into Beit Shammai? In the opinion of Beit Hillel the children of these rival wives who entered into levirate marriage are born of a union whose partners are liable to receive karet, as the prohibition of a brother’s wife was never nullified in this case, which means that the children are mamzerim. If so, how could Beit Hillel allow these marriages? ... Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from here that Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their own opinion?The Gemara rejects this conclusion: No; actually, Beit Shammai did act in accordance with their opinion. As for the problem with these marriages, the answer is that they would inform Beit Hillel and Beit Hillel would withdraw from the match. When those who acted in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel would come to marry women from those who followed the rulings of Beit Shammai, they would be notified that certain children were born of rival wives and that those people were considered mamzerim in the opinion of Beit Hillel, who therefore declared them forbidden in marriage.The Gemara comments: And so too, it is reasonable that this is the case, as the mishna teaches in the latter clause: With regard to all of the disputes concerning the halakhot of ritual purity and impurity, where those, Beit Hillel, rule an article ritually pure and these, Beit Shammai, rule it ritually impure, they did not refrain from handling ritually pure objects each with the other.
לא תעשו אגודות אגודות - דנראה כנוהגין ב' תורות
"Do not make agudot agudot"--Since it would appear as if they were following two torot.
The Prohibition of Lo Titgodedu (Part 1), Rav Moshe Taragin, Yeshivat Har Etzion
Rashi claims that the issur prevents the development of multiple "torot." Just as we assert the unity of Hakadosh Baruch Hu Himself, we similarly maintain the oneness of His Torah; it was ALL delivered at Sinai as an indivisible corpus representing His will. Allowing different groups to practice divergent halakhot would suggest multiple torot and present theological confusion.
Rashi claims that the issur prevents the development of multiple "torot." Just as we assert the unity of Hakadosh Baruch Hu Himself, we similarly maintain the oneness of His Torah; it was ALL delivered at Sinai as an indivisible corpus representing His will. Allowing different groups to practice divergent halakhot would suggest multiple torot and present theological confusion.
(יד) וּבִכְלַל אַזְהָרָה זֶה שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ שְׁנֵי בָּתֵּי דִּינִין בְּעִיר אַחַת זֶה נוֹהֵג כְּמִנְהָג זֶה וְזֶה נוֹהֵג כְּמִנְהָג אַחֵר. שֶׁדָּבָר זֶה גּוֹרֵם לְמַחֲלוֹקוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד א) "לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ" לֹא תֵּעָשׂוּ אֲגֻדּוֹת אֲגֻדּוֹת:
(14) Within this prohibition is that there shouldn't be two courts in one city, one that practices this custom and this which practices another, for this will lead to large disputes, as it says "do not divide yourselves" do not make disparate groups.
Michael Rosenzweig, Eile ve-Eilu Divrei Elohim Hayyim: Halakhic Pluralism and Theories of Controversy, The Orthodox Forum, 1989
Clearly, pluralism is not a blank check. There are objective limits to a sincere interpretation of sources. The author of Arukh haShulhan (in his introduction to Hoshen Mishpat) emphasizes that most halakhic debates revolve around details and application of principles, not the principles themselves. This is particularly true, he argues, about those debates that are characterized as elu va-elu divre Elokim hayyim. R. Moshe Feinstein in the introduction to his Iggerot Moshe cautions about the need for yir’at shamayim (fear of God, piety) and intellectual rigor to insure valid conclusions.
At the same time, in terms of the themes of tolerance and respect for the legitimately arrived at conclusions of others with whom we may disagree, the implications of elu va-elu divre Elokim hayyim are crucial... This is a motif which should guide us in relating to other communities and their distinctive customs and pesakim.
Finally, it should be stated emphatically that elu va-elu divre Elokim hayyim should never be used as an excuse for complacency or mediocrity. Even as we encounter equal truths we must aspire to pursue our own conviction of ideal truth culled from and on the basis of insights that we form from the wealth of legitimate perspectives that we confront. Our pursuit should be intensified and enhanced by these exposures. In this way we will hopefully emerge with the concept of pluralism beautifully depicted by the Arakh ha-Shulhan in his introduction to Hoshen Mishpat:
"The debates of Tanaim and Amoraim and Geonim in fact represent the truth of the living God. All of their views have merit from a halakhic perspective. In fact, this diversity and range constitute the beauty and splendor of our holy Torah. The entire Torah is called a song whose beauty derives from the interactive diversity of its voices and instruments. One who immerses himself in the sea of Talmud will experience the joy that results from such rich variety."
CCAR Responsa:Orthodox Minyan in a Reform Synagogue (5758.12)
This she'elah presents just such a hard case. It involves a fundamental tension between two important Reform Jewish principles, both of which we proudly affirm. Each of these principles represents a range of values and commitments which express themselves throughout our personal and communal observance. And each of them would seem to argue for a contradictory response to our question. For the purposes of this teshuvah, we designate these principles by the labels "Jewish pluralism" and "Reform Jewish integrity."
This she'elah presents just such a hard case. It involves a fundamental tension between two important Reform Jewish principles, both of which we proudly affirm. Each of these principles represents a range of values and commitments which express themselves throughout our personal and communal observance. And each of them would seem to argue for a contradictory response to our question. For the purposes of this teshuvah, we designate these principles by the labels "Jewish pluralism" and "Reform Jewish integrity."
By "Jewish pluralism," we mean our recognition as liberals that there are a number of different and even conflicting paths which Jews might legitimately walk in response to the call of Torah. As Reform Jews, we demand the right to make our own religious decisions, and we reject any effort to impose upon our communities an "orthodoxy" which claims that there is but one correct way to believe, to pray, and to practice our faith. And simple fairness requires that, just as we assert this freedom for ourselves, we must grant it to others. We acknowledge that all Jews are entitled to observe their Judaism in a manner that speaks to them and suits their spirit. Accordingly, we do not insist that they adhere to our own version of "the correct way..."
By "Reform Jewish integrity," on the other hand, we express our conviction that Reform Judaism is based upon certain fundamental affirmations which define and distinguish us as a religious community. These affirmations constitute our core values, the irreducible content of our approach to Judaism, a content we cannot compromise without surrendering our integrity, without denying who and what we are...
Although we affirm Jewish religious pluralism as a great value, it is not our only value. Acceptance of diversity can never be allowed to call our other basic Judaic commitments into question. Put simply, there are limits to our pluralism. These limits are set by those standards which form the essence of our Jewish outlook, standards which can be violated only at the cost of our Reform Jewish integrity. For all our tolerance, we would never permit a group of Jews for Jesus or other apostates to hold their worship services in our facility. Nor would we allow a group to organize an "alternative" Jewish service which denies as a matter of religious principle the right of participation to any Jew on the basis of gender. No religious community, no matter how liberal, could possibly exist if it were unable to draw lines, to set boundaries, and to agree upon at least the most minimal definitions of what it does and does not believe.[6] Our commitment to gender equality and our affirmation of our own Jewish religious legitimacy are examples of such boundaries; indeed, they are in the category of minimal standards, values without which "Reform Judaism" as we know it could scarcely exist. Our congregations dedicate themselves to the furtherance of these values and to the observance of these standards. To allow space to groups which repudiate them is to act in contradiction of our very purpose as a religious community.
א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים הן והלכה כב"הוכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהןכאותה ששנינו מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית בית שמאי פוסלין וב"ה מכשירין אמרו ב"ה לב"ש לא כך היה מעשה שהלכו זקני ב"ש וזקני ב"ה לבקר את ר' יוחנן בן החורנית ומצאוהו יושב ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית אמרו להן בית שמאי (אי) משם ראיה אף הן אמרו לו אם כך היית נוהג לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיךללמדך שכל המשפיל עצמו הקב"ה מגביהו וכל המגביה עצמו הקב"ה משפילו כל המחזר על הגדולה גדולה בורחת ממנו וכל הבורח מן הגדולה גדולה מחזרת אחריו וכל הדוחק את השעה שעה דוחקתו וכל הנדחה מפני שעה שעה עומדת לות"ר שתי שנים ומחצה נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו ואמרי לה ימשמש במעשיו
Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.As in the mishna that we learned: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem this sukkainvalid; and Beit Hillel deem it valid. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Wasn’t there an incident in which the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥanan ben HaḤoranit, and they found him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka, but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there do you seek to adduce a proof? Those visitors, too, said to him: If that was the manner in which you were accustomed to perform the mitzva, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in all your days. It is apparent from the phrasing of the mishna that when the Sages of Beit Hillel related that the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel visited Rabbi Yoḥanan ben HaḤoranit, they mentioned the Elders of Beit Shammai before their own Elders.This is to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and, conversely, anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who attempts to force the moment and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, the moment forces him too, and he is unsuccessful. And conversely, anyone who is patient and yields to the moment, the moment stands by his side, and he will ultimately be successful.The Sages taught the following baraita: For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. However, now that he has been created, he should examine his actions that he has performed and seek to correct them. And some say: He should scrutinize his planned actions and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin.
Interview with Danielle Allen, University of Chicago Press (http://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/014665in.html)
The idea of the “one people” can be traced back to Thomas Hobbes, who wanted to establish an authoritarian state, and the notion of “oneness” was central to establishing the solidity of the sovereign power he proposed. In my view, “wholeness” captures equally well our aim at integrity, at being a group of citizens gladly tied together in a constantly evolving, ever-shifting universe of intricate weave. As you can tell from that image, the term “wholeness” also captures the heterogeneity and constant fluidity of a democratic people.
The idea of the “one people” can be traced back to Thomas Hobbes, who wanted to establish an authoritarian state, and the notion of “oneness” was central to establishing the solidity of the sovereign power he proposed. In my view, “wholeness” captures equally well our aim at integrity, at being a group of citizens gladly tied together in a constantly evolving, ever-shifting universe of intricate weave. As you can tell from that image, the term “wholeness” also captures the heterogeneity and constant fluidity of a democratic people.
We can be whole (and healthy, for the word “whole” derives from Old English words for sound health) without ever being “one.” Law understands the value of the adjective “whole” when it talks about the importance of judgments that can make someone whole again, after a violation or injury. I believe democratic peoples, too, should aspire to achieving such wholeness for themselves.