Hillel the Elder
During one of my first Shabbat experiences in Europe, I found myself at a Friday night dinner at a home in Brussels. I distinctly remember that evening. Avi, the father of the home and leader of the greater European Union Jewish community, shared that as Jews, we must question not in spite of but because of. We question not to destroy but to make better. We question not out of hate but out of love.
Sometimes this questioning can lead to disagreement.
Last weekend, I had the pleasure of traveling to Washington, D.C. from Madrid for the inaugural Hillel International Student Cabinet Summit. For two days, 24 students from around the world, representing many facets of the modern global Jewish student identity, came together to form an entity that would represent the student stakeholder in Hillel International like never before and connect Jewish students globally like never before. These students all came from drastically different Jewish backgrounds from religious, geographic, cultural, academic, and political standpoints.
On a personal level, I felt grateful for the Hillel International Ask Big Questions activity I participated in that was led by Rabbi Jessica Lott during the Summit. With the group of 24 diverse students, Rabbi Jessica dived into the story behind our namesake: Hillel the Elder. We first recalled the story of a child asking both Hillel and Shammai to describe the Torah while standing on one foot. This was just the part of the iceberg visible to the human eye. Next, we dug deeper by analyzing a text from the Talmud that enlightens one with a crucial lesson on disagreement. Here, we struck that of the iceberg that the human eye strives to see but can only be seen below the surface.
“Even though the academy of Shammai declares one thing [about complex issues of marital status] kosher while the academy of Hillel declares the same thing not kosher, even though one forbids while the other permits, the academy of Shammai did not refrain from marrying the women of the academy of Hillel, nor did the academy of Hillel refrain from marrying the women of the academy of Shammai. Even though one side declares things to be pure while the other side declares the same thing to be impure, nonetheless they did not refrain from preparing things requiring a state of purity by using things from the other side” (Mishnah Yevamot 1:4). Hillel International Ask Big Questions
This text highlights two polarized, opposing forces recognizing that they disagree on the how but agree on the why—a unifying goal. They disagree on the means but agree on the ends. ‘Purity’ is distinct diction because it brings forth to mind something that is innocent and perhaps sacred. At first, it seems that the text is contradicting itself by repeating ‘purity’ twice: the two academies of thought believe that the other academy is impure and yet uses components from the other academy to create purity. However, upon further thought, the text demonstrates that both academies accept that although there is disagreement on what is pure, there is respect in recognizing what the other academy believes is pure when working towards a common goal: marriage. Marriage, or Besheret, is holy and thus serves as a higher purpose bringing the two polarized academies together.
In any disagreement, respect and trust must make up the core of any constructive dialogue. What made Hillel’s academy morally stronger than that of Shammai was that “[the academy of Hillel] [was] kind and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Shammai, and not only that, but they mentioned the rulings of the academy of Shammai before their own” (Talmud Eiruvin 13b). As the Jewish people, we must value and recognize the why behind our component’s argument, even if we disagree on the how to achieve it. This theme was present during the time of the academy of Hillel as well as today. Analyzing the 2016 presidential election race, we must recognize that although candidates may disagree on policies and issues, their differing beliefs stem from the common goal to improve the American people. Moreover, within the Jewish community, when discourse pursues on issues affecting the politics around the State of Israel, we must recognize that our counterparts disagree on the how but agree on the why: they are Zionists questioning matters around the State of Israel not in spite of but because of.
Looking ahead to Shabbat next week, we may find oursevles sitting at a Seder surrounded by family and friends. Let us remember wisdom learned from both Avi and Hillel the Elder: to question out of love and disagree out of respect.