Responsa in a Moment: Volume 9, Issue No. 6, June 2015
Question: During the past two months, we have witnessed three major cases of a lack of pluralism and tolerance in the State of Israel, most of them carried out by Israeli Orthodox rabbis. They seem to believe that there is only one correct way to be Jewish and that those who deviate from that path are not real rabbis and should be shunned. Since these Orthodox rabbis from different backgrounds seem to share this lack of pluralism and tolerance, maybe they are simply reflecting the consensus of Jewish tradition. Is this true?
Responsum: Indeed, the past two months have seen three very clear cases of a lack of religious pluralism and tolerance in Israel:
There is a common denominator between all three stories: that there is just one way to be Jewish. We shall see below that this unfortunate and misguided approach is contradicted by thousands of years of Jewish sources. The bottom line is that Judaism is in favor of unity but opposed to uniformity.
I) Unity is Good
The Dangers of Disunity
Now Israel loved Joseph best of all his sons. For he was a child of his old age, and he had made him an ornamented tunic. And when his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of his brothers, they hated him so that they could not speak a friendly word to him.
The Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 10b = Megillah 16b) comments as follows:
A man should never single out one son among his sons, for on account of two sela’s weight of fine wool, which Jacob gave Joseph in excess of his other sons, his brothers became jealous of him and the matter resulted in our forefathers’ descent into Egypt.
This Midrash warns us that the lack of unity between Joseph and his brothers led to tragedy. If not for the senseless enmity between Joseph and his brothers, Joseph would not have been sold into slavery in Egypt and the children of Israel would not have been enslaved there for 400 years. This is one of the basic lessons of Jewish history: internal disunity leads to tragedy, Destruction and Exile.
Indeed, so it appears from the legends about the Destruction in Gittin 56a. It is related there that there was enough food and wood in Jerusalem for a siege of 21 years. The Sages wanted to make peace with the Romans, while the biryonim [rebels, ruffians] wanted to fight them. When the biryonim saw that they are not succeeding in convincing the Sages, they arose and burned all of the wheat and barley in Jerusalem – and famine ensued. This story is confirmed by the stories related by Josephus (Wars of the Jews, IV, 6, 1 and V, 1, 1-5).
The Importance of Unity
Take a stick and write on it ‘Of Judah’… and take another stick and write on it ‘Of Joseph – the stick of Ephraim’… Bring them close to each other, so that they become one stick, joined together in your hand… Thus said the Lord God: ‘I am going to take the Israelite people from among the nations… and gather them from every quarter, and bring them to their own land. I will make them a single nation in the land’…
According to the universal custom, if one takes a bundle of reeds, will he be able to break them at one stroke? But if he takes them one by one, even an infant can break them. So too you find that Israel will not be redeemed until they become one bundle…
We have thus far seen that the Jewish tradition is opposed to disunity and strives for unity. One could easily conclude from these sources that the best way to achieve unity is by uniformity. If we all think the same and act the same then we will be united. Indeed, this is and was the approach of Communist Russia, Communist China and may other dictatorships. However, nothing could be further from the approach of our classic sources. Our Sages thought and taught that pluralism is essential when studying Torah, among people, and within Jewish law.
A) Pluralism in the Torah – how so?
Rabbi Levi said: The Holy One appeared to them as though He were a statue with faces on every side, so that though a thousand men might be looking at the statue, they would be led to believe that it was looking at each one of them. So, too, when the Holy One spoke, each and every person in Israel could say: “The Divine word is addressing me”… Moreover, said R. Yossi bar R. Hanina, the Divine Word spoke to each and every person according to his particular capacity…
In other words, the Torah at Mount Sinai did not have 70 faces but rather millions of faces – for 600,000 men plus women and children — one for each person who was standing at Mt.Sinai!
In other words, the Torah is pluralistic by its very nature. It has 70 faces and divides into many sparks and God spoke to every Jew at Mt. Sinai but each one heard and understood something different. Not only is it permissible to interpret every verse in different ways, but a student is required to study with different rabbis in order to be exposed to different interpretations.
B) Pluralism among human beings – how so?
We have learned in the tractate of Berakhot 58a: “Our Rabbis taught: If one sees a multitude of Jews, he says: ‘Blessed is He who discerns secrets’ – for the mind of each is different from that of the other, and the face of each is different from that of the other”. In other words, we actually recite a blessing to God for having created millions of people who are different form each other in their ideas and appearance!
In Midrash Tanhuma (Pinhas, parag. 10) Moses asks at the time of his death that God should appoint a leader for the Jewish people. And who is the ideal leader? “Appoint over them a person who tolerates every single person according to his opinion”. The ideal leader is not a dictator, but rather a person who tolerates every person according to his or her opinion and does not try to force upon them one unified opinion.
Rabbi Kook was such a leader. In his commentary on the famous midrash “Do not read your sons but rather your builders”, found in siddurim in the paragraph after Ein Keloheinu, he writes (Olat R’iyah, Vol. I, p. 330):
For the building will be built from different parts, and the truth of the Light of the World will be built from different sides, from different opinions, for “these and those are the words of the living God” (Eruvin 13b). From different ways of avodah [worship or work] and instruction and education, each of which has its place and value… and the multiplicity of opinions, which comes from the difference of souls and educations (sic!), that is the very thing which enriches wisdom and causes it to expand. So that in the end all things will be understood properly, and it will be recognized that it was impossible for the building of peace to be built except by all of the influences which appear to be in conflict with each other.
Indeed, Rabbi Kook was not the only modern rabbi who stressed the values of pluralism and tolerance. Similar ideas were expressed by Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin, the Netziv of Volozhin (1817-1893) in his commentary Ha’amek Davar to Genesis 11 (see the article by Perl listed below) and by Solomon Schechter in an address delivered at HUC in 1913 (see the article listed below)
C) Pluralism in Jewish law – how so?
One might reply to the above: Pluralism in interpretations of biblical verses is fine; pluralism in human beings is fine; but what about Jewish practice? Don’t we all have to observe the same laws and customs? Let us look at a classic passage in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 4:2, ed.Venice, fol. 22a):
Rabbi Yannai said: If the Torah had been given sliced (i.e., with one clear answer to every question) there would be no room for the leg to stand [i.e., no room to maneuver]. How do we know this? “And God spoke to Moses saying”. Moses said: Lord of the Universe, tell me what is the halakhah? God said: “follow the majority” (Exodus 23:2) – if those who acquit are in the majority – acquit, if those who find guilty are in the majority – find guilty, so that the Torah will be interpreted 49 faces impure and 49 faces pure…
In other words, Moses wanted God to give him a clear answer to every question. God replied that the Sages in every generation must debate every issue and decide by majority vote what to do. Indeed, we know from a number of famous stories in the Talmud that this is what the Sages did. After debating an issue and arriving at a majority opinion, they would force the minority to follow their opinion (see Mishnah Eduyot 5:6; Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 2:8-9; Bava Metzia 59a-b; Berakhot 63a-b; Eruvin 13b).
However, after the era of the Sanhedrin or Jewish parliament ca. 425 CE, there was no longer one group of rabbis who could decide by majority vote. As a result, Jewish law became much more pluralistic. As I have written elsewhere (The Status of Women in Jewish Law: Responsa, Jerusalem, 2012, pp. 117-118):
The fact that a Rabbi or a group of Rabbis rules in a certain way does not mean that all Jews will do or must do what they say. Throughout Jewish history, contradictory halakhic rulings coexisted side by side. In the Talmud we find expressions such as “In Sura they followed Mareimar, but Rav Shisha the son of Rav Idi followed Abaye” (Sukkah 46b and Pesahim 115a (according to all of the manuscripts; the printed editions read “Surya”). Cf. Gittin 89a for Sura vs. Nehardea and Bava Metzia 73a for Sura vs. Kafri. On the conflicting traditions between Sura and Pumbedita, see David Goodblatt, HUCA 48 (1977), pp. 210-216 and Assufot 8 (5754), pp. 99-129 (two articles)). In the Geonic period, we find a series of halakhic disagreements between the yeshivot of Sura and Pumbedita ( They were collected by Simhah Assaf in Tekufat Hage’onim Vesifrutah, Jerusalem, 1957, pp. 261-278 and cf. the articles inAssufot cited in the previous note). According to Sefer Hahilukim Bein Anshei Mizrah V’anshei Ma’arav, there were at least 55 halakhic differences between the Jews of Babylonia and the Jews of Eretz Yisrael in the Geonic period (Mordechai Margaliot, ed., Hahillukim Shebein Anshei Mizrah Uvenei Eretz Yisrael, Jerusalem, 1938). In medieval times, there were hundreds of differences between Ashkenazim and Sefaradim. For example, the Sefaradim practiced yibum while the Ashkenazim practiced halitzah; the Sefaradim allowed bigamy while the Ashkenazim forbade it on the basis of Rabbeinu Gershom’s decree (See H. J. Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, London, 1958, especially Parts II and III). In modern times, there were many halakhic disagreements between Hassidim and mitnagdim, between the various hassidic dynasties and between various Sefardic ethnic groups. A Sefardic Jew who disobeyed an Ashkenazic Rabbi was not a “sinner”, he was simply relying on a different custom or Rabbi. So too in the case under discussion. A woman who reads this pesak and continues to pray a private petition once a day instead of reciting the amidah three times a day is not “a sinner”; she can rely on the author of the Arukh Hashulhan and other poskim who so ruled. I would try to convince her that their interpretation is incorrect, but she is not a “sinner”; she is simply relying on another valid halakhic opinion.
In conclusion, the attempt of certain Orthodox rabbis inIsraelto impose their specific halakhic opinion on all the Jews of Israel (and the Diaspora) contradicts the way that Jewish law has worked since the dissolution of the Sanhedrin.
May we aspire, rather, to the Jewish ideal of unity without uniformity. In the words of Rabbi Kuk: “the multiplicity of opinions, which comes from the difference of souls and educations (sic!), that is the very thing which enriches wisdom and causes it to expand”.
11 Tammuz 5775
Bleich, Rabbi J. David , “Communal Issues”, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol. 3,New York, 1989, pp. 82-113
Blumenthal, Elchanan, “Social Plurality and Religious Pluralism”,Religious Life in Jerusalem (supplement to The Jerusalem Post), December 22, 1995, p. 3
Claman, Richard, “A Philosophic Basis for Halakhic Pluralism”,Conservative Judaism 54/1 (Fall 2001), pp. 60-80
Idem., “Is Theological Pluralism Possible?”, Conservative Judaism64/4 (Summer 2013), pp. 49-70
Cohen, Rabbi Jack, ed., Aspects of Religious Pluralism in Israel and the Diaspora, Mevakshei Derekh, Jerusalem, no date, 7 articles, 46 pages
Dine Israel 25 (2008), pp. 73-121 and 26-27 (2009-2010), pp. 229-307 (2 articles) (on pluralism in the Talmud)
Dorff, Rabbi Elliot, “Pluralism”, in Steven Katz, ed., Frontiers of Jewish Thought, Washington, D.C., 1992, pp. 213-233 (with an annotated bibliography) = “Pluralism: Models for the Conservative Movement”, Conservative Judaism, 48/1 (Fall 1995), pp. 21-35
Dorff, Rabbi Elliot, “Hearing God’s Voice “, Avar V’atid 4/2 (December 1997), pp. 43-45
Ellenson, Rabbi David, After Emancipation, Cincinnati, 2004, pp. 257-279 (re. two Orthodox rabbis opposed to separatism)
Fein, Leonard, and Rabbi Kenneth L. Cohen, eds., Darkhei Noam: Judaism and the Jewish State: A Resource Guide, NIF, 1998, 91 pp. (see pp. 87-88 for an early version of this Bibliography)
Feldman, Rabbi David, “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”,Conservative Judaism 48/1 (Fall 1995), pp. 39-42
Fraade, Steven, “Rabbinic Polysemy and Pluralism Revisited”, AJS Review 31/1 (April 2007), pp. 1-40
Franklin, Benjamin, “A Parable against Persecution” in: Azriel Eisenberg, ed., The Bar Mitzvah Treasury,New York, 1952, pp. 220-221
Gafni, Rabbi Mordechai, Tikkun 15/1 (January-February 2000), p. 85
Golinkin, David, The Status of Women in Jewish Law: Responsa,Jerusalem, 2012, pp. 117-118
Greenberg, Rabbi Irving, “Toward a Principled Pluralism” and “Will There be One Jewish People by the Year 2000?” in: Perspectives, New York, 1986, pp. 1-8 and 20-31
Greenberg, Rabbi Irving, “House Dividing”, Hadassah Magazine, March 1998, pp. 9-11
Greenberg, Rabbi Simon, “Intellectual Freedom in the Jewish Tradition”, Conservative Judaism 21/4 (Summer 1967), pp. 15-21 =The Samuel Friedland Lectures 1967-1974,New York, 1974, pp. 31-40
Greenberg, Rabbi Simon, “Pluralism and Jewish Education”,Religious Education 81/1 (Winter 1986), pp. 19-28
Hartman, Rabbi David, “Halakhah as a Ground for Creating a Shared Spiritual Language”, Joy and Responsibility,Jerusalem, 1978, pp. 130-161
Hartman, Rabbi David, Conflicting Visions,New York, 1990, pp. 243-266
Hartman, Rabbi David, A Heart of Many Rooms, Woodstock, Vermont, 2001, pp. 135-152; 193-204
Heyd, David, ed., Toleration: An Elusive Virtue, Princeton, 1996, 239 pp. (reviewed in Melton Gleanings, Autumn 1997, pp. 6-7)
Hidary, Richard, Dispute for the Sake of Heaven: Legal Pluralism in the Talmud, Providence, 2010, 441pp. (reviewed in AJS Review37/1 [April 2013], pp. 152-155)
Isaacs, Rabbis Ronald and Kerry Olitzky, eds., Critical Documents of Jewish History: A Sourcebook, Northvale, NJ, 1995, No. 62 (a halakhic ruling from 1956 prohibiting the participation of Orthodox rabbis in mixed Boards of Rabbis)
Jacobson, Arthur, “The Tolerant Congregation”, Svara 1/1 (Winter 1990), pp. 33-40
Kimmelman, Rabbi Reuven, “Judaism and Pluralism”, Modern Judaism 7/2 (May 1987), pp. 131-150
Meirovich, Rabbi Harvey Elchanan, The Battle for Tolerance and Pluralism,Jerusalem, 1997, 63pp.
Perl, Gil S., ” ‘No Two Minds are Alike’: Tolerance and Pluralism in the Work of the Netziv”, Torah Umada Journal 12 (2004), pp. 74-98
Riskin, Rabbi Shlomo, “Dissent in Jewish Tradition: The Glory of Halakhic Pluralism”, The Living Tree, Ohr Torah Stone, 2014, pp. 9-30
Rosensweig, Rabbi Michael, “Elu V’elu Divrei Elokim Hayyim: Halakhic Pluralism and Theories of Controversies”, Tradition 26/3 (Spring 1992), pp. 4-23 = Moshe Sokol, ed., Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy, Northvale, New Jersey, 1992, pp. 169-216; reaction by Rabbi Michael Broyde in: Tradition 27/3 (Spring 1993), pp. 108-110
Roth, Rabbi Joel, “The Ordination of Women and the Loss of Pluralism”, Conservative Judaism 48/1 (Fall 1995), pp. 80-82
Roth, Sol, “Religious Pluralism: a Problem or a Solution”, Judaism36/2 (Spring 1987), pp. 162-166
Sagi, Avi, “Religious Pluralism Assessed”, Sophia 38/2 (September-October 1999), pp. 93-115
Sagi, Avi, “Both are the Words of the Living God”, HUCA LXV (1994), pp. 105-136
Schechter, Solomon, “His Majesty’s Opposition”, Seminary Addresses and Other Papers,Cincinnati, 1915, pp. 239-244
Schulweis, Rabbi Harold, “Jewish Apartheid”, Moment 11/1 (December 1985), pp. 23-28
Shalvi, Alice, and Linda Price, eds., Israel as a Pluralist State,Schechter Institute,Jerusalem, 2006, 100 pp. (English and Hebrew)
Weiner, Rabbi Chaim, L’chaim: Seven Years in Edgware,London, 1998, pp. 61-67
Weiss, Rabbi Avi, “Open Orthodoxy”, Judaism 46/4 (Fall 1997), pp. 416-417
Yadin-Israel, Azzan, “Rabbinic Polysemy…”, AJS Review 38/1 (April 2014), pp. 129-141
איש-הורוויץ, משה, הלכה: בין אורתודוקסיה לרפורמה, [ירושלים], תשנ”א, עמ’ 80-61
בלידשטיין, יעקב, “על רב-מובניות התורה”, עיונים במחשבת ההלכה והאגדה, באר שבע, 2004, עמ’ 34-29
בן-מנחם, חנניה, המחלוקת בהלכה, שני כרכים, ירושלים, 1991
גולינקין, דוד, בתוך: פותחים שבוע, ידיעות אחרונות, תל אביב, 2001, עמ’ 102-97
גולינקין, דוד, מעמד האשה בהלכה: שאלות ותשובות, ירושלים, תשס”א, עמ’ 67-66
גילת, יצחק, “לדרכי עיצובה של ההלכה”, האומה ז/4 (מאי 1969), עמ’ 468-465
דישון, דוד, תרבות המחלוקת בישראל, ירושלים ותל אביב, תשמ”ד, 109 עמודים
דעות, גליון 52 (אב תשע”א), על “מחלוקות וקרעים בחברה הדתית”
הלוי, חנה עציוני, ארץ שסועה, מודן, 1999
ויינברג, הרב יעקב יחיאל, את אחי אנכי מבקש, בני ברק, תשכ”ו, עמ’ מ”ה-ע”ח
זוסמן, יעקב, “חקר תולדות ההלכה ומגילות מדבר יהודה”, תרביץ נ”ט (תש”ן), עמ’ 73-61
זמר, הרב משה, “הכנרת והפלורליזם הדתי”, דבר, כ”ח בניסן, תשנ”ג
זמר, הרב משה, הלכה שפויה. תל אביב, תשנ”ד, פרק 32
ירון, צבי, משנתו של הרב קוק, ירושלים, תשל”ד, עמ’ 371-323
מדינת ישראל כמדינה יהודית ודמוקרטית, ירושלים, תשנ”ט, עמ’ 183-180
מחניים 5 (אייר תשנ”ג) – כל החוברת
נועם, ורד, “בית שמאי וההלכה הכיתתית”, מדעי היהדות 41 (2002), עמ’ 70-45
סבתו, חיים, בואי הרוח, תל אביב, 2008, עמ’ 27-26
סימון, אוריאל, “האם יש לסובלנות שורשים במקרא?” גיליון, ניסן תשנ”ז, עמ’ 18-6 = מאיר רוט, עורך, הציונות הדתית בראיה מחודשת, עין צורים, תשנ”ח, עמ’ 140-129
סליגמן, אדם ושלמה פישר, עורכים, עול הסובלנות, ירושלים, 2007 (ביקורת: יהודי מירסקי, אקדמות כ”ג [תשס”ט], עמ’ 228-219)
ספראי, שמואל, “הפלורליזם ביהדות בתקופת יבנה”, דעות מ”ח (תש”ם), עמ’ 170-166
עפשטיין, הרב ברוך הלוי, מקור ברוך, עמ’ 201-198 בהערה ב’ המובא בשיח מישרים 23 (אדר ב’ תשנ”ב), עמ’ 4-3
ערכים משותפים — מקורות שונים: הרהורים של יהודים, נוצרים ומוסלמים, ירושלים, 1999, עמ’ 169-155 (על חינוך לסובלנות)
פרוינד, בלה ודודו טופז, עמודים 621 (8) (אייר תשנ”ח), עמ’ 5-4
רביצקי, אבי, “שאלת הסובלנות במסורת היהודית” בתוך: בין סמכות לאוטונומיה במסורת ישראל, תל אביב, 1997, עמ’ 420-396 = חירות על הלוחות, תל אביב, תשנ”ט, עמ’ 138-114
שביד, אליעזר, חינוך הומניסטי-יהודי בישראל, תל אביב, 2000, פרקים ט-י
שגיא, אבי, “על המתחים בין דתיים וחילוניים”, עין טובה: ספר היובל לטובה אילן, תל אביב, תשנ”ט, עמ’ 430-408
שגיא, אבי, אלו ואלו, תל אביב, 1996, עמ’ 86-73, 197-175 (ביקורת: חנה כשר, שנתון המשפט העברי כ”א [תשנ”ח-תש”ס], עמ’ 312-291)
שרלו, הרב יובל, “מחלוקת – וצדיק באמונתו יחיה” רשות הרבים, תשס”ב, עמ’ 244-242
All four volumes of Rabbi Prof. David Golinkin’s Responsa In A Moment – Halakhic Responses to Contemporary Issues as well as other books by the author are available for purchase from the Schocken-JTS Press Bookstore.
David Golinkin is President of The Schechter Institutes, Inc. and President Emeritus of the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies. For twenty years he served as Chair of the Va’ad Halakhah (Law Committee) of the Rabbinical Assembly which gives halakhic guidance to the Masorti Movement in Israel. He is the founder and director of the Institute of Applied Halakhah at Schechter and also directs the Center for Women in Jewish Law. Rabbi Professor Golinkin made aliyah in 1972, earning a BA in Jewish History and two teaching certificates from The Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He received an MA in Rabbinics and a PhD in Talmud from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America where he was also ordained as Rabbi. For a complete bio click here.