Last month I participated in the AIPAC Progressive Rabbis Mission for the third time. Included in the mission were a diverse range of rabbinic
leaders- there were rabbis from all the major American Jewish Movements who
reflected a wide range of perspectives- but the itinerary itself was even more
diverse. We met with people on both the political left and right. We met with Israeli Jews in Jerusalem and with Palestinian Moslems in Ramallah. We saw the development of the Palestinian city of Rawabi and we saw the ongoing con- struction of new residences in suburban Jerusalem. We met with members of the LGBTQI community and with human rights lead- ers. We were a diverse group of rabbis and, over the course of the week, we shared a diverse range of experiences. This was by design and, as you might imagine, the discussions and debates after many of the sessions were “energetic”. And that was the point. That was the way in which AIPAC’s educational foundation, AIEF, designed the itinerary.

One of the things I have learned from my involvement with AIPAC is the importance of spending time in discussion and debate with people with whom I may disagree. It is, after all, in those differ- ences that true learning and growth can be achieved. And yet, as I write this bulletin article, I am ever aware that such encounters are increasingly rare in our world today. The divisiveness within the political sphere is greater than ever. Worse yet, that divisive- ness, all too often, has spilled over into our daily discourse… or lack thereof. We are, it seems, increasingly unable to sit with those with whom we disagree and unwilling to listen to them with an open mind.

Jewish tradition encourages us to take a different path.

For three years the followers of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai argued with each other. There were over 300 recorded arguments in the Talmud. They both thought that their interpretations of the Torah were the correct ones. Finally, the Sanhedrin, the Jewish courts, sided with Beit Hillel. The story says that both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai spoke the living law, but Beit Hillel was chosen as the predominant opinion because when Hillel made his opinion known, he quoted Shammai as well, encouraging community inclusion rather than division. His courtesy towards his adversary and his respect for a differing opinion made his argument more persuasive.

As we enter into the home stretch of the fall election season, I pray that we, the members of the TSTI community, can model interactions that are more akin to those of the House of Hillel and, in the process, we will have exemplified one of the core values of the sacred tradition we have inherited.