TEXT: THE MANY VOICES OF

In this text Yehiel Michael Weinberg argues that the Torah is a harmonious combination of distinct and different voices, all of which add to its beauty.

All the disputations of [the throughout the ages] represent the words of the living God….Indeed, that’s the magnificence of our Torah. The entire Torah is one song, and it is the harmonic combination of different and distinctive voices that makes listening to a choir a transcendent experience. Indeed, that is the very essence of the pleasure we derive from it.

וכל מחלוקת התנאים והאמוראים והגאונים והפוסקים… דברי אלוקים חיים המה… זוהי תפארת תורתינו… וכל התורה כולה נקראת שירה, ותפארת השיר היא כשהקולות משונים זה מזה, וזהו עיקר הנעימות

- Rabbi : Aruch HaShulchan, 1880s

www.jpeoplehood.org/toolkit TEXT: THE MANY VOICES OF TORAH

EXPLANATION OF TEXT: Rabbi Yechiel Michael Epstein (1829-1908) was a 19th century Lithuanian Halachist who is often remembered as “Aruch HaShulchan” his important work summarising the sources and opinions of the 16th Halalchic code, the “”. He stands in the centre of Eastern European orthodoxy in his time and the quote brought above is thus a particularly interesting statement concerning the breadth of the Jewish tradition and its ability to contain different points of view. The Rabbinic tradition in , as a tradition which has for thousands of years seen its major task as elucidating the will of God through a minute and often creative dissection of the Torah and the Tanach and the secondary literature that has accumulated within the Rabbinic tradition itself (such as the ), has walked a very delicate tightrope between two different tendencies. On the one hand it has allowed much freedom in interpretation, recognising that an intellectually based Rabbinic elite must be free to suggest independent interpretations and analyses of the Torah tradition. On the other hand, since ultimately it has believed that God’s will must be expressed in a system of actions that must obligate all , it has tended to encourage a final decision between the various practical implications of the alternative interpretations. In other words it has encouraged freedom of thought much more than freedom of action. In terms of the interpretations the breadth of acceptable interpretations is quite astonishing as any student of Midrash (the ultimate interpretative layer in the Jewish tradition) will immediately recognise. But the task of the “poskim” (the Halachic experts who made it their business to make final decisions on practical issues) was to make the “right decision” in practical terms and this balance between parshanut (interpretation) and psika (final practical decisions) is one that characterises Rabbinic tradition at most periods. Rabbi Epstein in his book takes the role of the and that is one of the things that makes the quote so interesting. As he explains the legal bottom line in each subject under discussion, he elevates the distinct and often opposing voices in the Jewish tradition to an ideal of harmony between those voices. That is what makes the study of Torah so pleasurable. His opinion here reflects the famous Talmudic dictum about the frequent disputes between two schools of Rabbinic study, Bet Hillel and Shammai, “Elu v’elu divrei elohim chayim” – both opinions are the words of God – which of course was narrowed by the acceptance of the idea that the ultimate Halacha (practical decision) went according to the house of Hillel. Thus the Jewish tradition has been one of pluralism of thought far more than of practical action concerning real life matters. However, despite the radical nature of much of the interpretation (once again, especially though not exclusively in the field of Midrash) ultimately the assumption has been that all those who indulge in legitimate interpretation buy into the assumptions of the system and this is the difficulty of extending the idea of pluralism to cover modern times.

1 ~ www.jpeoplehood.org/toolkit TEXT: THE MANY VOICES OF TORAH

The last centuries have seen Jews moving away from the traditional assumptions of the system and although modern ideas and interpretations continue to abound, the traditional Jewish world has not tended to accept such interpretations as legitimate unless they come from somewhere within their own ideological world. Those outside of that system have tended to reject the traditional authorities, thus creating a reality of alternative systems of authority (including many ideological systems which reject altogether the idea of authority, elevating the idea of personal autonomy and personal responsibility to heights never before seen in Judaism). The question here then is whether there can be meaning to peoplehood when there are no accepted common points of authority in the Jewish world. Do people see themselves belonging to the whole Jewish People (“Klal ) or only to those with whom they share ideological kinship?

EDUCATIONAL SUGGESTIONS: Here are two suggestions for using this piece: 1. Present the piece by Rabbi Epstein and briefly discuss it. As a trigger for discussion divide the group up into small groups and ask each group to prepare a wordless version of any Jewish song (Have Nagila, Maoz Tsur, Hatikva, Yerushalayim Shel Zahav etc.) according to the description in the piece (i.e. different voices in harmony). Sing! Then do another version of the same song with two or three voices singing but out of harmony. Sing that one too. Ask the group why they are doing that? Go back to the quote and ask how much disharmony the world-wide Jewish People community can accept before it ceases to be a people? Can a people be a people if each person is singing a different song or if different groups are singing different versions of the song? How much common ground does there have to be in order for a people to continue to be seen as a people? What implications are there for the Jewish People today?

2. Divide the group into pairs. Let each pair discuss what sort of Jews (if any) they think that they have nothing in common with. Then let them list the things that they might have in common with those Jews. For example, if they say they have nothing in common with Ultra-Orthodox Jews, they might have a Seder at Pesach, they might have had a Bar-Mitzvah if they are boys and they might know the story of Moses and Egypt etc. If they say they have nothing in common with unaffiliated Jews, they might know that Israel is a Jewish state, they might have one or two Jewish parents and their families might have been immigrants to their country within the last four generations. Use this as a basis of discussion regarding the question to what extent there have to be things in common for a people to be a people in general and how the Jewish model of peoplehood might play out in this context. Bring in the piece by Rabbi Epstein. What might he say on the question? How does the group relate?

2 ~ www.jpeoplehood.org/toolkit