Sign In Forgot Password

Shabbat sermon July 2: To Disagree agreeably or not - Korah, Hillel/Shammai, contemporary controversies

04/07/2022 09:56:06 AM

Jul4

It is said among the classical commentators that Parshat Korach can be discussed at any time because there is always controversy, division, and dispute. Korach and his cohorts, led by Datan and Aviram, followed by 250 others, challenge the authority of Moses and Aaron. Even when Moses tries to reach out and go to them, they refuse to talk. Ultimately, since Korach and the others refused to talk with their mouths, the earth opened up its mouth and swallowed all the rebels.

In Pirkei Avot, the Ethics of the Sages, we find an important teaching based on today's Torah lesson. There are two kinds of dispute, one for the sake of heaven and one not for the sake of heaven. An example of a dispute for the sake of heaven is exemplified by the rabbinic disputes between Hillel and Shammai. A dispute not for the sake of heaven is exemplified by Korach and his cohorts.

The disputes of Hillel and Shammai, relatively few in number, were based on discernment of God's will. These two schools of rabbinic thought never allowed their differences to prevent their followers from marrying among each other and from eating off each other's plates. The Talmud explains that most of the time, we follow the views of Hillel because in their disputes, the school of Hillel always explained the views of the school of Shammai before offering their own. Nevertheless, the Talmud also shows respect for both views by saying that where we follow Hillel in this world, we will follow Shammai in the world to come. Ultimately, Hillel and Shammai show how to disagree agreeably and with respect for the other.

In that Pirkei Avot statement, the dispute not for the sake of heaven is exemplified by Korach and his cohorts. Interestingly, the text does not say between Korach and Moses. The blatant disrespect and disregard for the other came long before the challenges to Moses and Aaron. Korach and his cohorts were already divided among themselves based on ego and a search for personal fame.

We could list many examples of dispute, be they in our families, in our community, in our country, in the world. As I wrote in a blog this past week, the decision in our shul to make the wearing of a mask recommended and not required has been the subject of discussion and debate for a while. As I wrote: "Some will experience this decision as liberating, and others as terrifying.  On the one hand, seeing and being seen are at the forefront of the human experience. There is also an imperative to understand those for whom unmasking is an impossibility, and to ensure that they too are fully respected and understood."

Perhaps the most recent example of debate and how it is being handled took place just over a week ago just South of the border, as the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Roe v Wade decision on abortion and has handed the decision making process to the local states. 

Here is an excerpt from the response pf the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations: "The Orthodox union is unable to either mourn or celebrate the U.S. Supreme Court's overturing of Roe v Wade. We cannot support absolute bans on abortion- at any time in a pregnancy- that would not allow access to abortion in lifesaving situations. . . . The mandate to preserve life requires us to be concerned for the life of the mother. Jewish law prioritizes the life of the pregnant mother over the life of the fetus such that where the pregnancy critically endangers the physical health or mental health of the mother, an abortion may be authorized, if not mandated, by Halakha."

Here is an excerpt from the response of the Rabbinical Assembly, the international organization of Conservative rabbis: "The Rabbinical Assembly has repeatedly affirmed the right of a pregnant person to choose an abortion in cases where continuation of a pregnancy might cause severe physical or psychological harm, or where the fetus is judged by competent medical opinion as severely defective."

While Rabbis have authored many responsa over the ages, the short Jewish position goes as follows: In the Torah, in a case where two fighting men cause a woman to lose her fetus, the punishment is monetary. In a case where two fighting men cause a woman to lose her life, the punishment is capital. In Judaism life begins at birth, not conception. Until birth, the fetus is considered potential life. In the Middle Ages, Rashi says about a feus, "Lav Nefesh Hi - It is not a life." Maimonides calls a fetus which endangers the life of the mother a "Rodef - pursuing the life of the mother, and therefore must be removed for the life of the mother.

Jewish views are nuanced. In principle, Judaism opposes an unrestricted abortion on demand. The body of a person is on loan and belongs to God. At the same time, Judaism opposes a Pro-Life view which defines the beginning of life at conception. As a result, in any state or in any place in the world, there must be legally approved and safe places for abortion to take place within the canons of Jewish law for Jewish women. The recent decision theoretically makes the application of Halakha difficult if not impossible when a mother's life is endangered by her pregnancy. Further, the decision violates the presupposed separation of religion and state, a fundamental principle in the U.S.

As the debates have only just begun, my prayer is that the disputes around the recent decision and future policy making should resemble what our tradition says about Hillel and Shammai and not about Korach and his cohorts.

In whatever situation disaccord appears, let us stay away from the Korach model and embrace the Hillel-Shammai model.

Shabbat Shalom!

Fri, 29 March 2024 19 Adar II 5784