Opinion: Why can’t we learn to disagree without being disagreeable? – Spartanburg Herald Journal

opinion

Yossi J. Liebowitz| Special to the Spartanburg Herald-Journal

The Yiddish writer Scholem Aleichem was rightfully called the Jewish Mark Twain. Folksy and wise, humorous and passionate he chronicled the social and political changes afflicting the Jewish people in the late 19thcentury. His stories about Tevye the Milkman eventually found their way to Broadway in the hugely popular musical "Fiddler on the Roof," translated and produced in dozens of countries around the world.

One of Aleichems most famous anecdotes concerned a conversation between three townsmen of the ghetto. After the first argued one point in a debate, Tevye said: Youre right! And then after the other debater argued his point, Tevye also said: Youre right! A fourth man hearing him support the assertions of both townspeople protested, He is right and he is right? How can they both be right? to which Tevye responded; You know, youre also right!

Comical, the dialogue was nevertheless embracing a desperately needed attitude which so eludes our argument culture, a phrase used in the tumultuous 1970s.The encyclopedia of Jewish lore and law called the Talmud celebrates a similar dynamic exhibited by two ancient sages by the names of Hillel and Shammai. Renowned for their differences in which the former was more lenient, they once vigorously debated a point of Jewish tradition. Eventually, as the legend would have it, a Divine voice emerged from the heavens and declared that both viewpoints were both worthy. It thundered from the beyond:These words and those words are the words of the living God, even though Hillels position was ultimately favored.

In the spirit of Aleichem, the sages mused; how was it possible that both positions could be celebrated earning Gods favor. They concluded that the ability of these men to show restraint when affronted by their opponent was what merited the praise of God. More than that, when they later discussed and taught the traditions and cited the dispute, they would teach their opponents views. As we live in a most tribal era in which polarization best defines our political and religious discourse, we would do well to celebrate these ancient teachings.How to, as the saying would have it, disagree without being disagreeable.

At times when I hear a Supreme Court decision promulgated in the news, I am happily struck by the American tradition of citing both the minority and the majority opinions. How our country is in dire need of that kind of spirit which tamps down our verbal pugilism!The name-calling, the labeling, the mockery of others is nothing new in the American experiment. Lincoln was portrayed in cartoons and his speech compared to an ape. Roosevelt was mocked for his programs, some of which took on anti-Semitic tones when the New Deal was called the Jew Deal! As Ecclesiastes once asserted, there is nothing new under the sun." But are these heated expressions nothing new? Our new forms of communication from Facebook to Messenger to emails and other poorly reviewed expressions have only amplified the vitriol.As our tough times are marked by civil strife, economic upheaval and the pain of the pandemic, it is so sad to see how the verbal assaults being hurled. How we yearn for statesmen and stateswomen to embrace the ancient spirit of Hillel and Shammai. I believe that more than anything, such could be the salvation of this nations spirit, and to quote one contemporary writer a reclaiming of the soul of America!

Yossi J. Liebowitz, rabbi of Congregation Bnai Israel in Spartanburg, can be reached at EZRabbi@aol.com.

See the rest here:

Opinion: Why can't we learn to disagree without being disagreeable? - Spartanburg Herald Journal