I just took a couple of aspirin before sitting down here to write to all of you -- this being the day after the second seder, and me being a hard-core Manischewitz girl Passover-wise, I'm feeling a tiny bit bleary in the aftermath of two intense nights of lifting my cup to liberation, not to even mention all the powerful conversation and the late nights of singing that made this year's seders truly remarkable for me.
Every year I find myself noticing something in the seder that I had never really tuned in to before. This year, for the first time, I found myself contemplating the Hillel Sandwich:
"In remembrance of the Temple, according to the custom of Hillel: thus did Hillel do at the time when the Temple as still standing. He would combine pesach and matzah and maror and eat them together in order to fulfill what is written: 'They shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.'"
This is where we make that delicious appetizer that we would never think to eat any other time of the year: a piece of matzah, a slice of horseradish and a dab of charoset. (Since we don't sacrifice the pesach offering anymore, charoset stands in as a tasty replacement.) By this time in the seder, we've already talked about the pesach offering, blessed and eaten matzah and maror. There is no blessing for Hillel's special combo. Why, I found myself thinking, is this step even included? And I realized that, whatever other meaning will be revealed to me in seders to come, this is, at the very least, simply an opportunity to stop for a minute and think about Hillel.
So I thought a bit about Hillel, and in doing so I found a clue to a more contemporary problem that has been troubling more in a more substantive way than has the Hillel Sandwich.
Hillel lived and taught in the last years of the Second Temple and was one of the central formulators of Jewish law as we know it. He is famed for being both wise and gentle. You may know the story of the potential convert who challenged a rabbi to teach him all of Torah while he stood on one foot. The rabbi agreed and said, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the entire Torah. The rest is all commentary. Go and study." That rabbi was Hillel. I was charmed this year to find another account of Hillel: in response to the dictum that one should provide enough tzedaka that the recipient will feel full restored to his or her former station in life, it is said that Hillel provided a horse and a servant to run before a poor man. When the servant failed to appear, Hillel himself took his place and ran three miles.
What is probably more important about Hillel, though, is that he was half of the last of the great zugot, the pairs of leading rabbis who held office and led "houses" of disciples. His great counterpart and adversary was Shammai. Hillel and Shammai are each quoted throughout the Talmud, as are their disciples, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. Hillel and Shammai themselves differed on relatively few matters of law, but their students after them differed on hundreds of issues. Typically, though not always, Beit Shammai is the stricter interpreter of the law, Beit Hillel the more liberal. We learn in the Talmud that generally the views of Beit Hillel prevail over those of Beit Shammai:
"R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel: For three years there was a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, the former asserting, ‘The halachah is in agreement with our views’ and the latter contending, ‘The halachah is in agreement with our views’. Then a heavenly voice issued announcing, ‘The utterances of both are the words of the living God, but the halachah is in agreement with the rulings of Beit Hillel’. Since, however, 'both are the words of the living God’ what was it that entitled Beit Hillel to have the halachah fixed in agreement with their rulings? Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their own rulings and those of Beit Shammai, and were even so humble as to mention the actions of Beit Shammai before theirs" (Eruvin 13b)
"They studied their own rulings and those of Beit Shammai" When you read Talmud it is a bit like listening in on a conversation -- a conversation that took place among hundreds of rabbis over about eight hundred years! Rabbi Alef argues with Rabbi Bet; Rabbi Gimmel takes them off in a different direction altogether. The Talmud, our fundamental legal source, quotes all opinions -- those that prevailed and those that dissented. In fact, the house of Hillel prevailed exactly because they studied the voices of their opponents.
Back to the present moment. As you who read the mighty Megillah know, I passionately opposed the war that just more or less ended in Iraq, and I stand in opposition to the future of war being promised to us by our political leaders even as I write today. In fact I have felt a great impetus to speak out, to march and protest as I seldom have before in response to world events. And as I have done so, supported by the Pope and the leadership of most Protestant denominations, I have become more and more aware of the scarcity of major Jewish institutional opposition. This despite the fact that I know that many Jewish leaders oppose the path of war as strongly as I do.
There are substantive reasons that some Jewish leaders supported the war in Iraq and why some favor US intervention in Syria and other Middle Eastern countries. In particular, some believe that this course of war will be beneficial to Israel. Others distrust the peace movement and are alarmed by its alliance with those who support Palestinian rights, even if they have questions about the war strategy itself. Some find certain actions and slogans of the peace movement to be anti-semitic. And some, along with Americans who are not Jewish, are concerned about weapons of mass destruction and about human rights in the countries the Bush Administration is taking on and believe that this is the best way to make changes for the better.
But even if, as I suspect they do, a majority of Jews deeply oppose the Bush Administration and its approach to world problems, there is a reason of form as well as of substance that makes it just that much harder for Jewish groups to collectively endorse this position in the marches and full-page ads and petitions of the anti-war movement. And that is that we are taught to preserve and study the minority opinion as well as the opinion that prevails. And unfortunately there is very little room in the world of politics and protest to do this. When a group endorses a statement and says, "This congregation or association or institution opposes the war," they are silencing the percentage of their members, however large or small, that disagrees. I think that all our centuries of Talmudic discourse, of publishing the minority opinion alongside that of the majority, just makes this especially troubling for Jews.
Imagine a sign at a rally which says, "We strongly support X for the following reasons, AND we understand that other wise people do not agree for the following reasons" Or an ad for X in a newspaper in which one of the hundreds of signers is "92% of Congregation Alef, with dissent by 8%." We have so little room in our public discourse for "studying the opinions of our opponents." The model which we have learned of Compassionate Listening asks us to withhold our own opinion entirely and to listen open-heartedly to the view of the opponent. This is an important step, but then what next? Do we never speak our own mind? Or do we say, "Okay, I've heard you. Now I am going to try to overpower you?" Is there a way to speak out politically without having to shut your mind and heart off from the dissenting voice? Is there a way to say, "I believe that I am right, and I want you to agree with me, but I have respect for the reasoning and the motivation of the other side?"
Here at home I treasure the opportunity to speak my mind and heart, as I do in these columns, without feeling like I am silencing or intimidating or pressuring or disgracing anyone who sees things differently than I do. But to insure that this is actually the case, I should take a lesson from Hillel and remember to speak honorably of the opinions of my opponents even as I voice my own. All this from matzah, horseradish and charoset!
© 2003 Rabbi Margaret Holub
(home) (calendar) (info) (articles) (sponsors) (links) (bios) (reviews) (travel) (recipes) (projects) (photos) (art)
Updated 09/09/2004 (rge)