Hilchot Pluralism, Part II: Yesodei HaTorah

This is the second in a series that chronicles and analyzes the pluralistic practices of independent Jewish communities.

Part I discussed the two-table system, an approach to kashrut for potluck meals in diverse communities. As suggested in a comment to Part I, Part III will be about prayer. But before we continue with the applied science, we need to build a stronger theoretical framework. Therefore, Part II will lay down some basic axioms for Stage 3 pluralism. If you want to argue with the axioms, comment on this post. Then, Part III and future parts will assume these axioms. "Taxonomy of Jewish pluralism" is a recommended prerequisite to this post.

I reiterate that a pluralistic community can be defined for our purposes as a community that includes multiple sets of beliefs, practices, or identities. Multiple; not necessarily all. Therefore, these ideas apply both to communities that seek to include the full possible range of Jewish identities, limited only by willingness to be part of a community with other Jewish identities (e.g. Hillel, Limmud NY), and to diverse communities that include a narrower subset of the whole (e.g. Kol Zimrah, the Kotel).

Furthermore, nothing in this series should be construed to mean that a "more pluralistic" community (i.e. one that encompasses a larger* set of identities) is inherently better. The only intended value judgment is that (following Rabban Gamliel's requirement of tocho kevaro ("its inside is like its outside"); see Berachot 28a) a community should be honest with itself about the extent of its pluralism. I.e., the community's policies and practices should encompass the same range** of identities as the population that the community seeks to include, no more and no less. Problems occur when a community claims to be inclusive but its practices fail to reflect the full range of its constituency.

*"Larger" is used loosely here. Formally speaking, all nondegenerate sets of possible Jewish identities have the same (infinite) cardinality, like the stars in heaven. There's a reason the mathematicians had to resort to the Hebrew alphabet!

**"Range" should be understood as a multidimensional subspace, not as a chunk of a linear spectrum.

With all that in mind, here are some axioms that define a pluralistic community, with commentary. (Note: The names Reuven and Shimon are chosen as a nod to their use as generic names in rabbinic literature, not to be sexist.)

Community C is a Stage-3 pluralistic community that includes {Reuven, Shimon, ...} iff for all Reuven and Shimon in C:

1) Reuven can participate in the community without being compelled to violate any of his core values, whether explicitly through his own action or inaction, or implicitly by being identified with the community.

Values are a central part of identity, so if Reuven cannot participate in the community in a manner consistent with his values, then the community does not include Reuven's identity.

Assuming tocho kevaro, as above, the second part of this axiom ("or implicitly by being identified with the community") is almost a tautology: the set of values that are so inherent to a given community that anyone who identifies with the community implicitly identifies with those values, defines the scope of the community's pluralism to include only people who hold those values.

"Include" here means include as a full member of the community, not merely as a visitor (or a ger toshav).

Pluralism doesn't mean that everyone should compromise equally; it means that the community should structure itself so that no one has to compromise.

That is, no one has to compromise on core values. But participants in the community should otherwise expect to make some adjustments to their expectations. Innovation and unfamiliarity should not be feared.

2) If Shimon's practices are contrary to Reuven's values, Reuven has no basis to prevent Shimon from carrying out Shimon's own practices, except to the extent that this interferes directly with #1.

If Reuven could require Shimon to follow Reuven's practices, then this would not be a pluralistic community that includes both Reuven and Shimon; Shimon would be merely a guest in Reuven's community. Shimon might be very welcome as a guest as long as he follows Reuven's practices, but that's not pluralism, that's kiruv.

3) Reuven and Shimon are free to discuss and argue their differences, and each is free to call the other one wrong.

Pluralism doesn't mean that we all agree, and doesn't mean that we all think that all of our points of view are equally valid. No "liberal talk radio problem" here. Supporting pluralism, and creating a forum for multiple viewpoints, does not preclude arguing forcefully for one's own viewpoint.

If Reuven and Shimon are part of a community that includes both of them, this provides a more conducive forum for discourse than if Reuven is a guest in Shimon's community or vice versa.

***

This is all theoretical, so let's look at a simple concrete example to see how these axioms can be translated into reality. Suppose that Reuven does not write on Shabbat, and Shimon writes on Shabbat, and they are both part of the same pluralistic community.

1) The community should not engage in an activity that compels each individual to write on Shabbat, and it goes without saying that the community should not pass an official resolution saying that Jews should (or should not) write on Shabbat. Thus, Reuven can participate in this community without writing on Shabbat.

2) Shimon may write on Shabbat in the context of this community, and Reuven has no basis for claiming that Shimon shouldn't write on Shabbat. If Reuven's idea of a "Shabbat atmosphere" is one in which no one is writing on Shabbat, then Reuven isn't really interested in being in a pluralistic community with Shimon. Not that there's anything wrong with that; see above. And Reuven and Shimon can still get along. But let's call a spade a spade.

3) Now that Reuven and Shimon and Dina and Tamar and Zevulun and Asenat are all in a community together, they can freely discuss why they do what they do. Reuven says that writing is one of the 39 melachot that are forbidden d'oraita, and Shimon says that writing is his method of creative expression that best captures the spirit of Shabbat as a day of rest, and Dina says that creative expression is exactly what should be avoided on Shabbat, and Tamar says that writing isn't about creative expression for her but is a way to jot things down so that they can be remembered later, and Zevulun says that Shabbat is about living in the present and not worrying about what comes later, and Asenat says that Shabbat is about temporarily creating an ideal world davka so that a taste of it can be carried into the rest of the week, and they go back and forth about these questions until they see three stars in the sky, and then they all make havdalah together and live happily ever after. The End.

***

In Part III, we'll look at communal prayer. What issues do you want to see in Part IV?