Elu v’Elu vs. Talking in Silos

During an interview with Ezra Klein, Sarah McBride, a congresswoman in the United States spoke about how people are just talking in silos, only having conversations with the people with whom they agree and demonizing those with whom they cannot find the same stance. This, explains Congresswoman McBride, is quite dangerous. Clearly this is so as I often write about the bridges that so many have worked so hard to connect various groups and how those bridges are being torn down and replaced with walls that divide. I wonder about the irreparability of this destruction and where and how we will begin to heal, if that is even possible.

Billy Joel laments in a statement he made in an interview recently that he would like very much to listen to others with whom he may not agree but they will not talk with him; rather speak accusingly about him and shut down any possibility of a meaningful discourse. So he in turn has come to the point where he no longer cares.  How sad when people get to that point!

Many in the Jewish community talk about the Elu v’Elu position, whereby Hillel and Shammai disagree continually about fundamental issues, and the voice comes from Shamayim (Heavens) saying both this and that position are viable (Elu v’Elu).    What many people have not done is to read through from the beginning through the end of the sugya, the Talmudic text of BT Eruvin 13b to absorb the context behind this obvious outtake.

Yes, we celebrate the notion represented in the following text:

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.

Now, let’s consider what is going on here. There were profound disagreements about use of names, about what was pure and what was impure, and other matters with serious Halachic implications between Hillel and Shammai. So why does the Halakha favor (mostly, though not in every case) Hillel? Because, we are told, not only did Hillel listen to the case being made with which he disagreed, but he insisted that this case be indicated first! As a result, there was a sense of unity of purpose established, while each maintained his own truth and acknowledged the other.  THIS is the important lesson here. We can agree to disagree and maintain the integrity of our position while acknowledging this is not the ONLY option.

Imagine, just imagine, if we would follow this strategy. Not only would we come out of our intellectual, emotional and self-proclaimed silos and listen to and consider WITH those we disagree, but we would listen to them FIRST before proclaiming what we think (Know?) to be our truth! What a changed reality could result!

Unfortunately, too many people have STOPPED listening to and engaging with those outside of their silos. How can we even hope to make ourselves understood if we refuse to open ourselves to try to understand the other? Conflicting narratives are much more often about personal narratives and the impact of those experiences. It is highly possible that BOTH truths, all experienced truths, can be real; the challenge is to figure out how to continue to listen to the other, assuming we are dealing with honorable people who want to be part of a world of cooperation in which all people thrive. Further, when we hear something difficult, we should, as my wonderful Muslim colleague from Saudi Arabia says, ask questions, not assume or attack.

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, z’l, once explained how he was convening and speaking at a conference at Hebrew University where the rift between the very religiously observant and more liberal identified secular Jews had been widening precipitously.  The idea was to bring together people who were academic to discuss this serious fissure in Israeli society. He remarks that halfway through the second day, he turned to his wife Elaine and said, “The speaking is brilliant. The listening is non-existent.” Here is the problem clearly articulated. Back to those silos. It may feel great to say all that is on one’s heart to a room full of those with whom they agree, but how does that help our reality? How does this move us out of the quicksand each silo has created for itself? How does this position any of us to work together to heal our very damaged world? The answer is obvious – IT DOES NOT!

If we cannot relearn how to listen, truly LISTEN (and remain SILENT – look, both words have the same exact letters in them!) and come to an understanding of those whose truths are different than ours, then how can we hope to heal our world, the planet that we all inhabit?

We even see this with G-d as we come to the end of Sefer BaMidbar this coming Shabbat. The very last story that will frame our fourth book of Torah Readings this coming Shabbat is that of B’not Zelaphachad. They came to Moshe with a different perspective and a problem – how should they not be given an inheritance because their father had only daughters and the laws of inheritance dictated that sons inherited from their father’s estate. They speak respectfully and Moshe as well as   G-d LISTEN – and here we have an amazing lesson in how situations can change. By speaking with regard for the listener and by that person asking and checking in, not accusing, we see a path to healing. Note that not only do the B’not Zelophachad receive their portions of land, but all of their names are even mentioned individually as a sign of honor.

Let us all work together to not assume that all those with whom we disagree are against us, and continue to try to build bridges that connect, not put up walls that divide. The first option is about hope the second about giving up!  Silos may be self-serving and feel good for a moment, but by listening and considering the other, this may heal for a much longer time and even produce constructive change.