Ailu Ve-Ailu Intolerant

Ailu ve-Ailu (AA) is flimsy and deformed from all the stretching Orthodox Jews have put it through. An interesting idea, certainly accurate within its own context, is now employed in inappropriate situations, to an insincere, immature, and intellectually appalling effect. If that famous bat kol would grace us today, it would certainly declare, "I retract my previous statement. You guys are objectively wrong."

There are many (ab)uses, but the most troublesome is when AA concludes an hashkafic

discussion. "Sure, Satmar feels Zionism is a to'evah while Rav Kook considers it the sprouting of our salvation, but that is the beauty of Judaism- Ailu ve-Ailu Divrei Elokim Hayyim." Similar statements are made regarding the confrontation of hassidut and litvak ideals, the contrast between the Haredi and Modern Orthodox outlook, or the cultural approaches of Sefardim and Ashkenazim.

These statements are stupid! This is why: God has one Will. He has particular goals and desires for the world. Right? He doesn't want you to murder. He doesn't want you to kiss Prime Ministers of Iran. Conversely, he does hope you infuse this world with kindness, peace, Torah, mitzvot, tzedek, and mishpat. When you contemplate getting up for minyan, God cares - God is interested in you making the right choice.

So, when deciding between enlisting in Tzahal or sitting in the Mir, does He suddenly disappear with a thunderous, "Oh, I don't care - do whatever the heaven you like." When you tell an audience of Bais Yaakov students that "Tznius is a woman's ikkar avodah, like Talmud Torah is for men," i can you imagine Hashem flatly murmuring, "no comment." Are you a Jew or a Deist? i i

These arguments matter to God and one side is wrong. Obviously, that "wrong" position may not be evil incarnate. It often represents a very good, sufficiently efficient way to bring God's presence into our world. But the "right" choice, by definition, is more capable of doing so. When presented with the range of options, settling on anything but the ideal is tragic. But can every unique individual fit into one monotonous Jewish life plan? Of course not: each person is a different equation, with varying personal strengths and weaknesses producing a singular "right for you." But don't abuse the system. Be critical! One "right for you" still implies a thousand "wrong for you's!" Similarly, "right for you" does not equal "right for all of you": how likely is it for your entire community and yeshiva to all share the exact personality type which justifies your collective hashkafot? Examine yourself before maintaining the status quo. More importantly, note that many personality traits may not be ideal themselves. Granted, not every Jew has the sophistication and clearheadedness to study Torah - and for that person, doing so is absolutely incorrect - but if they could press the magic button to change themselves, shouldn't they? If joining the IDF is actually destructive for certain communities, is that a matter of personal choice or a signal to do teshuva. i i i Never use AA to glorify the bediavad.

Which takes me from hashkafa to halakha. This type of statement is equally troubling: "Some Gedolim hold that brushing your teeth on Shabbat is not problematic. I looked into the issue and I see a glaring Issur Daaraita, but Ailu ve-Ailu." From the times of the Mishnah, halakhic disputes faced a sole arbiter: Truth. What is Gemara but a back-and-forth of proofs, rebuttals, and counter-proofs! The tradition continued to the Rishonim, who refused to tolerate a differing opinion - they fought a Milkhemet Hashem, using all the tools the rational mind granted them. Did they forget AA? Clearly, if you can bring proof for your shita, it is not one opinion in a care bear world of AA, it is Right.

This idea scares some people. Our Western culture is one of tolerance and diversity, where right and wrong only exist in questions of terrorism (wrong), cigarettes (wrong), and more tolerance and diversity (absolutely right.) Ha-raya!: scan the last five years of Disney movies for a moral message - apparently celebrating our differences is the only ethical ideal. Granted, tolerance has its time and place, but never confuse a sense of restraint or an openness to new voices with the strange philosophy that all sides are somehow actually right. Pretend, if it suits you, but never believe. And don't get too cocky either. Upon cognizing that Truth never travels by way of AA but only through serious debate and reason, you should find yourself less arrogant and hubristic. After all, it is the self-loving and un-introspective lover of AA who quickly designates his personal views as God's Truth, while the dedicated rejectionist approaches the world with thoughtful ears and inquisitive mind: skeptical, but curious and fair.

And don't be so frightened! Leaving behind the cozy comforts of AA may appear unpleasant, but bear in mind, you never believed in it in the first place. After all, has anyone ever applied AA to a religious group to their left? Do Orthodox congregants accept the Conservative movement with warm calls for open tolerance? Has a single Haredi figure ever admitted, "We had Rav Shach and they had the Rav." Let's be honest for a moment - AA serves but one role: permitting a relatively unique belief (every group to its own degree and no more) to coexist with an emotional attachment to pseudo-traditionalism, simultaneously justifying the foolishness of the frum and the newness of the self. Or, in its halakhic context, AA enables us to argue with a posek, while concomitantly declaring him infallible.

But more to the point, a simple analysis of the notion itself reveals just how awkward AA can be. When I previously discussed hashkafic issues I only addressed one facet, the behavioral effect of hashkafa. But behind every practical question of joining the army or becoming a hassid or teaching women Talmud looms conceptual, philosophical discourse. What protects Israel -Torah or Torah with an army? Do a Rebbe's prayers bear supernatural powers? What is the role of women in intellectual and communal life? Answering AA to this form of query - saying two factual opposites are concurrently correct - intimates an irrational approval of contradiction. Yuch! Contradiction is anathema to the Jewish thinker. Halakha recoils from its gruesome countenance, makhshava flees from its very mention, and so too any human field of study attempts to construct a sizable, useful set of information utterly free of contradiction. Denying this principle is disastrous in Torah, impossible in math and science, and, naturally, foreign from the way humans assess their everyday world.

For if you foster a genuine sympathy for "multiple-truth" or the "beauty of contradiction" you might find the implicit baggage difficult to maneuver with. Go ahead, take the relativistic route: deny human ability to perceive a single Truth, better yet, deny the artificially constructed notion of Truth itself. Taken to its logical (and in modern times, relatively popular) conclusion, you'll soon realize that moral codes are artificial cultural products, that one and one equaling two is a consequence of your social upbringing, and that the image before your eyes may be but the dream of a dozing butterfly.

So wake up! Ailu ve-Ailu doesn't demand that sort of subjective nonsense from you. Let us discover Ailu ve-Ailu anew, the way the bat kol intended it.

Ailu ve-Ailu relates to a very specific meta-Halakhic feature. The hiddush is subtle, and for proper explanation, we must contrast life on Pluto with the death penalty on Earth:

In scientific pursuits, we know or we fail. Months of inventive research and moments of brilliant abstraction may produce a wealth of data, but if two mutually exclusive conclusions still fit those findings, we grieve and lament. For only one explanation is correct, even if we fail to detect it. There either is or is not life on Pluto - only one possibility exists - and wishing we had more information will never alter that fact.

This description applies equally to hashkafa. Hashem has, as it were, a particular vision for the world and a particular method of functioning. Armed with Torah and logic we may uncover these details or we may not- but their eternal, unchanging existence is a fundamental tenet.

Yet this is not the case for Law; when our legal system is confronted with complex cases, the court searches through potential precedents that may contribute to some form of proof. But when the proceedings fail to find fault on either side and we face two potential verdicts that both jibe with the system - the legalist delights. His decision, a personal selection between two respectable courses, now morphs into law itself. (For contrast, imagine if a scientist could simply declare, "the results were inconclusive, but nonetheless I have ruled that there is life on Pluto!") At that moment of human decision, both alternatives beam equally Truthful. Both complement the current set of laws, and as such, are both legitimate. This characterizes a basic aspect of legal systems: they do not depend on pre-existing objective facts. A legal system never claims to reflect a higher emanation of Truth- it seeks only to find resolution within itself.

The same for halakha. Hashem communicates His will to His people through very limited texts. As such, they are subject to multiple interpretations, many of which fit snuggly into our finite source information. When that occurs, all such options are equally valid. Since neither the views of the House of Shamai nor of the House of Hillel lead to direct contradiction with halakhic precedent, both express legitimate courses of action. Both are divrei elokim hayyim.

But bear in mind: despite the Ailu ve-Ailu conclusion, halakhic quarrels always commence with just that: quarrel - vicious and merciless. Throw proof-texts as spears and aim for the jugular. If the pasuk, braita, or Rambam challenges the opponent's approach, fling him into the sea of Wrong and remain alone on your island of Truth. Only after passing this unforgiving test, only after proving one's validity, can a shita claim the crown of Ailu ve-Ailu. Prima facie respect of an opinion prior to sufficient critique grants idiocy in the place of legitimacy.

In my initial paragraph, I described AA's contemporary use as "insincere, immature, and intellectually appalling." I wasn't kidding. Blurring boundaries and ignoring distinctions in order to relate a specific halakhic notion to realms unprepared for such comparison is immature. And why is this done? To fulfill a subconscious need for justification in the presence of others. Insincere in that despite its proudly open-minded interpretation, AA is employed on an extremely subjective, close-minded basis. And finally, intellectually appalling for if a frum Jew would step back and consider the epistemological and moral significance of his statement, he would label himself a kofeir gamur.

So why are we so bound to this false interpretation? Why do our Rebbeim espouse it as a Jewish value? Because, as heresy goes, it's extremely useful. For the first time in Jewish history, variant strands of religious practice and personal culture exist in the same Jewish community. Lacking a proper education in AA, most religious individuals will resort to vicious intolerance. This does not have to be: one can respect the other as a Jew even while recognizing his faults but, granted, it is difficult. Simply put, we lack the sophistication to maintain Ahavat Yisrael without resorting to AA - to express esteem without assuming multiple truth. So we fool ourselves: teach the masses that the other is right because it's the only way to convince him that the other is human. Rejecting our masquerade would only lead to more sectarian tension and disunity, something the religious community obviously cannot afford.

Thus, in its place we have created a culture of comfortable compromise - to the point that AA is a basic part of our theological identity. But I can't imagine that the simple Jew of two hundred years ago ever considered it. When a Litvak businessman traveled through the heart of Hassadic Europe, he was probably tolerated with warmth, but certainly not gazed upon with the admiring eyes of today's naive Orthodox. Our great-grandparents may have lived full lives, never having the term Ailu ve-Ailu grace their ears. Although in contemporary society we rightfully value such diversity, let's not cross the line and project our mistaken, post-modern, shaat hadakhak philosophy onto God's eternal Self.

Who knows: we might be wrong and He might not be so tolerant.

Ben Greenfield is a new addition to the Kol HaMevaser staff and editor of the pshat-based DvarTorahProject.blogspot.com

i From a recently published collection of sikhot by R. Weinberg ZT"L, Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisrael.

ii This article is not taking sides on any of the heated Hashkafic or Halakhic issues presented as examples. The only position it takes is that a position must be taken.

iii See Note 2.

Ben Greenfield is a new addition to the Kol HaMevaser staff and editor of the pshat-based DvarTorahProject.blogspot.com

i From a recently published collection of sikhot by R. Weinberg ZT"L, Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisrael.

ii This article is not taking sides on any of the heated Hashkafic or Halakhic issues presented as examples. The only position it takes is that a position must be taken.

iii See Note 2.