A Time to Talk and a Time to Balk — The Limits of Jewish Dialogue

By Rabbi Alan Yuter
Posted Friday, February 10, 2006 • Modified Monday, March 13, 2006

The Biblical approach to dialogue was most recently articulated by the Judaism humorist, Joan Rivers, who suggested, cajoled, and commanded, "let's talk." Isaiah pleaded, "come let us reason together," while Moses tried to convince Korah, the unbeliever to dialogue. We remember that Korah was a virtuoso of religious rhetoric and detail, because he was able to turn a phrase with pious diction, but in the end, his own end, he did not believe. Authentic believers like Moses are not afraid of dialogue, but non-believers with something to hide rarely allow themselves to be exposed to the penetrating review of opponents. King Solomon tells us that there is a time to speak and a time to be silent. When is the time to speak, and when is the time to be silent? When is the time to talk, and when is the time to balk? When is the time for the tongue to do the talking, and when is the time for power to rule the hour?

The first well known exponent of Jewish dialogue was Maimonides. He "dialogues" with Aristotle's theory of knowledge, with whom he disagreed but respected. In the Ashkenazi tradition, we find that R. Moses Isserles, the Polish codifier of Ashkenazi custom, mentions Aristotle in his responsa. There does not seem to be any canonical, i.e., Torah or rabbinic prohibition of dialogue. Protests that dialogue is an unJewish, to be convincing, must be accompanied by rational argument and Talmudic reference. Judaism's penchant for dialogue requires demonstration, not declaration. To forbid dialogue without demonstration but with declaration alone is an un-Jewish strategy, because it misrepresents Judaism and gives the outsider the impression that we have something to hide.

When Maimonides suggested that Jews have a right to say "There is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his messenger," [sic] in order to avoid martyrdom, some ill-informed among our people argued that "since a Christian would rather die than say such a thing, and we cannot be less religious than the Christian, we may not allow a soul to save him [or her] self with such a heretical declaration." Maimonides response to this claim is that Judaism is determined not by what Christians do, but by what Judaism demands. The claim that "there is not God but Allah" is a claim that Jews and Moslems share, given the fact that the divine name "Allah" shares the same spelling as "Elo'ah, one of the Biblical names for God. [the prohibition of writing such a name applies, by Talmudic statute, to the name written in Hebrew characters, not English letters]. We are permitted to like to save our lives. Therefore it is permissible to make such a declaration. A Judaism that defines itself on the basis of Christianity shows greater fidelity to an alien religion than it does to its own testament/covenant with God.

R. Moses Maimonides and R. Moses were not without their detractors. Some today say "we do not obey Maimonides. He was Sefardic." One has a right to disagree with Maimonides if one can demonstrate why an alternatively held position is more logical, more appropriate, and more authentic. For Maimonides, one follows the view that "leans toward reason." No where in our canon is the use of reason forbidden. The Ashkenazi and Sefardic traditions are legitimate if and when they do not violate Talmudic law. Any claim that is not based on the Jewish canon, but on pure reason, may be weighed, accepted or rejected. But it is assuredly not to be identified with the culture tradition of social inertia.

The current call of Islamic radicals for respect, after a Danish journalist caricatured the man whom the Moslems call God's messeger. We are told that it is an act of disrespect, indeed sacrilege to depict Muhammed in such a fashion. It is no secret that when it comes to caricaturing its political enemies, the Great Satan sometimes referred to as "America," the land of the free, with its free press, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, and to little Israel, the only democracy in the Islamic region of totalitarianism, Islam takes license. There is no morally right to be accorded those who are politically and religiously wrong. Once Islam conquered Palestine, in the Middle Ages, it belongs to the dar al Islam, the House of Islam. The same of course can be said for Spain, which was first ruled by the "Reconstructionist" Islam of the Umayyid's and later by the "Unifier" Moslems who argued, on the basis of their zealous intuition, that the Prophet's dispensation for tolerance of Christians and Jews had lapsed. The political position of this Islamic movement is that Israel must die, and propaganda is legitimate warfare. In no Islamic state of which I am aware, is there freedom of speech and open discussion. The law of Islam is enforced by the sword, or whatever instrument of technological coercion that is available. So Jews are portrayed in Nazi like pictures, they are accused of poisoning wells, infecting Moslem women with AIDS, and by dint of their presence in the Middle East, the source of all misfortune. If we kill dissenters in our community, how can we allow a vibrant democracy whose population is not excluded from opportunity, and whose press is free to complain about those in power, which outlawed the death penalty for all but Holocaust mass murderers, to say what they will without reprisal? There may be no peace with Israel. The call for peace is not reason, but treason.

The Danish political cartoon depicted Muhammed as a terrorist, with an Islamic turban shaped like a bomb on his head. This image was not invented out of invisible cloth. This image was birthed by actual political events, real terrorist acts, and a Western revulsion with a totalitarian political system being sold as religion. For Islam, there may be no images at all because images leads to idolatry. But the idolatry of power, where religion is invoked to keep people yoked, is at the core of every idolatry, at least according to the Arabic speaking Jew, Moses Maimonides. Western religions are also offensive to totalitarian systems and their rulers.

Jewry has much to learn from this "religious/political" controversy. The refusal to reason with words leads to uncivility and, occasionally, violence. We must speak to others, who enjoy the "right to be wrong," so that the rights of all minorities are protected. Minorities with the right to speak enliven discussion. Secure people are not afraid of exposure to competing ideas. It was the Biblical Pharaoh who did not want to talk to Moses, but Moses, with Divine power in his hands, forced the conversation.

King Solomon, who taught that there is a time for speech and a time for silence, also taught that there is a time for war and a time for peace. The refusal to engage the other with words is ultimately a threat of making war. In contemporary Jewish life, the treating of the "other" with disrespect often leads to vengeful, aggressive counters. When attacked, people become defensive, and then feel the license to give offense. People who refuse to compete with words of respect will be condemned to suffer other reprisals, which are significantly more ominous. The signature deportment of the Jewish sage is his or her bringing peace, wholeness, and wholesomeness to the world. May we be worthy of a community of Jews who, in their differences, are at peace, serving as a model for others, as a light to the nations.

B'nai Israel Congregation  • 27 Lloyd Street • Baltimore, MD 21202 • 410-732-5454 • Fax 410-732-4850