Editorials	Print

Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven will have a constructive outcome ... What sort of dispute was for the sake of Heaven? ?The dispute between Hillel and Shammai. And which was not for the sake of Heaven? ?The dispute of Korach and his entire company. (Avot 5:19)

The year 5750 has, unfortunately, not brought much change within certain aspects of the Orthodox community. The recent articles in New York Jewish Week, a Federation-UJA newspaper ?lifting the veil,? as Rabbi Yitz Greenberg put it, on

the ongoing disagreements between several more liberal Orthodox rabbanim and the established rabbinical organizations have once again brought out the ugliest sides of internecine intolerance.

?Moderation,? ?modern,? ?left-wing,? ?Torah Judaism,? ?Authentic Judaism,? ? the code words go on and on with their meanings long-forgotten and long-lost by both the users and those about whom they are used. Who is modern? Authentic according to whom? Left of what? Centrist ? between who and whom? That there are disagreements is inevitable. But is the dispute destined, as the mishnah in Avot says, for a ?constructive outcome??

It is not now, nor has it ever been The Jewish Review's policy to comment directly on the substance of these discussions. In fact, we have received considerable kudos for our ability to stay the course above the fray. Rather, it is the forum in which these ?unveilings? take place and the tone of those debating take that we take issue with.

Is it proper to debate substantive issues concerning the Orthodox world in a periodical that has rarely shown any interest in positively portraying any group of Orthodox Jews? Is it beneficial to the Orthodox community to reveal our worst side to a readership whose majority is more likely than not, not Orthodox? Would not the interests of all those concerned be better served by using The Jewish Review or some other Orthodox forum to fairly enlighten those who need to be informed? If those publications don't reach enough people, and it's important enough to reveal the substance of the ongoing debates, why not set up ?town hall? style meetings in various communities around the country to air the differences?

But perhaps more important than where the debates are waged is how the participants engage in their discussions. Assuming, arguendo, that the dispute is ?for the sake of Heaven? and that the differences discussed are important and should be called to the public's attention, it is the name-calling and personal accusations that are nothing short of being a chilul hashem ? a most poignant example of sinat chinam ? which can only serve to weaken all of Orthodoxy and to further persuade those who are not observant to stay that way, and to push many young people who are brought up observant, away from frumkeit.

Let us hope that the new year 5751 will bring mutual respect and tolerance for differences of opinion and an awareness that it is sometimes not only important to be concerned about the substance of a disagreement, but how and where those disagreements are aired and, hopefully, resolved.