Over the years I have made a point of saying that we should not be embarrassed by the bad behavior of other Jews. While the Talmud teaches that all Jews are responsible for each other, I have taken that to mean that we are responsible to to come to each other's aid in times of crisis, not that we are responsible for each other's unethical or criminal acts. We, as a group, certainly have our share of sages, saints, and Nobel prize winners, so why shouldn't also have our share of scoundrels, rougues, and ponzi schemers as well. Perhaps, I have been influenced by that trend in Zionist thinking that argues against Jewish exceptionalism (better known as "choseness.") in favor of the "normalization" of our people. Why should Israel as a nation or we as a people be expected to be more moral, more ethical, more righteous than anyone else. Jews are subject to the same temptations and weaknesses of character afflicting all human beings.
Lately, however,I confess to feeling uneasy by the number of Jewish names that appear in the media in connection to financial scandals-names like Madoff and Rothstein. Perhaps we should be aware of how our acts as individuals in public are perceived by the rest of the world. Perhaps, each one of us is an ambassador of the Jewish people and should act accordingly. What do you think?

Can You have Passionate Opinions and not be a Fanatic?

Hillel and Shamai, first century scholars in Israel, argued about almost everything. Hillel is thought of by some to have represented a more liberal interpretation of Torah and Shamai, a more conservative approach. Of these two giants of Torah, the Talmud says, “Eilu v’eilu…these and these are the words of the living God.” How could it be that Hillel and Shamai, holding opposite positions, could both be speaking the word of God?

In most, but not all, cases, Jewish law follows the opinion of Hillel. However, the words of Shamai were carefully preserved and honored because they were well reasoned arguments presented by a great scholar who loved his people. There is a lesson in this for those who engage in political or religious discourse these days and that is to honor those with whom you disagree. Without civil discourse, there can be no civil society. When American politicians compare each other to Stalin and Hitler, they simply go too far. When they question each other’s motives, when they besmirch each other’s character, when their words imply threats of violence, they create an atmosphere that is toxic to our nation’s soul.

During Yom Kippur, Dr. Abe Fischler led a superb discussion on Peter Berger’s new book, In Praise of Doubt. The subtitle, “How to have passionate beliefs without being a fanatic,” explains what the book is about. Having strong religious and political opinions and remaining a civil and open minded person is one of the greatest challenges facing us today. The ability to disagree without being disagreeable is fundamental to civil democratic society.

Eugene Borowitz, my theology professor in rabbinical school, encouraged us to read theologians with whom we disagreed. He told us that the vast majority of people who hold ideas contrary to our own are neither stupid nor evil. He taught us that you often learn more in a serious conversation with someone on the other side of an argument than you do from someone who merely reaffirms what you already believe.

Serious people -- liberal and conservative -- should take the time to carefully consider each other’s arguments, without prejudice or hostility. Whenever incivility and hatred enter an argument, reason flees. Democracy is built upon the foundation of passionate debate and destroyed by angry invective. Listen to those you disagree with respectfully and open mindedly. You might learn something. In Sefer Hasidim, a book of Jewish wisdom written in medieval times, we read, “If you are proved right, you accomplish little; but if you are proved wrong, you gain much; you learn the truth