Summer 2018

This summer, I have been taking an intensive course in interfaith dialogue among Christian, Jews, and Muslims at the Jewish Theological Seminary partnered with Union Theological Seminary, which is the ecumenical seminary across the street. The class is taught by 2 women, a Muslim interfaith and Islamic feminist scholar and an ordained Lutheran Reverend who is also an interfaith scholar, and one man, who is a conservative rabbi with similarly impressive credentials. 

Their main argument is that dialogue is essential and that dialogue has to be on equal playing fields. For example, a form of dialogue that doesn’t work is only to compare my best with someone’s worst. A better form of dialogue would be to compare my best with your best, or my worst with your worst. The best form, they claim, is to have the humility to equally compare our worst with each other’s best—learning from each other and sitting in vulnerability. 

This is, of course, extremely difficult to do, especially given centuries of interfaith polemics.The way to start having interfaith dialogue, and intrafaith dialogue, is to assess how NOT to have a conversation. Sometimes intra-faith dialogue can be more difficult than talking across faiths because the stakes are higher.

It might be easier for me to talk to a muslim and Christian women about the similarities and differences regarding ritual clothing. It might be less easy for me to share with some people of all denominations why I chose to wear a kippah.

A bad conversation is one that is one sided, geared for attack, and one that doesn’t recognize that there are bodies as much as minds involved in a conversation. Meaning—one sided attacks aren’t disembodied voices from the heavens, rather it is one body attacking another body.

Korach and Moses are bad at having an intra-faith conversation and we see that directly in the text:

“Now Korah betook himself to rise up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty Israelites, chieftains of the community, chosen in the assembly, men of repute. They combined against Moses and Aaron and said to them, 

“You have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them, and the Eternal is in their midst. Why then do you raise yourselves above the Eternal’s congregation?” (Numbers 16:1-3).”

Moses’ response is to arrange a contest to see who is more favored by God. Aaron and Korah each bring incense to the Tent of Meeting. Soon, God’s voice can be heard telling the Israelites to retreat from Korah and his party: 

“Stand back from this community that I may annihilate them in an instant!” God commands (16:21). 

All of a sudden, “the ground under them burst asunder” and “the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up with their households, all Korah’s people and all their possessions” (16:31-32).

According to our Sages, though, the contest between Korah and Moses is about more than who has superior incense (Midrash Tanchuma, Parashat Korach 2). It is, rather, about how not to have a conversation.

In the midrash, first, Korah challenges Moses about the rules that govern the making of a tallit: “If [there is] a tallit that is entirely blue, techlet that is the traditionally a part of tzit tzit, is it exempt from having fringes?” 

Moses’ answer is no.

But, “How can a cloak that is entirely composed of techelet not be kosher,yet just four blue threads in its fringes make it kosher?” You can hear the contempt in Korah’s voice.Then Korah asks, “Is a house that is full of holy books exempt from the commandment to place a mezuzah on its door?” 

Moses says no.

“A house with a whole Torah containing two hundred and seventy-five sections still needs a mezuzah on its door. A mezuzah, which contains only a single section?” 

Again you hear the hostility.

Then Korah really attacks: “These rituals were not commanded by God, you made them up all by yourself!” 

And that, according to the Midrash, was the final straw for God. To our Sages’ minds, Korah’s exchange with Moses was marked by a remarkable lack of good will. Korah entered the conversation determined to prove his point. He compared the best version of himself with his version of the worst of Moses. The poetic response of the earth swallowing Korah mirrors that of the rules of inter and intra-faith dialogue. Regardless of the validity of Korah’s argument, he entered the conversation with a one-sided attack. One body attacking another body. The textual answer is that his body in return becomes swallowed by the earth. In modern times, he became fully consumed with his own anger and correctness. Now you have step one: recognizing when conversations go wrong.

What comes next is less of a science and requires a lot of humility. 

Stay tuned