My father had a lot of favorite adages. One was:
     ”Smart people learn from their mistakes. Smarter people learn from other people’s mistakes.” 
     Learning from other people’s mistakes is easier said than done. For one thing, it requires us actually to listen to other people and to think about what they say. Instead, we rehearse our own thoughts and all the reasons why we, and we alone, are totally in the right.
     Tolerance of other people’s ideas should be easiest of all. Unfortunately, ideas often come wrapped in situations that provoke our emotions and make the ideas seem like a threat to our physical safety. It’s hard to be tolerant in the middle of a screaming contest.
     And let’s be sensible. If you really are in a life-or-death situation, tolerance has to wait. Nobody has a duty to tolerate violent aggression. Fortunately, those situations are unusual even in areas plagued by crime and terrorism.
     Most of the time, tolerance means just two things:
     * Allowing other people to live and believe as they wish, as long as they don’t harm us or innocent third parties.
     * Listening to other people’s viewpoints even if we think they’re wrong. 
     Tolerance isn’t the same thing as approval. In fact, if we approve of something, tolerance doesn’t make any sense. We don’t “tolerate” it if our children get good grades in school, or if a stranger performs an act of kindness. We can only tolerate things we don’t like.
     But we also aren’t machines. Our ability has its limits. The more strongly we disapprove of something, the harder it is for us to tolerate it. That’s why tolerance requires at least some common ground in society. We must have at least some shared beliefs, shared loyalty, or commitment to the common good. Writing in 1993, the influential American philosopher John Rawls observed:
     "How is it possible for there to exist over time a just and stable society of free and equal citizens, who remain profoundly divided by reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines? ... In fact, historical experience suggests that it rarely is." [1] 
     For Jews, that common ground has been found in our faith and our tradition. It hasn’t made us perfectly tolerant of each other, but it has helped. The Talmud tells of a disagreement between the schools of Hillel and Shammai that was finally resolved by a voice from Heaven: “The teachings of both are the words of the living God, but the law is in agreement with the School of Hillel.” [2]
     Why did God side with the School of Hillel?
     “Because they were kindly and humble, and because they studied their own rulings and those of the School of Shammai, and even mentioned the teachings of the School of Shammai before their own.” [3]
     In other words, they were tolerant.
     Modern Orthodox Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat, expressed a similar view last week. He called for greater tolerance of Reform and Conservative Judaism in Israel:
“You win over Jews, and people in general, through love … Anyone who’s trying to bring Jews closer to Judaism is my partner, not my enemy.” [4] 
     What about people who aren’t our partners, with whom we have little or no common ground?
     That’s a tougher problem. In that case, disagreement too easily turns to hatred and violence. Jacob Neusner observed that "Scripture's Halakhah does not contemplate Israel's coexisting, in the land, with gentiles and their idolatry." [5] For pragmatic reasons, we had to modify that view as we lived as minorities in other lands, but it’s a perennial challenge for all societies.
     There are two ways of looking at such cases: as matters of principle or of pragmatism. On principle, out of respect for individual autonomy, we might tolerate beliefs and practices we don’t like because they’re not physically harmful. We might refuse to tolerate beliefs and practices that do cause harm. In those cases, we’re quite sure that we are right.
     In other cases, however, we might not have the power to prohibit some things without causing social unrest or worse problems. Whatever the principles at stake might be, tolerance becomes a practical necessity. In order to get anything done, we have to find a lowest common denominator on which all social groups can agree to live in peace.
     There are no perfect solutions to social problems. However, if we can manage to tolerate each other and live together in peace, it’s a good first step. It's more than most societies seem to accomplish.

Works Cited
     Neusner, J., editor (2008), Religious Tolerance in World Religions. West Conshohocken: Templeton Foundation Press.
     Rawls, J. (1993), Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press. Kindle edition.
     Telushkin, J. (2000), The Book of Jewish Values. New York: Random House.




Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.


Footnotes
     1. Rawls, J. (1993), loc. 723.
     2. Telushkin, J. (2000), p. 186.
     3. Ibid, p. 186.
     4. “Rabbi Riskin Urges Israelis: End the ‘War’ on Reform Jews,” Arutz Sheva, June 14, 2016.
     5. Neusner, J. (2008), p. 195.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or viewpoint of The Jerusalem Post. Blog authors are NOT employees, freelance or salaried, of The Jerusalem Post.

Think others should know about this? Please share