One of the most moving tributes composed for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. By now it’s well-known that they were friends. They socialized, went to the opera together – even road an elephant together while visiting India.
As part of her tribute she wrote:
“From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation.”
When she was writing a landmark case in the area of gender equality in 1996, Scalia gave her an advanced copy of his dissent which enabled her to refine her arguments.
She said that Scalia “nailed all the weak spots — the ‘applesauce’ and ‘argle bargle’ — and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion.”
Rabbinic Judaism has a concept that I want to explore – it’s called בר פלוגתא bar p’lugta. A bar plug’ta is like an intellectual sparring partner – so the Mishnaic sage Hillel was the bar pl’ugta for Shammai and vice versa. The Talmudic sage Abaye was the bar pl’ugta for Rava, and vice versa.
A bar p'lugta is someone who often has a different ideological perspective or orientation than you, but who you are in conversation with, and ongoing conversation leads you and your bar p'lugta to a sharper iteration of whatever the issues are. Interestingly rabbinic texts point out that many of these pairs did actually socialize. They didn't go to the opera together, but we are told that Hillel and Shammai ate together and married off their progeny to one another.
I see this concept in my parents’ generation more than in my generation. In this synagogue, I see my parents’ generation far more willing to have vociferous debates across ideological lines and far more likely to have friends across the ideological spectrum. There seem to be a bunch of reasons for this which can be the topic of another conversation.
For now, I want to use myself as an example of how we might learn from people who see things differently than we do.
As part of her tribute she wrote:
“From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation.”
When she was writing a landmark case in the area of gender equality in 1996, Scalia gave her an advanced copy of his dissent which enabled her to refine her arguments.
She said that Scalia “nailed all the weak spots — the ‘applesauce’ and ‘argle bargle’ — and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion.”
Rabbinic Judaism has a concept that I want to explore – it’s called בר פלוגתא bar p’lugta. A bar plug’ta is like an intellectual sparring partner – so the Mishnaic sage Hillel was the bar pl’ugta for Shammai and vice versa. The Talmudic sage Abaye was the bar pl’ugta for Rava, and vice versa.
A bar p'lugta is someone who often has a different ideological perspective or orientation than you, but who you are in conversation with, and ongoing conversation leads you and your bar p'lugta to a sharper iteration of whatever the issues are. Interestingly rabbinic texts point out that many of these pairs did actually socialize. They didn't go to the opera together, but we are told that Hillel and Shammai ate together and married off their progeny to one another.
I see this concept in my parents’ generation more than in my generation. In this synagogue, I see my parents’ generation far more willing to have vociferous debates across ideological lines and far more likely to have friends across the ideological spectrum. There seem to be a bunch of reasons for this which can be the topic of another conversation.
For now, I want to use myself as an example of how we might learn from people who see things differently than we do.