In his responsum, Rabbi Reuven Hammer is correct in pointing out that there exist multiple traditions within the teachings of the rabbinic sages regarding Jewish attitudes towards non-Jews, and it is well within the scope of the Rabbinic Assembly to choose to recommend to its constituency to emphasize one tradition over the other.
My question to Rabbi Hammer is whether this is the appropriate time to do so.
The great advantage of multiple traditions - the elu ve-elu that Rabbi Hammer believes to be inappropriate in this case - is that each tradition can be applied under different circumstances. If one believes that the central lesson of the Holocaust is that "anything that teaches that one group in superior to another leads inevitably to mass slaughter" perhaps his conclusion is correct. Many, however, learn other lessons from the Shoah, specifically with regard to the precarious position of Jews in the Western world and the need to be vigilant in our interactions with that world.
Can Rabbi Hammer point to the "inevitable mass murder" perpetrated by Jews who have studied the teachings now rejected by the Rabbinical Assembly? Many educators are more concerned with the words and deeds taking place on "enlightened" college campuses in the United States and Europe where every micro-aggression is condemned, while blatant anti-semitism is accepted.
Sasson
