Democrats, Republicans
Democrats, RepublicansiStock

The Daf Yomi studied on the Shabbos between the two conventions, Eruvin 13, has lessons of particular
interest at this particular time that continue to be relevant throughout the whole election season, and, more importantly, beyond!

The rivalry between Beit Hillel and Beit Shamai, the two schools ("Houses") of Talmudic thought, led by Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shamai respectively, has them vying for the power to make decisions to
determine how lives are lived long before the Republicans and the Democrats took over where the
Founding Fathers of the United States and their successors left off.

Finally, the Gemara tells us, a bas kol– a Heavenly Voice -- called down with what must have originally been a most unpredictable verdict – and is now, of course, a household ruling: “Elu v’elu divrei Elokim chayim -- The teachings of both are the words of the divine G-d, but the halakha (the final ruling) is in accordance with Beit Hillel, not because of the superiority of their arguments per se, but because the followers of Hillel were kindly and modest."

Kindly is a given, but why should modestly be so decisive?

Because a person who is modest is not overcome with ego and can be more objective. On the surface, this seems like a clear endorsement of the anti-Trumpists because even the Trumpists in our midst will
concede that modesty is not a strong point of the incumbent.

The Talmud, however, discusses modesty from a deeper angle. The scholars of Beit Hillel were so humble that they analyzed the views of the rival Beit Shamai before they analyzed their own. It is here that the Talmud makes its most important point.

At this point in time, close to 90% of the members of the media and academia – and the creators of the
algorithms for the search engines -- focus almost exclusively on the positions and interpretations of the
left, so that the members of the right are forced to examine the views of the members of the left, leading
to the strengthening of the validity of their own positions, but the members of the left are almost never
exposed to the views of the members of the right, so they don’t even have a realistic opportunity to learn
from any weaknesses of the opposition..

Even more significantly, the facts are presented almost exclusively through the lenses of the left, so that almost every citizen is exposed to their views of the facts, almost exclusively, in the mainstream media and in the intelligentsia of academia, on multiple levels.

According to the mainstream media, as well as the teachers in academia, and many politicians, President Trump allegedly came out in favor of Nazis or neo-Nazis in Charlottesville and “attacked” Muslims in commenting on a gold star family named Khan, whose son was killed in battle.

Here are two quotes, based on transcripts, one from Politico and one from The New York Times, as to
what actually happened in these two instances:

Politico August 15, 2017. When demonstrations took place for and against the removal of statues of
confederate heroes, President Trump spoke out in favor of the “good people on both sides” and against
the forcible removal of the statues and said, “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White
Nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other
than neo-Nazis and White Nationalists.”

In the Khan case in which President Trump is accused of having “attacked” a Muslim “gold star” family,
and by extension all Muslims.

New York Times, July 30, 2016. President Trump told Stephanopoulos “that Mr. Khan seemed like ‘a nice guy’ and that he wished him the best of luck.” Yet the mainstream press – and Democrats at their
convention, called this an attack on all Muslims! Had they converted a Khan case into a con
case?

President Trump commented: “[Khan’s] wife... was standing there... maybe she was not allowed to have
anything to say. You tell me.” The Times concluded that the implication was “that the soldier’s mother
had not spoken because of female subservience expected in some strains of Islam.” Even if true, this
would then have been a subtle plea for women’s rights, offered in a most mild and modest – and diplomatic -- way. Hardly a position of a “misogynist” president who has women in positions of decision making in his government.

Like Beit Hillel, people must look at the analysis of the other side before arriving at an informed opinion.
And even more so must they look at the facts – which are the same for both sides -- instead of pushing
them aside when they clash with preconceived opinions.

Clearly, the Talmud would want President Trump to be more modest, but it may also be noted that his
main antagonist for the White House was not exactly a paragon of modesty, virtue, and high-minded
sophistication when, for example, according to Politico October 21, 2016, Biden, 3 inches shorter and 4 years older than President Trump, said “I wish we were in high school. I could take him behind the gym.”

The two major political parties have less in common this year than ever before, but they also have more in common in one respect – they are deficient in modesty under both definitions of the Talmud, and they and the country would be better served if they would have more humility. And if they would be more willing to view the facts through one and the same objective lens, the candidates could learn from each other how to identify and evaluate the most relevant facts fairly.

The writer is a rabbi, an attorney, and the author and editor of books and articles, some of which were
reprinted by a U.S.Senate subcommittee.