For the previous Parts of a Bridge to Somewhere click here.

Eliezer and Mario met at Mario's daughter's wedding in Buenos Aires. It was, understandably, a very emotional encounter. After the wedding celebration, Eliezer offered to help Mario put on tefillin. He happily accepted the invitation. Eliezer then asked Mario if he would accept a pair of tefillin as a gift, and if he would put then on every day. Mario accepted the offer with much emotion. Eliezer, having returned back to Montevideo that day, contacted a scribe in Buenos Aires who presented Mario with a new pair of tefillin and taught him how to use them.

-- 92 --

From: Dr. Mario Grinberg
To: Rabbi Eliezer Shemtov
Date: March 5, 2008

Dear friend,

Yesterday, Moshe presented me with a pair of tefillin in my daughter's home and taught me how to use them.

I don't know what words to use to express my thanks: for being with me at such a special moment, at the marriage of my daughter; for your book; for the inscription; for the tefillin; in short, for making me feel that you care about me. I feel the same appreciation for you, Eliezer. You are a person who knows how to reach the heart. At this very moment, my eyes are moist…

I must say that it is an uneven situation, because, what can I do for you? Very little, I think.

I have strongly resolved to put on tefillin (while connecting to G‑d, I will take advantage of the opportunity and converse with him a bit.. :) ).

I believe that there must be a reason that you appeared in my life. I would like you to tell me what you think about that.

Okay, Eliezer. Once again, a hug (this time, cybernetically)

Mario

-- 93 --

Chat

March 5, 2008

Mario: Hello, Eliezer,

Eliezer: Hi!!

Mario: How are you?

Eliezer: I just noticed that you sent me an email.

Mario: True. Did you read it?

Eliezer: I am reading it…

Finished.

Mario: okay

Eliezer: Thank you.

The truth is that meeting you at the wedding was a very profound experience for me.

Especially to be able to put tefillin on with you afterwards… In the coatroom, away from the cameras...

I felt as if it was a connection of souls.

It was a powerful experience for me.

Because, logically, what do you and I have in common?

You, an atheist doctor from Cordoba…

I, an American Rabbi living in Montevideo...

Nevertheless, in fact the differences are merely external, superficial.

The moment that we embraced and later, when we shared the mitzvah of tefillin,

I felt an expression of transcendence, of an essential and millennial connection that one cannot explain, nor needs to…

At that moment we ceased to be the atheist doctor and believing rabbi, and were simply two Jews travelling the path of life together.

Mario: That is the way I feel about it as well, besides the fact that I made a commitment which I plan on keeping.

Eliezer: :)

Did you learn well how to put them on?

Mario: Today I already have the marks on my arm left by the straps.

Eliezer: The marks will continue to penetrate until they reach your heart and mind...

Mario: I hope so (amen). I tell you, I will take advantage of that connection to ask some things that I have already asked you

Eliezer: Great idea.

Mario: I was referring to my connection to G‑d.

Eliezer: Great... Send regards… :)

Mario: Will He answer me? I hope that He won't get angry at me. I can be pretty aggressive. Besides, I hope to be able to understand what G‑d wants to tell me.

Eliezer: I hope to be a good translator… :)

Mario: Okay. Thanks, once again.

Eliezer: Until when will you be in Buenos Aires?

Mario: I will be in Buenos Aires until Friday noon.

Eliezer: Perhaps it would be a good idea to take a refresher class with Moshe in order to make sure that you learned the moves well. Don't you think?

Mario: Yes. If not, my son–in-law can do that. Or I can get a refresher class in Cordoba. I don't want to bother Moshe that much. From here I am travelling to Brazil for a vacation.

Eliezer: It is not a bother for Moshe. And it is better that the one that taught you should give you the refresher class. After doing it by yourself for two days, it would be a good idea to show him how you do it so that he can correct any mistakes, if necessary.

Mario: You are right. I will contact him.

Eliezer: Okay. Thank you for accepting the commitment...

Mario: Same here. And thanks. I have no other words, otherwise I would use them...

Eliezer: I hope it will be a pleasant and profound experience for you.

Mario: A big hug. I greatly appreciate what you do for my family.

Eliezer: My pleasure.

Mario: Be well

Eliezer: Bon voyage

Mario: Thank you

-- 94 --

From: Rabbi Eliezer Shemtov
To: Dr. Mario Grinberg
Date: March 16, 2008

Dear Dr. Grinberg,

I don't know if you are still travelling or if you are already back home...

I wanted to know how you and your family are doing.

Can I ask you about the results of the experiment, or is it too early yet?

I would like to suggest that perhaps it would be helpful were you to know more about the contents and significance of the tefillin, beside it being an act that connects one to G‑d.

In fact, the common denominator that all mitzvot share is that they connect the one that performs them with the One that commanded that we do them, namely G‑d. Nevertheless, each mitzvah has its particular and unique way of connecting us...

May I suggest as a starting point the following link?

http://www.chabad.org/library/howto/wizard_cdo/aid/272667/jewish/1.-Place-on-Arm.htm

[Editor's Note: the original correspondence included the following Spanish link: http://www.jabad.org.ar/notasdetail.asp?nota=si&idnota=1216]

Changing the subject, I would like to know if you were able to read the book Dear Rabbi, Why Can't I Marry Her? Here in Uruguay the book, and the interview about it which was published in a local magazine, have unleashed a real storm in the press. If you are interested, I will send you the file...

In the meantime, be well.

Eliezer

-- 95 --

From: Dr. Mario Grinberg
To: Rabbi Eliezer Shemtov
Date: March 17, 2008

Dear Eliezer,

Thank you for writing.

I am still in Rio. Tomorrow I return to Buenos Aires and then I'm back to Cordoba.

We are all okay, enjoying some well-deserved vacation.

I am putting on tefillin like a really devoted student, but I think that it is too soon to see results yet.

Of course I will check out the link that you suggested.

I have read the book and I think that its contents are relevant to every mixed couple that is about to get married. In fact, I think that each one of the doubts expressed in the emails, are doubts that the vast majority, if not all, of the couples share. It is very interesting and instructive. Of course I would like you to send me the file that you mentioned. Thank you, once again, for your attention.

Apparently you have the capacity to mobilize public opinion (as well as private ones) :).

Be well.

Mario

-- 96 --

From: Rabbi Eliezer Shemtov
To: Dr. Mario Grinberg
Date: March 17, 2008

Dear Dr. Grinberg,

Here is the link with all the press coverage regarding the book: www.amoresimposibles.org

[Editor's Note: To read part of the book in English click here]

Anxiously awaiting our reply,

Eliezer

-- 97 --

From: Dr. Mario Grinberg
To: Rabbi Eliezer Shemtov
Date: March 22, 2008

Dear Eliezer,

How are you?

First of all, Happy Purim! (By the way, do you put on tefillin on Purim?)

I am back in Cordoba and ready to get back to the daily grind.

I read the file that you sent me. Thank you very much. I see that your book has caused quite a public commotion.

I think that is a good thing, because when trying to wake someone up from his lethargy, creating a commotion helps.

I am not aware that this matter has been dealt with in the public arena until now. I think that it is very positive to do so. It serves to make a couple going through similar situations stop and say: "Hey, and what about us?" I think that this will cause many couples to write to you with their questions, some not having considered it to be a problem until now, or not having understood it to be a cause for problems in the future.

Perhaps that is the most important accomplishment.

Regarding the opinions expressed in the Letters to the Editor, I don't think that it is of much significance, because whenever one writes about a religious matter, it is logical that he will receive opinions expressing support as well as disagreement. Besides, it allows you to use the same medium to clarify confusing issues (as you have done excellently).

…

What I considered to be totally out of place, though, is the attitude of the community leaders who wrote that you do not represent the opinion of their institutions. I would say that with such a comment they are staking out a position in favor of intermarriage, a position that I consider incompatible with being a Jewish community leader.

Besides, you never claimed to represent them. You merely represented the opinion of Chabad. Because of your position, whenever you express an opinion publicly, you always represent Chabad.

I see that you have caused a public debate on the matter. I don't know what the results will be, but I believe that debates are always a good thing. Every one will express their view of the truth. It would be interesting for everyone to reach one and the same truth. Is that even possible?

Regards,

Mario

-- 98 --

From: Rabbi Eliezer Shemtov
To: Dr. Mario Grinberg
Date: March 23, 2008

Dear Dr. Grinberg,

Thank you for your email and good wishes, which I reciprocate. (Yes, you do put on tefillin on Purim.)

Regarding the debate that was unleashed, it seems that I touched a raw nerve...

I feel secure in my position. I wasn't disrespectful to anybody with my comments... I didn't pretend to impose anything on anyone, merely attempted to expose and explain...

Some people feel uncomfortable with the fact that I touched on the subject publicly. But I think that it is a complex that they have, because the non-Jews have things pretty clear... A few hours ago I went to the mall and a non-Jew stopped me and asked: "Are you Rabbi Shemtov?" When I answered in the affirmative, he said: "Look, we Catholics have the same position... We do not recognize marriages made outside of the church..."

"So," I replied, "it seems that we are even…" We laughed, and we each continued on with our shopping...

As far as the "truth" that you mention is concerned, I would like to share with you an article that I am writing in order to have your opinion before I publish it.

Regards,

Eliezer

Fundamentalist Pluralism

Fundamentalist Pluralism?

Is that even possible?

A dictionary defines "pluralism" and "fundamentalism" the following way:

pluralism.

System by which a plurality of doctrines or positions are accepted or recognized.

fundamentalism.

1. Religious and political mass movement that aims to restore Islamic purity through the application of the strict Koranic law to social life.

2. Religious belief based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, appeared in North America at the time of the first World War.

3. Intransigent demand to submit to a doctrine or established practice.

Isn't Fundamentalist Pluralism, then, an oxymoron? Are they not two terms that represent ideas and attitudes that are opposites and irreconcilable. The former implies that all must adhere to the same rigid and well defined thought system, with no room for personal expression or dissent, while the latter advocates respect for the freedom of expression with no discrimination.

In general people associate pluralism with secularism and fundamentalism with religion. In other words, one who has a secular way of thinking will respect the right of everyone to think as he or she wishes to (as long as the rights of others are respected...) while one who adheres to a religious way of thinking tends to impose his ideas on others either through persuasion, imposition or conversion; they do not respect diversity and the right to think independently.

How, then, does the idea of Fundamentalist Pluralism appear? One is either pluralist or fundamentalist, no?

I humbly submit that it is not necessarily so. On more than one occasion I have seen fundamentalist pluralism in action. Let me share with you one of those experiences.

I recently was invited to a Television program to talk about the subject of my book, intermarriage.

Soon after the interview, a young girl approached me and my wife and said: "I saw the interview and I would like to say that what you said represents only your personal views."

"Thank your for your comment," I said. "In fact, I didn't speak in anyone's name. But, tell me, from everything that I said in the interview, what is it that you think people do not agree with?"

Silence.

I repeated the question, assuring the girl that I wasn't particularly intent on debating with her there and then; I was simply interested in knowing the opinion of those that thought differently than I.

Silence.

That got me thinking. If what I said moved her enough to come tell me that she didn't agree with what I said, why wouldn't she tell me what it was that she disagreed with? That is when I asked myself: did she disagree with something specific that I had said or was it simply a matter of being bothered by the fact that I thought that I was right? If that was the case, was she bothered by the fact that therefore perhaps she might not be right, or because she had believed that there was no such thing as being "right", and everyone can therefore opine as they wish? (And my claiming to be right, therefore, threatened that stance.)

I then realized that it wasn't the first time that this had happened. I hadn't paid attention to it before, but now it had become clearer to me. I had just stumbled upon the Fundamentalist Pluralism phenomenon. It is one thing to say that everyone has the right to express an opinion in order to get to the truth; it is quite a different matter to say that all opinions are equally valid because there is no truth! It is not the same thing to say that one who says that 2+2=5 has the same right to express himself as the one who says that 2+2=4, or to say that both opinions are equally true, because there is no absolute truth...

If my thesis is correct, we are dealing here with a very cynical and dangerous strain of fundamentalism. With the old school fundamentalism, everyone knows that we are dealing with a school of thought that does not recognize the right for everyone to define what is right and what is wrong; "there are revealed truths upon which the systems are built. No, there is no personal freedom," according to this school of thought.

Fundamentalist Pluralism, however, is cynical and misleading. It preaches freedom of thought while claiming the right to define the limits of that very freedom, i.e. "there is no absolute truth". It even has the audacity to believe that that statement is an absolute truth!

Besides being misleading, it is very arrogant. It implies that one knows everything and knows that there is no absolute truth, and being there is no truth that everyone must subscribe to, everyone can therefore choose their own version of the truth.

"What, then, is the truth?" you might ask me.

I will tell you what I think the truth is.

If you do not like my truth, by all means show me where I am wrong and why you think that yours is superior to mine. But, please do not unplug the dialogue with a "that is your opinion to which you are entitled; I, too, have the right to mine..."

No one is arguing about your right to an opinion... Say what it is that you believe beyond the fact that you have a right to an opinion...

Let us now revisit the definitions.

According to the definitions quoted, pluralism does not impose a "plurality of doctrines or positions"; it simply "accepts or recognizes" that possibility. By the same token, fundamentalism is not necessarily related to religion, it simply implies the "intransigent demand to submit to a doctrine or established practice". This aspect of fundamentalism is applicable even (or especially) when we are dealing with a situation where one preaches accepting "a plurality of doctrines or positions", while in reality one discriminates and does not accept as legitimate the doctrine or position that claims that there are absolute truths and one must search in order to find them.

-- 99 --

From: Dr. Mario Grinberg
To: Rabbi Eliezer Shemtov
Date: March 24, 2008

Dear Eliezer,

I just finished reading your email. It is 12.30 am. I will be brief.

Your article is very interesting. The idea that you present, Fundamentalist Pluralism, warrants further study and analysis. At first glance, it does seem to be an oxymoron-- but when you come to think of it, there is room for analysis.

I think that regarding absolute truths, we would have to see what the issues that we are dealing with are. It is not the same to be talking about the Law of Gravity (accepted as an absolute fact as far as physics is concerned) or to be discussing religion. Every religion adheres to a different "truth".

In any case, I think that the essence of fundamentalism is the word "impose". Therein lies the difference between Islam and Judaism: the former imposes, the latter does not.

Okay, dear Eliezer, I am going to rest a bit. I await your report regarding the repercussions of your article.

Regards,

Mario

to be continued...