Welcome to Judaism Demystified, a podcast for the perplexed.
Join us as we explore some of the most fascinating Jewish and
Torah related topics with our esteemed guests.
By tackling some of the biggest questions you likely won't find
addressed elsewhere, we aim to shed light on important issues
and inspire a return to the fundamentals.
Enjoy the show. Thank you Rabbi students, for
joining the Judaism Demystified podcast.
It's a pleasure to have you. Thank you so much for inviting
me. It's it's an honor and a
pleasure to be here with you. So to start, I just want to let
the audience know a little bit about you, your background and
particularly your work with the groundbreaking Hurim Torim
Musings blog. And what inspired you to create
such a platform and what impact has it had in your life?
So here's this thing. I'm, I'm just a, a regular guy.
I was working in business. I'm a little older than you and
probably some of your listeners. And I, I was around when the
Internet started and I was in the business world as the
Internet was brought into the corporate environment.
And it was interesting to me. And what I found is, you know,
you go to work all day, you focus on the business that you,
you're working in. And it, that's not where my
heart was. My heart is not in my job.
My heart is in my learning. And the Internet allowed me to
reach out to other people in similar situations who were
also, their heart was in the Torah while they're in the
business world. And so as the, the Internet
developed, I was sort of along with their, with the, in the
various different forums and e-mail lists that there were
exchanging Torah ideas with some really, really smart people on
the, let's say the avoda on the, the H dots lists, you know, some
really smart people, some of them rabbis, some of them just
regular balabatim, regular laymen, lay people, plenty of
women. And as blogs started taking off,
I, I took, and I noticed them as well.
And so let's say I think around 2004, there was a, A blog
discussing issues of, of halacha from a conservative perspective.
It was a scholar who affiliated with the Conservative movement
and I disagreed with his interpretations and his
presentation of, of halacha. So I started commenting there
saying, you know, I disagree. I don't think you're quoting
this right. And then I realized that, you
know, he's the owner of the blog.
He's up on top. I'm in tiny letters in the
bottom as a comment. I said, you know what, that's
not fair. I don't make my point as
strongly as I could. Let me start my own blog.
So I started my own blog and I wrote about it.
By the way, these are, these are issues of LGBT and Halacha, you
know, so these, these were cutting edge.
They're cutting edge issues now, but even more so 20 years ago.
And that, you know, so I started my old blog and started talking
about it and people started coming and commenting and it
created a community. It was incredible.
And I, I said, OK, well, if they, if I have a community,
might as well keep going. And I kept writing and writing
and people were responding and talking and it, there was a
conversation going on. It's not just publishing an
essay in a newspaper is creating a community.
And what a lot of the people were using fake names.
I use the pseudonym at first as well.
And I'll tell you why. This again, even even 20 years
ago, I was considering getting a PhD and going into academia.
And when you talk about write about LGBT issues online, even
20 years ago, that's poison. And I figured I'd never be able
to get a job in academia. So I use the pseudonym.
Once I said, you know, forget academia.
I, I can never support my family on that.
I couldn't live in New York where, you know, I had roots.
I'd have to move out somewhere else.
So I said forget about academia. And then I used my real name,
although people think it's a fake name.
Anyway, Gil's student doesn't sound like a real name.
Let me just tell you briefly, because everybody asked me,
Student was my family name in Poland, in the shtetl.
I have documents, proofs, proof on the Internet.
And Gil is a common Israeli name, just uncommon in America.
That's beside the point. If anyone's watching the video
they could see I look like a Jew.
Well, we believe you. That's what counts so.
So, so this community just took off because blogs are relatively
new. There was, there had never been
a blog that is, that was focused on halafa and hashkafa, right?
Jewish law and Jewish thought quoting texts, because that's
what I do. I quote the texts.
I, I, I go deep into what the Rishonim say and, and what the
Gemara say and what the midrashim say.
And very often these are not the things they teach us in yeshiva.
You know, I, I, I'm a regular person.
As I mature and I grow, I start thinking about other issues,
bigger questions. And I started wondering how come
nobody taught me this in yeshiva?
So fine, I went to this farm store, I bought myself a rib
Saja gone, you know, Behuda Halevi, a moron devohim.
And I started reading through it and I started reading some of
the academic literature on the subject and just trying to
figure out the Jewish world while understanding that I'm
trained in the yeshiva world and I'm fully committed to halacha
and I'm fully committed to the Jewish community.
But, you know, what do our sages have to say about the important
issues of the day? And so I started writing about
it. As I was exploring and I was
seeing what academics and what traditional Tami Deshakamim had
to say about these things, I started writing about it.
And it turns out everybody's interested in the big issues of
the day. The question is, why don't we
learn this in yeshiva? I don't know, maybe the Shiva's
have changed since then, but I found a lot of people are
interested in that sort of thing.
And that just created a community and we kept going and
going from 2004. We keep going year after year
and I'm blogging at least once a day, five days a week.
It's an exhausting pace, up pace.
But this was my main outlet of Torah teaching and it helped me,
spurred me to learn. Also, let me tell, tell your
listeners a, a, a huge important life tip or what do they call
it? A life trick, a hack, a hack.
You set yourself deadlines that will force you to do things you
didn't think you could do. That's the whole, the whole
trick of Dafyomi. I mean, who can finish all the
shots and who could, who could commit to one daf a day?
But you set yourself a goal and you have a lot of peer pressure
to to do it. And you know what the human
being is, is capable of incredible things.
So when I had all these deadlines for the blog, I just
kept learning and writing and writing.
And thanks to all the wonderful commenters, you know, some of
the professors, rabbis are just brilliant people.
We, we exchanged a lot of ideas, a lot of different sources, a
lot of different reading material, further reading and,
and different opinions. It was, it was a fascinating,
fascinating ride that we were all on.
It was like a roller coaster just non-stop.
But as things go with technology, everything has a
short lifespan. You know, blogs were the big
thing when they were the big thing.
They were the big thing, you know, the Gooda convention, they
actually had in the Gooda convention, the main, the
keynote speech was about blogs. It was attacking blogs, but it
was about blogs. And I'll, I'll tell you this, I
mentioned in the book also Haim David Zui Bell, you know, the
executive, whoever the head of the good, he called me up in
advance to say, you know, what do I have to think?
What do I think about blogs? Because he had heard my name and
he recognized that I was a responsible person and a normal
person in the Jewish community, you know, not some renegade anti
rabbinic person. So he called me up and said, ask
for my opinion and my thoughts on what A blog is and what he
should be thinking about in terms of that.
And I've actually drove. I've never been to a good
convention before or after, but I drove that Mosse Shabbat,
Mosse Shabbos, I drove to, to, to, to that keynote speech and
heard all the speeches. Now I got to tell you what
rabbis we built was fantastic. You know, I'm, I don't affiliate
as an agudist as a part of the, the Aguda movement.
I'm more modern Orthodox than that.
But it, it was, I was impressed by who he is and, and what he
conveyed. Some of the other speeches were
just way over the top. I mean, it's quite offensive.
But putting all that aside, the after about nine years, I, I'd
realized the blog, this blog was over.
The world of the blogs was over. We had our heyday.
We were the, you know, the keynote at the Aguda convention.
You know, the RCA invited me to speak at two of their
conventions because blogs were a big thing.
But by, let's say 2013, you know, Facebook and Twitter had
taken over. Instagram was, you know, a big
thing. Blogs were sort of a has been
and I, I sat together with some other people and said, what
should we do instead? And we kind of tore up the whole
plan for the blog and we rebranded it as an online
publication, like a magazine called Torah Musings where we're
still talking about, let's say the cutting edge issues today.
It would be a O2 years ago it would have been AI.
Now everybody's doing AI but two years ago.
So what AI and things like that. But we're doing it in more
formal. We have an editorial board, we
have multiple contributors. So it's, it's more stable and
also allowed me to get on with my life.
So I'm not blogging five times a week, which is a crazy pace to
maintain. So, so that's, that's sort of
the history of the blog. And it's this book that I'm
publishing is marking 20 years since the beginning from 2004 to
2024, right? It's called articles of faith,
traditional belief, traditional belief in the Jewish era,
judicial Jewish relief in the Internet era.
And part of it is to tell the story of Hirhuri inventory
musings like I just gave you the the Roche Prakhin, the the, the
headlines, the bull points. Chapter heading.
So I, I actually wanted to answer something that you said
before you, you asked if the yeshivas have changed and I
don't think they have much because we have a podcast that
deals with the exact same thing. You know, we want to talk about
things that aren't really being discussed.
And you know, obviously I think you are, you are one of The
Pioneers, if not the pioneer that kind of led to, you know,
podcasts indirectly, you know, so you started these
conversations online. So we want to thank you for, for
your contributions. But I, I wanted to know how this
affected you personally in terms of like your outlook on things
'cause you're, you're mentioning that you're going back, you
know, it's forcing you to study, you're going to the Rito name,
you're going to the ghetto name. And a lot of times when you do
that, you, you start to notice that things are a little bit
different today and we're not really paying attention to the
richo neem and the gallon neem. So how has that affected your
outlook on on Hashkafa for example?
Well, personally, I, I went through different phases and at
one point I was very taken by academia and they're focused on
the rationalists and the, you know, around above all.
And over time I've become more disillusioned with academia.
I see in them the flaws that you see in most types of
scholarship, a lot of bias, a lot of not.
I, I, I've been unimpressed, unimpressed also with the piety.
And I take, I, I take religious practice and devotion very
seriously for two reasons. Number one, I am a true believer
and #2 I believe it's very important for family and
community to have that strong connection to very to, to
tradition and to, to piety. So I'm not big on minhagim
minhag and my family, my kids joke, oh, we, we only do half of
the minhagim just because everybody seems to be growing
and taking on extra minhagim. And I refuse to do that.
But my general approach is whatever minhagim I have, I have
regardless of where they came from, whether they're based on
Kabbalah or, or something else or even a mistake.
If I grew up with Osminhagim, that's what I have and that's
what I transmit to my kids. We could talk more about why I
why do that separately, But also I've come to be more of a, in
terms of halakha and also in terms particularly in terms of
halakha. I believe in the evolution of
halakha. I mean, it there was started at
one point and it has grown, it has changed.
It has gone through all sorts of interesting paths.
Some of them by I, I wouldn't say historical accident, but
just due to where things were. One of my examples is using an
umbrella on, on Shabbos. Is it actually a sort to use an
umbrella on Shabbat? Well, I think it it, it, it, it
started because of one person, Rabbi Heska Landau, the No W
Huda. He had a very strong opinion on
the matter. And even though later scholars
disagreed with him, his issuer held.
And at some point it just became taken for granted.
And at that point, I believe halacha evolved and we follow
where we are now and the past. I believe we're we again,
you're, you're asking me my personal beliefs.
And I'm not saying everybody has to.
I think what you're trying to say is that you, you see halacha
as having a certain hash kaha, that kind of let's it be where
it is today. And so that you, you, you take
on the authority of the whole essentially, if I'm not, if I'm
understanding you correctly. I think that's more mystical
than I want to be. OK, I say, I say that I live in
a specific time and place. There's a history and I follow
my I find my place in that history.
And that's, that's where I am. So we build on the the great
people who who preceded us and we put in our own, we create our
own link in the chain, but there are a lot of links before us.
And I don't want to, you know, skip over a few 100 years and go
prior to that. And I'm not criticizing what
anyone else is. You asked me in my.
Personal. If I had lived in the 1600s or
in the 1400s, I'd probably be very different than I am now.
But I was born in 1972 in a specific time in an Ashkenazic
community and in an out of town Ashkenazic community that
followed generally the litfish practices.
And that's where I'm happy and that's where I situate myself
and I continue in that path. Bolton Hashkafa as well.
I tend to affiliate with the the Mossar movement and their
teachings and it doesn't all sit well with me.
But overall, I, I feel that it feeds my neshama very well and
I'm very happy with where that takes me.
And I'm happy with what it has done.
How, how does it turn out for my kids?
My kids are now all grown up and they all find themselves within
that Musar yeshiva type of community.
And I'm very happy with, with, with how that has worked out for
us. I know it doesn't work well for
everybody. You just asked me where I am.
I, I also believe, I also believe, let me tell you, a lot
of people online think I'm either a left wing crazy or
right wing crazy. And I take that as a sign of
success. But really I believe, and this
is going to shock a lot of people, I believe in a broad
spectrum of Judaism. As long as you're within that
you'd Gimel Ikarim and the basic practice, I'm fine you.
Could be different, I absolutely.
To my left, you to my right. You know, very often left and
right doesn't even make sense. We call it left and right, but
it isn't left and right. It's just different.
And if you can see on my my bookcases, I don't know if
anyone could say, look, I have all the entire set of McCarthy
in from Rakhine, David Alevy. I've always chavotes right to my
side. I take from everybody, I love
everybody. I tend to stay away from the
Mystics 'cause it just doesn't speak to my neshama.
I have nothing against them, but Khasidis just rubs me the wrong
way. And Kabbalah.
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it doesn't sit well
with me. That's not my thing.
You know, I, I resonate with you because I, I too had, you know,
I have a yeshiva background. I, I didn't grow up in a like
traditional Orthodox home where like yeshiva from, like, you
know, yeshivish atmosphere from when I was like a little boy.
But my journey through Judaism basically was about, I would say
about 567 years of intense yeshiva study.
And I embraced the yeshiva world.
Now, I didn't necessarily turn out maybe the way they could
have liked. But when you said like, you
know, I'm a believer and you know, like there's certain
things that like, you know, this is my core.
I, I highly resonate with that because I feel the exact same
way. Like I think that we criticize
and sometimes rightfully so, we, we criticize you.
She wrote for certain things. One of it is the lack of, of
open mindedness and rigidity that comes along with it.
But at the same time, I also have to show my intent, like my
appreciation, because I do know that my core is really it, it,
it's strong because of those times.
Do you understand what I mean by that?
Yeah. And I think what you're saying
is you criticize out of love, and that's very different than
criticizing out of anger or out of hate.
Exactly. Yes, thank you very much for
saying that. That is exactly what I was
trying to say. I appreciate that you helped me
get there. I'm sorry I turned this into
like a group therapy session, but you know, I feel like we're
saying important things. It is important and it's real
life and people you know, and you mentioned the Internet.
I think that, you know, I think you have a whole chapter, I
believe about Internet and you talk about the pros and the cons
and you and you weave through it very nicely.
There's, there's what to criticize, there's problems with
it, but one thing that you that you can say is the Internet did
give people a channel to be able to express and be curious about
things that they are curious about.
That the issue of the world simply won't allow you to talk
about it out loud. And these are important things.
These are things that that matter.
You know, the, the, the, there's the topics and the questions and
the facing modern, modern modernity.
That's the proper way to say it. These are real things for a lot
of people. And the Internet kind of gave a
channel where people like you, serious people.
I'm not talking about like, you know, there's a lot of like
garbage, but serious people that want to have real discussions
and talk about real problems and real issues and, and confronting
real problems of today. We're able to really channel
that And you know, the Internet is largely responsible for that.
And I think it's a positive development from that standpoint
and. And we and.
I'll go, sorry. Go.
Ahead, I'd go even further and I'd say a lot of the community
leaders today, again, we're talking about what's happened
over 20 years. There are rabbis, there are
community leaders, there are scholars, and there are
activists who were raised on these conversations that we had
20 years ago. And we have made serious change.
Rabbis come up to me. The younger rabbis, they treat
me like I'm the Rebbe or something like that.
I don't even know who they are, but they listen to us talk and
they it, it affected them. I'll tell you a funny story.
So my son got married about a year ago, a little over a year
ago. Thank you.
He's, let's say one or two steps
to the right of me and he married into a yeshivasha
family, not to yeshivash, but whatever, beautiful people,
wonderful people. So at the Shabbos Sheva brachas,
right Ashkenazi, we, we don't have Shabbat khatan, we have
Shabbos Sheba brachas. So I'm in their out of town
community where they are and we're domining in the yeshiva
and background. My name is Gil Ofer student.
My mother is Israeli. She named me Gil Ofer.
They called me up. So Friday night, one of the
rabbis from the yeshiva was at the dinner, you know, at the
Chevy Broncos. And he says, oh, I've been
reading your stuff for years. I remember we used to, you know,
read it in the Bismetris with all these controversies and, and
you know, he, he's very sheepish, but he was reading it.
They're printing it out from the blogs and they're reading it in
the Bismetris. And then he's also the Gabi in
the in the Shoal in the Shiva. So when he called me up for for
an Aaliyah, I believe him when he said it was completely
accidentally, but he called me up as Gil Kofer, not Gil Ofer.
Oh no. I think it was.
I thought it was so funny, I didn't say anything.
My Mahutan also managed to stifle a laugh.
Afterwards. I asked him, you know, I said,
did you do that on purpose? Because it was brilliant and he
was so horrified that he he didn't do it on purpose.
It was so he was horrified that he said.
Oh my gosh. I ever sense of humor.
I enjoy these things. This, this, this is the best for
me. I wish he had done it on
purpose. I would have given him so much
more credit. That's really funny.
Yeah.
So I mean, just to echo what you're saying, you know, we, we
are big proponents of the marketplace of ideas, you know,
bringing that into, back into Judaism, because I feel like
that is the essence of of, you know, our tradition.
And, you know, today, obviously there's a cancel culture within,
within our religion, unfortunately.
So all these conversations really like podcasting or for
example, like Benzi. Benzi will attest to this.
We've had people like e-mail us, like you booked and and, you
know, rabbis from Muncie were like saying like, thank you for
talking about things that we can't speak about.
You know, you're addressing issues that are a little bit
because we're just regular guys, but it's for for many people,
it's just it's an outlet and it's I think it's a healthy
outlet as long as we're being respectful.
Like we, we obviously come from a more Sephardic, Maimonidean,
rational, whatever you want to call it.
We come from that kind of background.
But you know, we're not, we're not saying that, you know, this
is the way and this must be the way everybody follows.
We just want there to be a voice for this perspective.
And for many years, you know, we felt like this was kind of
being, you know, suppressed. And finally now we're just
seeing more and more and more of this coming out, more great
content coming out, for example, leading into the next question,
which is about Rabbi Sachs. I think Rabbi Sachs had a lot to
do with that as well. Yeah.
So Rabbi Sachs to us is, you know, one of our heroes.
And we, you know, we think that he just opened up so many doors
and he's only going to be appreciated like in a century
from now, I think people will truly appreciate him then.
So I'll just lead Bensi into the next question.
Yes, and this was my personal favorite chapter and every
chapter was good, but this chapter really spoke dearly to
my heart because this was this is an important, an important
subject regarding Rabbi Sachs, in your book, you examine
Judaism's relationship with other religions.
Rabbi Saxon's perspective in his book Dignity and Difference.
Dignity of Difference, I believe.
The dignity of difference. Dignity of difference, right?
Dignity of difference sparked significant discussion.
Can you briefly explain this controversy and do you believe
his approach is acceptable according to Missouri?
OK. So I don't.
I don't want to overstate my case and I'll just say from my
perspective in America, politics in any other country is always a
little difficult for us to understand.
They have a different England is has a very different culture
than the US and you know, New York, where I'm where I'm from.
But from what I understand whereby Sachs published the
Dignity of Difference as response to 911 and to as a call
to use religion to to increase understanding and harmony in the
world. It was not directed at the
Jewish audience. But he was using primarily
Jewish sources and texts. And when speaking to the non
Jewish audience he said or wrote certain things that in within
the Khareti community in England they found theologically
objectionable. They thought the hash kafah was
off and far off to the point that I believe, I don't want to
say it was the London Beddin, the Beddin of London, which was
his personal Beddin, but I think it might have been unless it was
another Beddin in in in England was very close to denouncing
him. And, and what ended up happening
is he, he published a, a revised edition in which he adjusted,
changed some of the language to accommodate his criticisms
without giving up too much. Now, part of the brilliance,
part of his brilliance is many levels of his brilliance.
Part of the levels of his brilliance is his eloquence.
And he can say such grand things even while changing the
language. It, it was, it was very
impressive. But what I did when I heard
about this, I said I got to get both before and after like that,
the original edition and the revised edition.
I sat down. I do this on the subway on the
way to work. I put them both on my lap and
started comparing word for word, underlining in red any changes
he made in the new edition. So I can understand what was he
criticized for because the criticisms were never really
publicized. And as I as I compared and the
the the main culprit was a chapter 3 in the book, if anyone
has it. And that's when he talks about
other religions. And you know, he said he said
some things that should strike you as wild.
For example, he says that God speaks to every religion, you
know, everyone through their own religion.
And you know, as as a Jew, as a monotheist, you think every
religion. Are you crazy?
What Christianity, Hindu. You know, there are all sorts
of, there are all sorts of, you know, borderline Avodah Zara
religions and there are some that are explicitly Avodah Zara.
I remember one time I went to the Lower East Side to, to, to
get some to go to a foreign store there.
Literally next door. As I walked by, I, the door was
open. So I kind of looked in.
They were worshipping an idol right there.
Literally, I saw people worshipping an idol.
I don't know, do I tear Crea? What do I do?
You know, how could you say that?
But the Gospel is a New Testament is, is God speaking to
Christians and, and the Quran is God speaking to Muslims.
It, it was, it's just, it's, it's very challenging, very
challenging. So, and he changed that.
He revised the language a little bit.
But, you know, after I thought about it some more, you know, I,
I, I, I'm not so sure that he really needed to, I mean, what
does it mean? First of all, you have to
understand that Rubber Sax was a poet and he used poetic license
when he was speaking and who was writing.
I remember in one of the eulogies or the, the, not the
eulogies, but published in the newspaper by I think Rabbi
Yitzhak Shokreit in, in England, he, he wrote, I once asked Rabbi
Sacks, how could you say this? And Rabbi said about something
else. And Rabbi Sacks said to him,
yes, look, I'm a poet. I have to express myself in
these, in these, in these big terms, you know, and if you take
that into account, so, So what I started thinking is, you know,
well, how does God speak to me? How does God speak to any of us?
There's no nuvoir anymore. So how does he speak to us?
Does he speak to us? So going throughout history,
this is something that that the Jewish philosophers have
discussed. How does God speak to us at any
given point? There's an amazing, an amazing
text from one of the giants of of Mussar, Avram Grudzinski.
He was the he's the Hashem Yukong Damo.
He was killed in the Holocaust. He was the last mashiach of the
Shiva and Sabadka. He was the brother-in-law of
Raviakov Kameneski. And he published a lot, even
towards the very end of the Holocaust, during the Holocaust,
he's still publishing and his sons or his family and Israel
published, put it all together in a in a book called Tarat
Abraham. And he has a whole section on
the what he calls Tarat Taisuri. And he says there's no nivua
anymore. So how do we hear Hashem?
Hashem speaks to us through our suffering and it's upon us.
It's on us when we suffer, when we bad things happen to us.
To think what is the message that Hashem is sending us?
That's that's a powerful, powerful for and also for
someone like him who personally suffered from illness and then
from the Holocaust, from him to say that it's telling us all of
us. Hashem punishes everybody.
Mida connected Mida, and we have to look, sometimes you have to
be a little more creative in what the media connected media,
media is to understand. It should speak to a rabbi.
Don't try to figure this out on your own.
People can come to all sorts of crazy conclusions, but through
sober analysis and sober thought, we can often find what
is Hashem telling us. But putting that aside, when
when Rabbi Sacks says that Hashem speaks to people through
their religion, he didn't make that up.
Roundbaum himself says that Rambam himself says it Rambam
and is censored from the standard, the old editions of
the Mishnah Torah. But now we have all these
wonderful editions. We see that he Rambam explicitly
says why. Why is there Christianity?
Why is there Islam? Why are they spreading
throughout the world? Because Hashem is spreading the
truth through these false religions and Rambam considered
Christianity to be of O Dazaran. Not everybody does.
Rambam does, but he still says that Hashem is spreading truth
throughout the world. The truth of Tanakh, truth of
Mashiach, these are ideas that have become common that 2000
years ago were not common and now you could go anywhere.
The Christian missionaries have reached every nook of the jungle
and they know about Tanakh throughout the world, and they
know about the idea of mashiach throughout the world.
Their idea of mashiach is wrong. It's, it's not, it's not the,
the classical view of Mashiach, but it's a step towards the
right direction. And according to the Rambam and
also the Kusari says this, the Rambam says this, this is not as
an obscure of view. This seems to be a mainstream
view. Maharaj Svihersh Hayat Hayas.
He was, he was an Ashkenazi. He, he actually signed his name
in English. He, he spelled it Hayas.
So Svihersh Hayas and races in the introduction to his safer of
Chuvote, he quotes this round bomb and this Kuzari, the idea
that Hashem spreads truth through these, these religions
that we consider we believe are objectively false.
But there is truth in it. There's truth even in the false.
So I, I, I don't know, I, I reread Rabbi what Rabbi Sacks
had to say in light of these ideas.
And I see, I see a wonderful, brilliant insight that we can
even think, you know, the, the, the Rashoni and we're only
talking about Islam and Christianity, but we live in a
global village. And this probably applies to
any, any religion out there, just about any religion that,
that really a lot of these religions are, you know, we see
in the secular world. I apologize if this is too
political for some people. I, I'm trying not to be
political, but we do see that secularism generally breaks down
families, breaks down communities.
But a lot of these, even of ODA Zara religions hold together the
communities, hold together the families.
And there's, there, they are the last step between total chaos
and, and communities falling apart.
There's, there's some truth in that.
So I think when Rabbi Sachs says there's truth in these
religions, he's talking about these, these, these kinds of
concepts. Not that Shalom that the Quran
is true and Hashem communicated the Quran to the, the Muslims
or, or the, you know, the gospels are true and Hashem
communicated. I don't think that's what he
meant, what he meant. And.
In fact, I, if you read Rabbi Sachs's final book, at least I
think one that he published before they published others
after he passed away, but he wrote the book Morality.
You're probably familiar with it.
I, I think that book is important because he's showing
how conventional morality is so important to the world and how
it it keeps it keeps everything together.
Like you're trying to say religion is a, is an important,
regardless how true the divine word is in Christianity or
Islam, but this to, to have these principles guide humanity,
religious principles guiding humanity, even if it's not pure
truth, there it, it, it's important.
It, it, it moves the world forward in in a positive way.
He he kind of laid the groundwork in that book morality
to kind of show some of it, not all of it, but I think I think
that kind of fits with what you were saying.
Yeah. We see it as Americans.
You know, the the started with, you know, trying to take God out
of the public schools, then, you know, getting rid of, you know,
trying to burning the flag, destroying statues, you know,
you name it, just kneeling for the anthem.
These are all symbolic, you know, things that used to be,
you know, a source of our national pride and some a sense
of community gave us a sense of community.
And we see as those things are slowly, slowly being destroyed
by secularism, you know, the, the civilization kind of falls
apart. So that that goes very well with
what you're saying in fact. I even you know, they wanted to
they wanted to censor Rabbi Sacks.
Are you familiar with Remosha Weinberger?
Probably sure in. H Kurdish, right?
H Kurdish, right. So he.
Used to teach in Nazareth Academy.
I was a student in Nazareth Academy way back in the day.
I remember this very clearly because it surprised me when he
said this. Like my eyebrow went up but he
said he's like we were talking about like would you prefer
someone be a Christian or not a Christian?
Meaning would you prefer a guy not be a non believer in Jesus?
And therefore away from. The truth Or be a believer in
Jesus and live a conventional Christian life.
He said to us in class, he's like 100% I prefer the person
believe in Jesus and live a like a moral Christian life.
I respect that much more than a person that believes in nothing.
So let's go censor over one. I mean, what I'm trying to say
is it's like you're saying it's not.
This is not such a, you know, controversial idea if you really
think about it. Religion.
If you're, if you're a believer in the, in the productivity and
in the benefit of religion, then yes, all these religions
becoming so big. And so.
So what's the word I'm looking for?
Worldwide is a positive development.
And and and. Just to point out, I believe
this is not as going as far as the Meiri does.
Meiri basically says that any religion which is civilized is
not a vodazarah. We're saying, yeah, it's a
vodazarah. And Even so, Even so even.
So is good to some degree. And, and by the way, it's not
just Rabbi Weinberger this, I heard this from Rabbi David
David Bleich. He told me this story.
I think he published it Also, the Chavez Haim would tell
people that if you're getting a taxi driver, a wagon driver, and
when he passes by the church, if he doesn't do a sign of a cross,
he's scared, you know, 'cause if he's religious, he then, then he
probably won't hurt you. But if he's, if he doesn't have
a fear of God, you don't know what he can do.
And that's the first time. Of course, there's always the.
Other side of the story that people manipulate and abuse
religion to prey on the weak. And you know, these are the
things that need to get cleaned up, of course.
But on the whole and on at least idealistically, religion is
supposed to bring bring humanity into a better place, family and
values and morality and you know, all those types of things.
And I think Rabbi Sachs was doing a service by saying that a
person should not we, we shouldn't be trying to dissuade
a Christian or religious Christian in the South in Texas
from, you know, don't believe in what you believe in and just go
into just secularism and, and nothing at all.
That's, that's, there's nothing positive that's going to come
out of that Nothing. And eventually, and it's all
based and it's all bit like the Rambam says, it's all really
based on the Old Testament, meaning it's, it's not based,
but developing from the Old Testament, which keeps the Torah
consciously alive all over. So, you know, Dash the the
capability of of Hashem, Dash Kaha to take that fact and
eventually, you know, bring it into something, you know,
whenever that will be is always available.
I hope I made sense, Rabbi Sacks.
Actually just reminded me now, he used to have these like
interesting series that he did on Rosh Hashanah.
He did like talks with like Richard Dawkins and I remember
one of the one of the episodes he got him to admit that, you
know, good religion. I forgot the exact quote, but
good religion is preferable to no religion at all because
because even Dawkins kind of admits over there that, you
know, that we don't want to, we don't want to.
There's values, certain values that religion brings that you
can't, you know, altruism and so on that you can't really deny.
And they're very, very powerful. So I thought that was a very eye
opening interview as well. I think you're referring.
To the answer to bad science is not no science but right and
also. Religion he brought and the same
goes with the. Religion, of course.
Yeah. Oh wow, that's.
Powerful. That's fantastic.
Yes, so. Moving on to the next question,
which is also relate to Rabbi Sachs.
So he often interpreted Gare as a stranger, a broader definition
in the traditional rabbinic view.
From your perspective, is this interpretation viable within our
tradition, which is a convert and can you and how do you
address this topic in your book? So this, this I've, I've, I've
heard this, I heard this criticism within the Saint
Modern Orthodox intellectual circles quite a bit that Rabbi
Sachs goes too far. Because the Gemara is very clear
that when the Torah speaks about Ager, it's referring to a
convert Agerzedek, either Gedzedek or Gertoschev.
It doesn't mean just a stranger. And Rabbi Sachs continually
repeated, repeatedly said it means a stranger.
So what I. Looked into this and I wrote
about this and this is a chapter in the book.
There's a a big development that happened after I had already
finished the book. But let's let's let's go to the
the very basic and and this is actually published in the
journal tradition, a criticism of Rabbi Sachs for talking about
a stranger as if it refers to any stranger and not a Garrett
Seddick, a convert to Judaism. The the very basically, it's
true that that is what the Gemara says, but the seifer
Arkrinoch, which is medieval work of Jewish halacha and
Heshkafa, right, Jewish thought says that on that mitzvah of of,
you know, not oppressing ager and loving a loving ager says,
yes, the halacha refers to a convert, but more generally, Al
Derek Hamoussar, we can learn from it how to treat any
stranger who's not in his normal land, anyone who comes from a
different land at which we know. Of course, if you're a stranger
in a place you don't know your way around, you need help, and
the Safer Hinoch is very clear that this is the proper approach
to apply to anybody. Even if it's not a convert, even
if it's not a Geert Toshav, not a Geert Sedek, it still applies
to them. And they mean a very shivish
saver written by Asfarde. He, he, he said, he points this
out, he points this out. He says this is the, the safer
he know. He's saying this is not a
halacha, but it's more an ethical consideration that an
ethical obligation, Derek Hamoussar.
It's an ethical obligation that we should treat any stranger
with the care and respect that the Torah says.
And this is really what Rabbi Sachs is saying.
Rabbi Sachs is riddushir, it's not British, it's the Rishonim,
it's the safer renov. And and we could go even
further, the Avram Binaramba, Avram Binarambam and Parshad
Mishpatim, when he talks about this, he says explicitly Hakamim
say it talks, it's talking about Aguirre Sedek or a Ghirto Shaf.
But the Chutoshamicra is that is talking about any stranger who
is not in his normal land and we have to take that as an
obligation. And this goes into a his general
approach over Binoranbum that Sutoshal Mikra is, is
obligatory. It obligates us.
It doesn't contradict the halacha, the Midrash halacha.
We have to do the Midrash halacha.
But in addition to that, if we see something in Sutoshal Mikra
and the simple meaning of the, of the verses, if we see
something else that is also obligatory on us hilarchically.
And this is a general approach. And I, I believe in the book, I
talk about it a little bit more and I bring it to some more
Rishonim and Afranim who also take this approach.
But I'm sure some of the listeners can think of other,
other examples. You know, for example, the,
there's a, the humra of the Bach that on, on Sukkot, the first
night of Sukkot, you have to explicitly remember or say out
loud that we're sitting in the Sukkah because Hashem took us
out of Mizraim. And he, you know, and he kept,
he protected us in the desert with the ananaha kavod and with
the, the actual Sukkot and the Bach seems to have made it up.
Where does the Bach get this from?
And, but all the acronym, not all there.
Many of the acronyms say, at least initially, you should try
to make the effort to say that in Asuka on the first night we
are sitting here because Hashem took us out of out of Mizraim
and he protected us in in Asuka. Where does that come from?
It comes from the Bach reading of the verse.
The Torah says that the reason we sit in the Sukkot is so that
we remember that Hashem took us out of Egypt and protected us in
the desert. It's not in the Gemara and it's
not in the major Shalaka. It's not the Shukhana ruch, but
that is what many acronyms say is and similarly like that Ivan
Bin around them says the Haftam ET Taguer and Gerlotian also
applies to any stranger in our in our midst.
And that criticism of Rabbi Sacks is really a criticism of
these Rishonim and Achronim who follow this approach.
But let me tell you a further development that I learned I I
had time to put in a footnote in the book, but I I couldn't
expand on it. There's a recent book published
within the past year by a professor in Turo on the
universalism of Rabbi Sampson Rafael Hirsch.
And what he does is this professor, it's not really about
rehearsh. It's about rehearsh and the
people who came before him and the people his contemporaries.
And he makes the point that this interpretation, it's in the
book, this interpretation of Gare applying to any stranger
was said by great acronym in Germany in the 19th century.
And Rabbi Sachs was really, and Rabbi Hirsch, Rabbi Sachs was
really following Rabbi Hirsch. And, and to me the, I mean to,
not to me, actually to many people, there are no greater
authorities that Rabbi Sax can be following than some of the
great German thinkers of the 19th century.
It's really very traditional idea, even if it, even if it
seems a little startling to us who were, were, were raised on
Mishnan Gemara and not a lot of these, let's say less famous
Farim. But that goes back to our old
point. You know, we came out of
yeshiva. We have to educate ourselves now
on all the other things in the world and.
And I'll tell you, Jahman de Luz, I mean this old Sepharad,
the the attention to shot is shot was not a throwaway.
It's not like you know you, you, you learned even Ezra, he makes
clear distinctions constantly throughout his commentary.
Shot and drash. Shot and Drash.
Now Halaha Midrash al has a different status all together as
well even as we talked about. But what I'm trying to say is,
is that the Rishonim had a deep reverence for Shot, regardless
if Halaha has has its own takes its own detours and has its own
ways of development and, and and and exegesis and all of that, of
course. But we have lost today the
appreciation from shots, not just in in something like this,
but even in just reading homage. Like I feel like, I feel like
people today, it's just they read homage Midrashiki and we've
lost the art of to learn it. I'll be shot.
And you see, like Harit Sion, we always talk about it and we love
them so much because they're, they're trying to bring back the
sensitivity towards reading the text of PSHA to really try to
let the text speak to you with, with its own words and not, you
know, not just exegesis and, and and and going beyond the text,
but to allow the text to really, you know, speak to you.
It it, it's off tangent from what you're saying, but I think
it kind of goes along because at the end day shot, I think in
general, in all manners is kind of something that needs to be
more appreciated in the Jewish world today.
I agree with you. Except on on two things.
First of all, I think we should also emphasize that Ibn Ezra has
amazing respect for the Hakamim. Oh yeah, I didn't mean he.
Speaks about them in the highest.
Language and yeah, I I didn't. I never implied otherwise. 100%
yes and and. I don't know if he also went
along with Avram Ben Harambam's view that the chat he did not he
did not is obligatory, right? He did not.
I didn't. I specifically didn't link it to
Avram Ben Harambam for that reason, but that's why I said
it's off. Tangent from what you said, but
I think that overall when the Torah is saying love the
stranger, even if halacha might dictate certain boundaries to
that or whatnot. There is an idea.
Here to love the stranger. It might not be, you know,
halachically binding, maybe so if you go without Rambam and
other but but even if it's not electrically binding, we should
have the the text should have an effect on us that we should we
should want to take part in what it's saying.
Do you understand what I mean by?
That is, the text is. Trying to convey to us an
ethical sensitivity we should have.
What is wrong with you that you don't love the stranger?
Yes, yes. Exactly.
Halacha notwithstanding, there's you know it's not.
Do you know what I'm saying? I.
I do. And I want to take on a little
bit a brief tangent because you brought up your Shiva Tarzian
and I want to say that. I'm not I'm.
Not entirely on board with their program, I don't know, I think.
They're. Deviating from shots a little
too much, I'm more than a Kama Leibowitz.
Kind of depends who and what. There's a lot of people there.
It's a huge spectrum. Agreed.
Agreed, I'm more of an Kama Leibowitz who focus on what the
Rishoni more said and really drew amazing things out of them.
Some of the people in the Shivaat Harzian world have
created their own midrashim that they're calling shot the whole
back story and they're they're taking liberty.
This and that. Which is really just.
That's how it. Works.
You're saying keyword and that keyword.
And you build a whole story. I I understand.
So to me, that's an upshot that's.
Madras is brilliant, is beautiful, but I'm more of of
meat and potatoes, you know? And keep it go back to the text.
Go back to the text. Fair enough, fair enough.
Yeah, the, the, the, but the, but the main point and that I
most important to me is that we should be emotionally open to
being to being able to hear the words love your stranger and to
simply allow that to speak to you.
I I think it's it's. It's.
It's a little bit crazy. To me that like the Torah can
say something and it it doesn't mean anything now because now we
have to look over there and see how it was halachically
instituted. Yes, there's halachic
boundaries, but, but, but the Torah is telling us something,
meaning we're closing our ears to what the Torah says.
And I don't, I don't, I don't intuitively, I think that that's
there's something really wrong there.
That's just my opinion. I'm the son of two.
Immigrants, one one said of my grandparents didn't speak
English. I I see other people.
Who are also immigrants and they're struggling, They don't
speak English, their parents don't speak English.
How do I not, you know, feel some sort of commonality and
some sort of empathy to what they're going through?
They're just trying to support their family, give their kids a
better life. I understand exactly what you're
saying. And this is not a political
issue on what to do with immigration.
It's a personal, a human issue on how do you look at these
people who are going through the same things that my parents went
through it, my grandparents went through and all the way back to
you'd see at me trying. All of us should feel like we
went through or our families went through in some way.
And we see other people dealing with a lot of the same issues.
We should empathize, not sympathize, empathize.
We should understand on a pressing level the struggles
that they're going through. It's it's, it's literally
Pshitoshal Mikra and it it astounds me that people have
have challenges with it and I had to go to the Rishonim to
show it, But I, I, I did, I did the work for you.
So amazing. Thank you that.
Was an incredible chapter in Mikre, you'd say in Mikre you'd
say it's in the Gamara itself. The text doesn't doesn't leave
it doesn't doesn't the the text you the text the the simple
meaning of the text never gets displaced right and as I think.
It's the Ramban points out in the in the in the beginning of
Seifer Hami's vote, he says it's not in Mikre Ella Chuto.
It's not There's only shot. It's angry cry.
You'd say you'd send me dip Chateau.
There is also there is shot and there are other levels as well.
Fantastic, fantastic, beautiful. OK, so Benz.
Take the next question, all right.
Robert Meiselman OK, so in regards to Torah and science,
Robert Meiselman famously asserts that all classical
authorities, including Khazal and Mishonim, align with the
Maharaj, leaving no room for dissenting views.
What is your perspective on this?
Do you see our tradition allowing for diverse opinions on
these matters, or is consensus essential?
So let let me. Tell you a a little.
Inside trivia that I. Haven't told anybody, I don't
think I've said it publicly. The book was originally supposed
to be titled Points of Contention and you can see that
with the Hebrew title is Safer and I was wondering.
That I was wondering wait like you know articles of fade and I
was trying to understand that OK, great.
OK, on. One level.
On one level, there are two levels to the book.
One level of the book is taking contentious issues that we've
debated over the past 20 years in the blogosphere and
stretching it out and giving my, my views on on those subjects.
That's one level. And that's where it's points of
contention. Another level of the book is
it's, and it's almost on every single page is the struggle
between autonomy and authority, between the individual and the
tradition. And how do we balance that?
And this goes back to the Internet and that it, it, it's a
democratizing tool. It's like the printing press.
It gives so much information and power to the individual, but how
do we balance that with tradition and with authority?
We believe in authority, We believe in the authority of the
Torah, we believe in the authority of Khazal and even our
rabanim today, but how do we balance that with our own
autonomy and and all the power and information that we now have
at our fingertips? How do we balance that?
I don't have any smooth answers, but this book is really just
grappling with that. Some some some chapters are more
explicit than others. Now, that said, let's.
Get to this specific chapter and this specific question with
Rabbi Meiselman. This is amazing because this is
a story that really went from the blogs to the real world.
You know, we were debating this on the blogs.
And Rabbi Meiselman, who I, I only met once and I look up to
him as a brilliant, brilliant Tamid Khakam and a scholar on
and multiple levels and the nephew of of Soloveitchik.
He was very, very close with his uncle.
So Rabbi Mazzelman wrote a a masterful book, you know, with
his incredible biquiute and his his intelligence and his wisdom
and his he has a he has a beautiful way of writing.
It's a great book on the subject of Torah and science.
I have it right here on my bookshelf.
You can't see where I'm pointing, but it's right there.
Tarah Kazan and science and which he argues that when Kazan
say a scientific fact without any qualifications of the we got
this from here, we got this from the scientist, we heard from the
doctor, they just say a scientific fact.
It is a tradition from Sinai. And he has a whole.
Massive book making that argument and that anyone who
doesn't agree with that is outside the tradition.
That's that's a nice way of putting it and so 1.
So why didn't I call my book points of contention?
My editor said, you're not contentious enough.
You know, I know people who who interact with me on social media
are like, he's contentious enough, trust me.
But in the book, I try to, I try to be polite and I try to be
gentle and I try to make my point without ramming it down
anyone's throat. And that's generally the way I
interact with people, you know, in the real world and so on.
On this book in In this chapter I review Rabbi Meiselman's book
and I point out a lot of the strengths of the book, but I
also point out that there's another stream of thoughts in
Ghazal going back to the Rishonim, through to the
acronym, through to the post of. Today, the post today and and
and of course. Agonium, you're right,
absolutely. This is very strong in agonium
that that's no that we accept science.
Khazal accepted science from the they, they were cutting edge.
The best science of their day. They took from the scientists
because they were not scientists.
So they asked, they talked to the scientists and today
rehearsal Schecter says this all the time.
If I he, he says if I have a medical issue, I need to to talk
about in halacha, I talk to the doctors and that's what Khazal
did. They talk to the doctors and we
have it in Rishonim and, and, but there, there are two
legitimate opinions throughout the Rishonim and throughout the
acronym. And my only argument of the
Rabbi Mazuman is that don't say there there isn't.
And in fact, Rava Vaidyosev has a chuva on the subject.
He has it Rava Vaidyosev, the encyclopedia of our times.
He was asked, I'm not going to mention his name.
He was there was an accusation against a teacher in the
Sephardic school in Brooklyn in Flatbush.
He was called and you know an Epicaris and he must be fired
because he said that Hazal were wrong in a scientific matter.
And As for Avagiosef and he went through the whole thing has a
published Chuva in which he says this is not outside of the
tradition. It's not his view for Avagiosef
is more conservative, but he said it's not part of the
tradition. Do not fire him.
He's not an Epicarus for saying that.
And not only that, in the the the Savor Minhat Aava Minhat
Aava Levy. I am he teaches by Revenir.
Mazous and the Shiva Kise Rahamim, I believe so he teaches
Al Akhader and he says in the book, he says I asked Revaid UAF
about this, this matter which the the the tradition seems to
contradict science and Revaid UAF says look to see what
Revavering Binaram Bam said about science and which
Revavering Binaram Bam says that Kazaal relied on the
contemporary scientists, scientists and they could be
wrong, they could be mistaken on scientific matters.
And this is something that Rabbi sacks himself.
I don't quote him in this book. I don't believe in this chapter
on the subject, but he himself has a whole book on the subject
about science and stories. A great partnership.
Very good. OK, you'll.
Have your bikini. It's not only that, but you.
But but the Gemara, I think you brought in your chapter here,
there's a Gemara that even I think he's a Nazi.
If I'm not mistaken. He regarding certain the the the
the position of the sun. I don't remember exactly.
Yeah. So the Gemara.
Him. However, Rabinutam has a little
has a different way of reading that Gemara.
So there are different approaches.
There are different approaches, and one of the things Rabbi
Meiselman says in his book is that there are no halachan
scholars of today who follow that view.
So, you know, we have to follow the khameem of every generation.
So I point out, well, actually, no, look, I have right here, I
don't know if you could see Asayla Kharab by Rukaim David
Alavi, the the chief, the chief rabbi, chief rabbi of Tel Aviv
in the 1980s, nineteen 90s. He has a true honest subject and
he follows that Raviaco Variel of Hershel Schechter.
There are plenty of postscheme today who follow that approach.
It's legitimate in our community.
And Rabbi Meiselman has a nephew of Rabbi Salavechik.
So he intimated. He didn't quite say, he
intimated Ravi Salavechik would have considered someone who
follows his view to be outside of the community.
So I asked some of our Solovitch's students.
Most of them did not want to go on the record.
They had very strong things to say on the subject.
They didn't want to go on the record.
Rabbi Kafitz went on the record. And Rabbi Herschel Schechter,
just in other essays and other speeches, has taught the view.
And Rabbi Herschel Schachter is pretty much Rabbi Solovitch's
primary student in halacha. He the the view that Khazal
could have made mistakes on matters of science because they
relied on the scientists of their times, just like any rabbi
today who talks to a doctor or a scientist is relying on the
medicine and science of our time, some of it which is
mistaken. We don't know what's mistaken,
but I'm sure in 50 years they'll look back at our science and
medicine and laugh at it. And but our could be more
relying on that because that's the normal way, the proper way
to to handle such such issues. And Kazal, we're just following
Kazal when we do that. This need.
That's born out of a lot of this need we have the, the, the
Haredi world has to, you know, this uncomfortable, this
uncomfortable notion that the Hakamim were human beings and
that they were things that they could be wrong about.
This view. That you know everything they
said, even their non allocate or non Torah statements.
You know everything has to be correct.
Infallibility. Yeah, what?
Infallibility. That's the word.
I feel like this is an unnecessary type of.
It's done I. Feel I could be wrong, but I
think it's done to protect people.
I think that you know the the Haredi world feels threatened by
things like this because you allow one notion, it could lead
to more notions and I get that. But at the end of the day, I
think for me, when? When?
I I took that. Notion when I was younger, the
notion that, you know, everything Khazal says is, is
absolutely correct. I, I, I used to go with that and
to some extent, but I found actually that when, when I, my
mind was open and I was able to see the Hakamim in a more
realistic manner, I, I felt not less reverence, but more
reverence, at least for myself. Meaning I, I don't think that we
need to like, you know, put this huge aura around them to, to
have reverence and, and there's an aura that they should have,
that they were great people and they were the, the, the bearers
of Mistura and we call them ha ha meme.
They were, they were, they were the wisest of our generation.
I'm not taking away from any of that, but this infallibility
aura that we have to put around them, I feel it's, it's
unnecessary. I don't think that that people
are going to go off the Derrick or, you know, or come to some
crazy conclusions or, you know, leave Judaism by simply seeing
things for what they are, you know, and what is that?
I mean you, you see that with the biblical.
About. About.
The how strong the the torshaba is is if we have to create this
like infallibility or in order to preserve it, well you also
see the same. Thing with with the biblical
characters, you know, like people trying to turn them into
sings. And like the, I mean did that
amid your team. So I guess they put a little bit
more there, but right because we're trying to give.
Them benefit of that because sometimes the the shot is like
shocking, but but at the same time like the Torah is clearly
want wanting us to see their humanness.
You know, and if we lose? That we're we're we're losing a
little the wisdom as well. So I'm.
I'm not 100% with you on this, so I, I will, I will.
But then see, I, I would, I would allow for Kharedim.
Not all Kharedim, it's not a monolith, but Kharedim in
general to have beliefs, heartfelt beliefs.
They follow the shitta of let's say the Mahara, the Maharao who
believed in this, who believed the Khazal were in phallon.
I'm fine with that. I I understand what you're
saying. The Maharao gives a way to be
able to keep the aura and not, you know, not go into total, you
know, total falsehood of saying like, you know, it was Mistura
right And I'm. They were not referencing.
Signs at all, they're referencing deeper things and
I'm fine with yeah, right, so. I, I allow them to have their
deeply held convictions, even if my convictions are slightly
different, especially since my convictions are part of at least
50% of, of our Mistura, you know, and, and there's plenty of
room for both of us in the world.
I, I, I, I think, I think that's fine, you know, and some people
go too far, but you'll find that everywhere.
And part of the problem and part of the problem with the biblical
characters is that some people go too far and it, it gets
offensive, you know, they'll, they'll, they'll, they'll
specifically interpret things to make everybody look bad.
And it's it, it, it's in the community, if this exists today,
I've seen it over the past 25 years that I've been online.
And it's a little horrifying that someone who published a
book that I don't know, Yosef had was not neurologically, was
neurologically different, you know?
And and and not. 'Cause for some to say anything
bad about people who are on the spectrum or anything like that,
but we're talking about Yosef Sadiq, who was the leader of of
the generation and one of the Shiva team.
And you know I. I.
I don't I don't the Ramban himself criticizes the vote,
then the sieve criticizes the vote.
But how far are we going to go? You know, just use a little
sail. Just be a little respectful and
keep things within, you know, the the parameters.
You see what your teachers did. You see what your mentors and
what their teachers did and just follow that same path.
I don't need know that we need to break down new walls and
create new paths. Although I was sort.
Of saying exactly what you're saying though.
What I'm saying is we don't have to go crazy with the
infallibility aura if we just keep.
It at you know. AII didn't mean that like, Oh
yeah, you can, you know, say Yosem was on the spectrum or,
you know, the hakamim were just like, you know, randomly
spitting out like weird. I God forbid.
No, I'm, I'm, I'm saying my whole point I was trying to tell
you was is that being when I, how do I explain this to you in
a way that will come across correctly?
What I'm trying to say is is that.
I think that when. Done right when done, if you
take it and you just want to make it all about like, you
know, oh, you know, the Khameem, they're just just saying, you
know, whatever. And you know, OK, no, obviously
we're not. I'm not going there.
But what I'm saying is is that you don't need to hang on to
infallibility to hold on to reverence.
You can have in a sense, even a deeper reverence, understanding
that they were human beings and you know, possibly they could
have made a mistake regarding, you know, a scientific issue.
These these are not supposed to they're not supposed to shatter
your muna. That's that's it shouldn't lead
to that. There's no, there's no reason
for that. We're making it that it should
be like that, meaning we're, we're causing it that if a
person now doubts that you know this, you know, scientific
opinion in the Gemara. If if we go with that, that if a
person doubts his scientific statement in the Gemara, his
entire Judaism is shattered, right?
He's putting all of his. Eggs in one basket.
He's putting all the eggs in one basket.
But for what? It's unnecessary.
You want to go with the meaning if you want to go with the moral
and if you're happy with the moral, and if you, if you're a
believer in the moral's understanding, great.
I would not say a word. I have no problem with that.
In fact, we Heim Eisen, we want to bring them on to have a whole
episode explaining the Derek Amaral.
Of course, no, that's not my point.
I'm not saying don't go with Maharal.
I'm saying you don't need to. You don't even need the Maharal
in order for, you know, your entire Jewish edifice to break
down. You don't need that.
You can very much go with Ahmed and Aram and say this is science
and they won with the best science of their times.
In fact, based on certain things that I read, it seems like their
science was extremely advanced for their time, even if it was
wrong, which means that they were they were pioneers in that
area. There's there's respect to be
had even in their mistake over there with, with science, if we
grant that right, but this doesn't have to it doesn't it
shouldn't have come to a point where you need, you need the
morale or else your Judaism is going to fall apart.
That's what I'm trying to say. I I, I I.
I think we're on this. We, we, we're on the same page
on that, but we're on a different page and something
else, which I'm sure you'll say we're on the same page, but let
me say it anyway, that it isn't necessarily from a defensive
posture. It's from a deeply held
conviction that this is the truth and it's not defensive.
Some do. And I, but I believe personally,
I, I think that as a, as a dictum or like as a, what do you
call it as a motto in the Haredi world?
I do think that's defensive because they don't really give
you an option otherwise. It's one thing to have
conviction. It's another to say that if
someone like Rabbi Meiselman's book, that's coming from
defensive, that's what I'm trying to say.
Do you see what I'm trying to say?
Meaning otherwise you wouldn't have to go through all that
length. You're if, but if.
They held that this is the truth, everything else is false.
So why would they give another option a false option?
Because it's part of our. Tradition, like you said, all
the Roshonim are OK with it. That's now.
How do we now compensate? It's not OK.
There's a problem there. That to me that translates as
being defensive because if you weren't being if it was about
conviction, then champion an opinion.
But when you make it the only opinion allowed to be spoken of,
now you're being defensive. Am I wrong?
I, I I. Think you have you have a very
strong point. We should not, I'm agree, I'm
with you. We should not censor Rishonim,
no matter how outrageous we might think that their
statements are, which I think in this room, this, we wouldn't, we
wouldn't go that far, but other people would think their
statements are outrageous. It should still be available.
We don't censor Rishonim, We don't censor the Hakamim.
So let me just move on to one other thing.
And and I didn't mean to be argumentative.
By the way, I was just being passionate about it with you,
that's all. No, I'm the one being.
Argumentative part of the development though.
Part of the development. Of reverence for Hakamim is that
I had the the honor the the privilege of seeing some really
great hakamim at towards the end of their their careers, say Riv
Aaron Soloveitchik I I never saw Riv Yosef Dov Soloveitchik.
I was too young for that, but his younger brother, Riv Aaron
Soloveitchik, I used to watch him and his devotion, his misty
rat nefesh is conviction and that the man was the most
stubborn man I've ever seen. His conviction for every little
thing of his Hushka, his hushkafah, which I love his
Hushkafah and and but he was incredibly devoted.
And I saw David Lipschitz, who also was saintly and his
devotion to the Torah and to his Ptolemy Dem.
When you see that that helps you, it gives you a muna and the
hakamim of every generation. And that's important.
For our kids to be exposed to great people like that, There
are some rabbis who are contentious and who are yelling
and who are maybe even offensive to, depending on your nature.
But there are some who different strokes for different folks.
Different people are attracted to different types of
personalities, and it's important to connect yourself to
the previous generations and the saintliness that we see.
And it doesn't have to be a famous rabbi.
There are, I remember this has been an accounting professor in
my neighborhood. It was Mamish, one of the Lamid
Vav Sadikim. It was incredible.
First, I wish my kids could have.
I wish you could have lived long enough.
My kids could have seen how he was such a Sadiq, you know, and
it's important for us to see Tamika, our kids to see Tamika
Khamim. And with that, they can
understand the reverence to the Ramban was even greater.
The Rambam was even greater, but you have a frame of reference
to, to, to and look, nobody's perfect, nobody's right.
I don't think it was right on everything.
I don't think Ravaggio safe was right on everything.
But these are great people who help us connect to the great
people of our tradition. And it's very important to
develop that appreciation and, and cynicism.
Cynicism destroys that I I totally.
I want to support what you're saying.
I remember I read this with my father actually during COVID.
We used to take walks during COVID, 6 feet apart, of course,
but we used to take walks and we used to read hearts Young
brought out a book on Tanakh, different attitudes into how to
learn Tanakh. One of that says there was by
Robbie Lichtenstein and he deals with the question and this is a
sensitive one for for a person like me or maybe a person like
Benji of should you teach your kids Rashi?
Now, the reason he's asked the question is being posed is
because midrashim, at least according to the Ghonim and the,
you know, are not meant to be historical literal, right?
They're, they're supposed to be. They, they, they, they're.
Didactic. More than that, I wouldn't say
didactic. Strictly, it is opening up the
text, but in a a way unlike what doesn't matter.
So should you allow your kids to learn Rashi or not?
Because if they learn Rashi as a kid will learn Rashi, he's going
to learn it as you know, and he's going to get this enchanted
world around him. And, you know, and, and it's
hard to deprogram that and get them into a more mature
understanding of Judaism. That's, that's the, that was the
background. So yes or no?
Lichtenstein says absolutely you should because a child needs
that you need to build his core to some extent.
That was his opinion. I'm not saying he was even
correct or not incorrect. And I know some people will say
no, absolutely not. Some people say yes.
I'm just telling you what Liechtenstein said to support
what you're saying, that regardless that the child is is
going to is not going to understand the midrashim the way
maybe they're meant to be understood.
And there's going to be some deprogramming for some
falsehoods in terms of certain ideas And and you know that that
that naturally come about learning Samrashis.
He says we need to give the children that reverence.
Those were the words in the essay.
We need to give them that reverence.
And then when they get older, we can deprogram that and and bring
them into a healthy spot. But they're going to be strong
because of that earlier reverence that they gained from
learning Komoshrashi. I think that's kind of going to
what you're saying, right? That there's a, there's a,
there's a need we need to have, we shouldn't be, you know, it
shouldn't be negative. We should have a positive core
in the way of our understanding of of our stages and of, you
know, the, the, the, the, the, you know, Jewish history and
then all the different. I mean 100% personally, I agree
with you. I know that some don't.
And I think that there's no right or wrong here.
I think that there's just, you know, everyone has their own
opinions about the matter. But I that Rob Lichtenstein came
into my head when you said what you said, and also as a point
of. Contention just to bring that
back you know, you you you finish your your point by saying
or have a student you said that nobody's perfect.
That's an important lesson and that should apply to what
Benzie's saying as well. Like that's the whole point you
know we're we're we're trying to make the point that nobody's
perfect and creating kind of a a world where you know there's
infallibility. Obviously that goes against the
point of that we're trying to make, which is nobody's perfect.
And I think we can learn a lot from the fact that even our
greatest teachers, our greatest sages are, are all, all of our,
our ancestors. They they were human beings
after all. And you you gain.
That sense, the more you learn, the more you see Ramban saying
Ibn Ezra's wrong. You know, he might have said it
respectfully sometimes, sometimes not so respectful.
We try to. We we try.
To remain respected. And you see that in the Chuva
literature, you know, the Schwarziako was saying about the
Hakam SVI or whatever. You know, it's there's a back
and forth. There's a you're wrong.
No, you're wrong. Now, part of our, our, our, our
Derek Ha Limud is trying to understand each opinion.
You know, why? Why did they come to that reach
that conclusion? But sometimes you're going to
reach a conclusion that yeah, you know what I mean?
He probably was wrong. He probably was probably wrong
on that. He's he was a great, great,
pious man, Brilliant. I could only hope to someday
reach his toes. But at some point, you know, I
got to say, you know, maybe he was wrong.
And and they say that about each other.
This was a really fun segment. And before we go, there's like a
therapy. Section.
Yeah, totally. We.
We actually.
We, we. We.
Have to go soon, but before we go, we wanted you to kind of
tease on one foot just because we felt like this is such an
important chapter and this is actually a chapter that we feel
should deserve its own episode, which is critiquing Mark
Shapiro's Rabbi Mark Shapiro's approach to masura in depth.
Can you just kind of give us a little, you know, teaser about
that chapter? Sure.
So. So the elicitors, I'm sure
familiar with Mark Shapiro's work.
It was groundbreaking in the really starting in the 1990s and
then when he when he wrote his article and then when he
published his book, trying to show that there was never a
consensus on that. You'd Gimel E Karim the Rambam's
13 Fundamental Principles of Judaism and that there has
always been and continues to be today differing opinions and
therefore the Ugimmel E Karim are not definitive of what
Judaism says the implications are.
He doesn't follow this, go through those implications.
The implications are that we can't breach those Ugimmel E
Karim and still remain within traditional Judaism like you
say, the word Orthodox. I don't know how how how
meaningful that word is, but whatever it is, the community of
Mamimi Mamimi Benimi Maminim, even if you don't believe in
every one of the you'd Gimli Kareem completely.
And that's shattering. Mind opening.
I'm sure. I don't know about you guys.
When I read that I was like, wow, it was it.
Was mind blowing. It took me a day.
It was heavy stuff. And I make the argument that
first of all, some of his examples, this is just a side
argument. Some of his examples are
overblown. And you know, in academia, they
tend to to to exaggerate deviations and differences when
really they could be they're, they're not.
So they don't deviate from the Gimli Karim even though there
are academics who claim that they are side point, but more
importantly. Everyone agrees and.
Including Mark Shapiro agrees. There has to be some definition
of what constitutes Judaism, Jewish belief, whatever you want
that to be, there has to be something.
And so how do you draw that? And who gets to draw that?
And what happens if different people draw the definitions
differently? How do you handle that?
I believe this is a question in which the tools of halacha can
be very helpful and useful. And I tried to create a vision
of how can I, someone who has read the, the kid my, my life
was before reading Mark Shapiro and after reading Mark Shapiro,
right? So now that I, I went through
the matrix, I took whatever pill, the red pill, blue pill, I
forget which pill I took the pill.
And I've, I'm aware that there are some Richonim who said this
and that and there's some of ronim who said this and that.
How do I understand what constitutes Jewish belief?
And I, I, I think I put together a coherent approach.
I've gotten some feedback and I found other greater rabbis and I
who say similar things like Raviakov, Ariel and and Ramat
Ghan. So I, I, I think you said a
teaser. So I'm not going to give you the
whole approach, but I think we have a, a coherent approach on
how to post Mark Shapiro, understand Judaism or what it
means to have Jewish belief. And you know.
We also, one of our earlier episodes that we, I think it was
episode 8 or 9, we interviewed Rabbi Shmuel Phillips, who also
took, you know, in his book Judaism Reclaim.
He, he took issue with, you know, maybe the scholarship,
maybe some certain what he thought was maybe sloppy
scholarship. So we actually went into that.
We also had Marc Shapiro on the podcast as well, but we didn't
get it to talk with that topic. But we really feel that like
this deserves a lot of attention and we feel that your book
really covers it well, and we want everybody to get the book.
So before we go, can you tell everybody where they can find
your book? Sure, again, the book is.
Is titled Articles of Faith, Traditional Jewish belief in the
Internet era. Please go into your local Jewish
bookstore and ask for it that way they'll order it, put a few
copies on the shelf and other people will buy it.
So you, you're doing it for me, you're doing it for my
publisher, and you're doing it for anyone who might buy the
book and would benefit from it. If you go to the local
bookstore. If not, you can go to Amazon or
you can go to the publisher kodishpress.com and buy it
there. Hopefully, I hope readers will
gain from it and I look forward to, I don't consider myself the
last word on anything, but, you know, it's a conversation that
has been going on for 20 years and we'll we'll continue having
this conversation in the future we want to thank.
You because really you're you're I really enjoyed this I.
Really, really did and keep up the good work.
Keep doing what you're doing. This is amazing so.
We, we really appreciate it. And again we tell, we want to
tell everybody, please get the book Articles of Faith.
Thank you again, Rabbi Student, for coming on the podcast Benji
Benzi. Thank you so much.
It's been a great, great experience.
Absolutely. We.
Appreciate it. Thank you so much.
Keep in touch, God willing.