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 for joining the
Judaism Demystified podcast again.
Your first interview was a fan favorite, so we want to get into
an an essay you wrote titled Rabbi Eliezer Berkovitz and
Rabbi Joseph B Soloveitchik. Neighbors Behind Fences,
published in volume 34 of Akira, the Flatbush Journal of Jewish
Law and Thought, which is now available as Open Access.
What compelled you to write this about this specific topic?
It's an interesting. Question, you know, the last
time we spoke, we spoke about what would appear to be a very,
very different topic. We spoke about Gohelit and Tanah
and that's, I mean, that's that's of great interest to me.
I think you asked me last time, like what, you know, what are
the projects you're working on that sensitive?
You know, you guys got your tag at the end of the at the end of
the interviews. So I mentioned that I was
working on a book. This is my long term thing.
I'm working on a book about why Avram was chosen and that book
is really kind of that that goal of writing this book has led me
to a lot of different ways. Let me a lot of a lot of
different paths. And one of the things involved
in that book was I started going kind of into the deep dive on
Jewish philosophy in ways, but I hadn't.
Really done before I. Hadn't done it systematically,
let's put it that way. I read books by, I've read books
by, you know, read articles by Rif Cook.
I've read things by, by medieval Jewish flaws with Rambaum and
and Ravuta Levy. But I've never like tried to put
it all together into some kind of system, into some way of
understanding how they fit in. And even more than how they fit
in, how they contrast with each other in ways that that helps,
it helps understand each other better.
And the more I started researching, the more I kept
coming across essays by. By Rabbi Alias or Berkowitz.
And there was somebody who I I knew a little.
Bit about I had maybe one or two books at home and it was kind of
interesting and I had, you know, known people here and there who
were connected with him. But I haven't really done the
sense of, you know, my teachers were students of Rossollovechik,
and so I was much more likely to be familiar with his works.
But reading Berkowitz's works just made me realize that
there's this is something very, very special, unique.
Both in terms of his philosophy and also in terms of the
application of his philosophy in in today's world.
And then so I just started making some comparisons.
I just, I think I just noted, Oh, that was interesting
connection. Between, you know, with
Salvatrix of this and Berkowitz of this, and suddenly I realized
actually there's a lot going on here.
And then like in many ways, when I when I research things, I kind
of feel like I feel the analogy of the elephant, you know,
carving the elephant. You just you, you stop carving
when you see the elephants there.
So I started making notes about all these different things about
Resolve Chicken or Berkowitz and realize, wow, there's a whole,
there's a whole level, there's a whole layer going on there of
similarities and differences that that, you know, to speak
out to me in ways that I wouldn't.
I wasn't looking for those answers.
I just happened to find them when I when I put them down on
paper, one next to each other. Good.
All right. And how do you compare and
contrast the biographies of Resolve, Chicken or Berkowitz?
OK, so it's interesting, you know, if they.
They have their biographies are incredibly similar.
They are, you know, remarkably similar.
They're both born to rabbinic families in Eastern Europe.
Rabbi Salvagek, if I, by the way, slip into calling him the
rabbi, I'm sure you know, hopefully that'll be
understandable to most of your your listeners.
So with Salvage, the rabbit was born in 19 O 3IN in in Russia
and Belarus, and Berkowitz is born in in Austria, Hungarian in
19 O 8. So their their ages are very
similar. They both came from families
that were, like I said, historical rabbinic families and
and followed in traditions of people like of, of other rabbis
in their location. So Soloveitchik was a student of
his father, but also particularly followed his great
his grandfather of of Klein Soloveitchik and Berkowitz was a
student of Rabbi Akiva Glasner. And Rabbi Akiva Glasner was the
son of remote Shmuel Glasner, which probably you want to do a
whole episode on him because one of the most fascinating figures
in in modern Jewish thought, not necessarily that well known, but
he's remarkable. And there is some story that
perhaps he was Glasner also taught Rabburquist, but he would
have been a young child when it happened.
So he was influenced by his thought through his son and
through his writings. And so they, the approach of the
Glasner's and the Soloveitch both influenced these, these
young men in their, in their hometowns and, and where they
grew up. Both enrolled in the University
of Berlin in the 1920s and studied philosophy there in.
In 1932, Soloveitchik received a doctorate on the philosophy of
of Herman Cohen, and maybe we'll talk about him in a bit.
And then the following. Year in 1933, Berkowitz got his
doctorate. On the philosophy of David Hume,
we'll also talk about while in Berlin, they both OK, so I
actually have to make a little correction of my essay.
It's interesting I I wrote that they both studied in the
Hildeheimer Seminary of the Heliakov Weinberg professor
Lawrence Kaplan. After he read the essay, he
said, no, he actually you never studied and he didn't study in
the in the, in that Shiva, but he attended classes or he
monitored classes, whatever the the phrase is.
And so I looked it up and turned out there was actually something
Professor Gavin himself wrote and later corrected.
I looked at an earlier version of the essay when he said it.
So, but they both were there and they both were, you know, they
both knew the, the aside from the academic, they both were
connected with the, you know, the rabbinic Jewish scene in, in
in Berlin. Berkowitz became particularly
close with Rove Weinberg, known as the you know, the three day.
Age. He received his smika from, from
Weinberg in the end. I mean, that's not relevant to
the issue at hand, but he actually was responsible for
saving a lot of the works of, of of Weinberg, I think during the
war because he left earlier and that and they were, they were
very, very close. They both both were Berkowitz
and Rossollovechik, despite their backgrounds and their
family the traditional European Eastern European backgrounds.
They both became supportive of secular education Zionism, which
was not, you know, obvious path for for people in their family
and they both still to this day have many relatives were not
were much more, you know, traditional already already
outlook after Berlin. They both served as Karina
rabbis in different locations. The Rover of salvation went to
Boston and Robert was was initially rabbi in Berlin for
the war and then he went. To Leeds in the United Kingdom.
Sydney, Australia. And then also moved to Boston
and I actually did a little research.
I'm, I'm a amateur genealogist and I was able to look up some
records. They live just a a few blocks
away in Boston. And that's actually where my
family's from. So my family live also in the
same few blocks. So, you know, a small
neighborhood in, in Boston and you know, they live, they live
close to each other. Another similarity the the rest
of Asia very famously was a Roshi Shiva in Anishiva
University and where addition to his teaching Talmud, he also
taught classes in Jewish philosophy.
Berkowitz left Boston in 1958. He moved to Chicago.
He became the chairman of Jewish philosophy at the Hebrew
Theological College there. So they both were connected to
the world of philosophy and the world of Talmud while in the big
cities that they, you know variously that they they arrived
in at the time. And next I would say they both.
Were very prolific authors wrote a ton in both Hebrew and
English, even though for neither was their native language,
having come from come from Europe.
They published in the same journals.
The salvatious famous essay The only man of faith right next to
it is an essay by Roberkowitz called Orthodox Judaism in a
World of Revolutionary Transformations, which is it's
amazing to see they're literally neighbors on the page.
They wrote all kinds of things they wrote about.
Jewish philosophy from traditional sources, from
biblical sources or many sources, modern philosophy.
They they they mix it all in together.
They discussed halafic issues. They developed a philosophy of
Halafa Near was known primarily as a Posaic, but they but they
did. Talk a lot about the philosophy
of Halafa. And then at the end, they both,
you know, sort of stepped away from the public stage towards
the end of their life. The Rove retired the Boston the
80s and and died in 1983 and and Berkowitz made all the YEAH in
1976 and died in 19 in 1992. Just one of those differences.
Out of curiosity. Sorry.
Yeah. So out of curiosity, Robin, this
sort of glassner I believe you said, can you give us just like
just want to you said he's very interesting.
You might want to make your own pot on it.
I'm just curious what what is the this?
Who was he? He's he was known as the the Dor
Rivier, which was because he was the great grandson of the Khatam
Sophair in in Hungary and he despite the Khatam Sophair's
connection, you know, very well entrenched position in Kharidi
Hungarian jewelry. Glasner was a fierce Zionist and
innovative thinker in ways that you know, didn't necessarily
represent, you know, the the Khatam Sophra's famous clan of
Khadasha Stormy Natara because he was looking to innovate
reading his essays written. He, I think he died in like the
1920s, but he made it to Israel before he died and, and
interacted with Rif Cook. He had fascinating ideas about
Shmita, about all kinds of things, about how they, you
know, the state was still a couple decades away, but ideas
the way the state could be run. There's just absolutely
fascinating work out there. There are a couple of essays in
tradition and some other place where you can read some quotes
of his. Books of his might even be
online. It's it's some really, it's a
really. Fascinating.
Interesting. Thank you.
Thank you for that. I'll look into it.
So how did they? Did they interact with each
other of Berkwitz and Brooks Olovatrik?
OK, so, but I didn't really get to understand before I answer
this question. Was they some of the differences
they're they're basically differences were going to be in
their in their approach to to to philosophy they.
They both I think. Followed the their family or
they're they're. The way they were raised, the
rabbis who raised them, the people they followed in the way
that they converted to modern philosophy.
So Rossovacek was like a neocontian and some of his
essays actually compares his grandfather of fine to to Kant
and Berkowitz, both in terms of Rabbi Gloucester and and the
Weinberg, the city ish who are innovators in Alihah.
They match up in certain ways with his general philosophical
philosophical approach. So they they were different in
that. In the in those differences and
also they're obviously the difference in terms of their in
terms of their scope and through their impact.
So much is much more well known and and and Brookwitz is less
so. I found no evidence that they
actually directly interact with each other.
It's hard to believe because they were both in Boston at the
same time. They were Berlin at.
The same time I mean. It's, it's, it's, it's, it would
be mind blowing to think they never want to know each other
and they never mention each other in their writings, which
is also kind of remarkable. And I've spoken to revealed
because his son, he wasn't aware of this as well.
I have a theory that they might not have done this out of
respect for another. You know, they both because they
recognize so many similarities they had in their backgrounds
that they didn't think it would be appropriate to criticize each
other directly. But there is some evidence, I
think that maybe there was, you know, what they call like proxy
wars. Not today.
That's much more of a vibrant image.
But in other words, so when? When Rove?
Berkowitz was in Chicago with the Heber Theological College
Skokie Yeshiva, as it as it's known.
So he sparred sometimes with, with, with Yosef Phil Salvage's
brother of Aaron Salvage. They were, they had, they were
sometimes had tension between them.
In New York, Salvage criticized Rabbi Emanuel Rachman.
And there were times that he was, you know, pretty much
explicitly criticizing him. But the differences between
Rachman and Rachman are pretty minimal.
So, you know, it might have been he would not want to, you know,
criticize for Berkowitz, but he could criticize for Rachman in
in ways that that he wouldn't have felt comfortable.
But I never found any direct evidence of interaction.
Interesting. OK, and tell us more about who
wrote their who they wrote their doctorates about and how each
criticize the focus of the others doctorate and what does
that say about their philosophical approaches?
Right. So this is actually another way
that I think maybe this, you know, this sort of way that they
could criticize each other without directly criticizing
each other, right? So as I mentioned.
They each chose a doctorate that represented their philosophical
approach and the approach of the rabbis.
The Ruberkowitz has. His doctoral thesis was on David
Hume, who. Is considered the founding
father of empiricism, which is basically using like evidence
from this. World to prove your, your
claims. You look at the world and that's
how you determine your, your, your claims of what should be,
how you, how you understand the world.
Like a material view. Materialist, I don't, I don't
know about materialist, but either it's either like
positivism or empiricism. Those are the two general terms
that I use. I'm not a huge expression.
There might be other terms that I'm not familiar with, but it's
that that definitely represents David Hume and Rossello Vechek
used Herman Cohen, who was one of the most prominent neocontian
philosophers. You know, the, the the
innovators of content and and these neocontian school were
criticisms of empiricism and apositism that would they'd
become popular during the during the 19th century.
The Neocanthian approach says that there is, if you understand
reality through a priori categories and laws, like, you
know, there are ideal independent things that exist in
reality and that's how you understand the world.
So for example, math is classic for something like that, right?
We don't, you don't have to like, you know, you can, you can
understand it, 2 + 2 = 4 without having to actually count the
number of items together. It's they're, you know, theories
and principles and postulates and all kinds of things.
That's, that's how they understand the world.
And so both of those approaches appear in their, in their
writings. And Robert Berkowitz criticized
he he went a number of essays in the 1950s and 60s where he
criticized the number of prominent Jewish thinkers, Buber
Heschel, Heschel. There was actually a whole
discussion about in tradition, which I actually contributed to
a little back and forth defending Heschel, attacking
Heschel. There was all kinds of things,
and it, and also and also. Herman Cohen was it, you know, a
Jewish thinker. So Berkowitz basically said that
Herman Cohen was relying too much on reason and not enough on
on history and looking to understand what's going on, and
that because of that he was disconnecting himself in a
sense. From.
What Judaism was really about, because he was just, he made it
too isolated from what actually the world that we live in.
And Russell Levechik didn't write an essay specific about
David Hume, but in his work Halachic man, very famous Ish
Aloha. So he talks about someone he
calls cognitive man. And cognitive man, he says,
approaches the world without preconceived notions.
He gropes the darkness until he stumbles across the repetition
of events as a result of which he can construct rules which and
then he said in a footnote, he says that's the positive
doctrine of David Hume, meaning how does how does it, how does
it work? How does this cognitive man
work? He doesn't actually have.
Rules that he knows exists a priority in.
Advance he looks around, he feels, oh, maybe this is the way
to go. This is the way to go.
And then event that's how he determines how the world works.
And that's he he criticized that.
So in the fact that each criticize each other's focus of
their doctorate is another way, I think that they were, you
know, without directly criticizing each other was easy
to criticize David Hume or Herman Cohen than it was
necessarily criticized these rabbis of of great stature.
Very interesting, very interesting.
So how do that you mentioned him not understanding history or
criticizing the fact that he doesn't understand history.
What what what were each of their approaches regarding
understanding history? OK, so this is a little
challenging for some people to first, maybe first that's to
accept. But I think reading enough of
Rasalovati's writings, I'm, I'm, I'm very convinced of this.
I don't think it was just like a rhetorical, you know, technique.
What you see by looking at Rasolovecic is that history is
simultaneous from a theological perspective.
There's no real past and future. It's all together.
And in essence, that makes it in the present, right?
Because that's where we're living.
In other words, we're, we, you know, he has images where he
talks about the Rashi and the Rambam on the same room and, and
going back and forth. And that's not just a flourish,
it's something that, you know, he, he took on something like,
you know, that's something we have to feel in our very bones.
And by disconnecting history from a, from the, the scope of
history, from the spectrum of history, he can remove the issue
of teleology, which is something that was very important to him.
Teleology from telescope like what's the purpose if there's no
past or future, but everything's happening in the present.
You don't have to worry about Tilagi.
You don't have to worry about why things happened earlier.
You don't have to worry about what the purposes of things
happening in the future, but you can focus on the present and for
the Rev for Soloveitchik that expressed itself in in Halaha
very famously, for example, in Kolodo fake his essay about
suffering and the and the Shawaan also in the
establishment of the state of Israel.
He says we can't ask why, can't ask why.
But we have to ask what? What should?
We do now that's a halacha question, not maybe it's halacha
with a lowercase agent and a capital agent.
It's not all about like, you know, asleep in the show, but
it's it's it's something that we need to understand what to do
and that's in the present. We have to know what to do now.
So that's the teleology was something that was very
concerned. About and he writes about a lot
of his work. So he was, he felt that that was
a a philosophical problem in Judaism.
And so he was able to disconnect from that through the sort of
simultaneous approach to history.
You know, the quote of his says, yeah.
Yeah. And so I'm trying to understand
what that means, what you just said.
What does that mean? I'll give a quote from a
Salvation, maybe that'll make it a little more clear.
OK so this is from an essay of his called Sacred and Profane.
He said. But the Jew of the Massora has a
different conception of time. Revelation and tradition erase
the bounds of time. Distance of time is non existent
for him. Thousands of years may have a
lapse, but he walks back and forth from antiquity to modern
times. He he views the what he he.
He's he's, he's pointing, he he's, he's, he's trying.
He's encouraging us to see things from the creator point of
view. No, from the from the nod point
of view, I would say from from, In other words, there it doesn't
matter for him if you know the Mishnah.
I mean, obviously there's a structure of how the how the
stock works, but in other words, he could interact with the
Rambam and he could interact with a body and he could, you
know, these are all contemporaries.
And he describes this and I will say in a very descriptive way of
how he saw them in the same room together.
And they were, they were, you know, they were debating and,
and it was because I guess his, you know, his concern would be
that if you talk about people in the past, then, you know, the
present is going to have a different relationship to them.
And he was living through a time.
And his and and his aunt and his and his father, grandfather,
great grandfather, we're living through time when, when, when
you had people challenging using by saying, well, that might have
been how it was appropriate back then, but it isn't relevant for
now. By removing the by distance
between past and future and having everything the present,
you don't have those concerns because it's just as relevant
what was said 1000 or 2000 years ago as it is what's happening
today. OK, so he he uh huh.
So, so he doesn't want, he doesn't want this reality in
which things in the past have a certain it's for the past or
it's it's it's, it's it. Should be timeless.
Timeless. Everything is timeless.
There's an eternal nature to Jewish history, and so therefore
we have to view the words of the past and basically view it as
right now. Yes, I think that's a good way
of. Of describing it.
Also, I think it's noteworthy that the early reform concern
who is maybe conservative particularly, I think we're like
known as like the historical movements.
And so that there they they took history in a different path
thinking, OK, well, you know, it's not it's it's we can
understand why things were done back then, but they're not
necessarily as relevant for for now and and the rough that was
timeless. If there's timeless, the only
way can be timeless. If the history doesn't change,
Maybe we'll understand a little better if we if we if we look at
Berkowitz, who in some ways might be the more expected
approach, the way we generally as modern people view history.
But it is relevant with the Judaism to see that we do have
these two separate paradigms of how it could work.
So with Berkowitz viewed it as a linear history.
Each period history is the same for the previous ones and each
one changed the reality of the previous ones.
He very hit. For him, history was like a
very, very essential component of his.
Of his philosophy, he his his main book, I would say is God,
man in history and he. Put that in there.
I don't think that you know. Salvature would have would have.
Come to with with the name of history in in that book.
So here's a quote from Berkowitz, for example.
This is from his book called Faith after the Holocaust.
He said we've known all these years that there is no way back
to the past, but in which direction are we moving?
We've been called to a new beginning in the past.
After every Corban, we built something new and different.
Having found a way back to Tsion in a messianic moment, we know
that God is doing a new thing now.
It shall spring forth. So he viewed no, there can be
changes there. He wasn't necessarily afraid of
history, was not a threat. The way there were salvation
history was an opportunity of, you know, we there were times
when things got bad and we, you know, Jews had to deal with the
Qurban, with the Galut and all that, but also opportunities
when the when the return to Tsion happened.
And that was something that was not a.
Something to be. Afraid of.
And so he he embraced, he embraced history in that, in
that. Way is there a, can you explain
a little bit about why for example of Soloveitchik was so
why do you think his worldview was was about that like history?
Well, why is it a threat? Because the the context always
matters, right? Like if you just pull, if you
just take, you know, different rabbis and different eras and
express that as now it's, it's, it seems like it's a, you know,
intellectually dishonest in a way, because you're not really
giving the, the real picture. So what, what would be his, what
do you think his mindset was? So I think there are a couple of
things. First of all, we talked before
about his, his Neocontin approach and this a priori
approach, you know, if you view. Halacha, you view Judaism is
kind of like math or science. Well, math or science isn't
historically dependent, right? You have.
You have rules that are. You know, 2 + 2 is always been
true. And if Halaf is always true,
then you if you throw in history, you're suddenly making
considerations that that salvage found foreign.
So that was just a general philosophical approach.
But in terms of his context, I think the context really has to
do with his grandfather and his great grandfather.
I wrote an essay once about how history, you know, could history
change and, and things like that about about his great
grandfather. They were dealing with a time
when, like I said, they, they people were introducing, you
know, Judaism have been kind of like, you can just say stagnant
or you can say, you know, steady, depending on which
positive or negative you want to use.
But it had been, you know, hadn't changed that much in
hundreds of years. And all of a sudden they were
dealing with challenges, saying no, no, there's a new time.
There's the emancipation, there's Escala, there's,
there's, you know, new worlds and new ideas and, and maybe we
the Holocaust should be changing in in.
Accordance with that. And that was a real threat.
I mean, it wasn't just, it wasn't a hypothetical threat.
There was many, many Jews who left.
Who left the traditional? Path because of that and so by.
Taking a more a stronger stance by saying no, this is not Rashi
wasn't irrelevant because he lived 1000 years ago Rama wasn't
relevant because they had years ago.
They were just as relevant then you suddenly don't have to
that's much less of a challenge. I see OK makes a lot of sense.
So how do they each understand the time and mitzvah.
This is a part I'm really excited to hear right.
So the time and this was a very interesting thing.
It's it's this has to do with it.
It does go back to the issue of teleology in a sense that
theology is saying what's the purpose of something, right.
So what's the purpose of something can mean you can kind
of understand in two different ways.
It can either be why am I doing this for the future or what was
the purpose of the thing that happened in the past.
And then the the if the reason why something happened in the
past is no longer relevant and suddenly maybe you're pulling
the rug out from what's from what's going on.
So for example, the Ron boundary famously.
In in, in the morning. But also, by the way, that's a
separate issue, but I, I, I'm not one of people who makes a
huge distinction between between the the and the but that's that
maybe for another, another conversation.
But the Rama gave historical reasons for the mitzvot.
Really, right. That's that's definitely
something he did and Russell Ovechik, like, you know, blasted
him for that in. He said in in the end of his
book Halach the Halachic Mind. He says that the master of the
Rambam, who spots shape shaped Jewish ideology for centuries to
come, did not succeed in making his interpretation of the
commandments prevalent in our world perspective.
We completely ignore most of his rational notions regarding the
commandments. They're essentially, if not only
valueless meaning his the Rambam's explanation of his vote
for the religion interest interest.
We have at heart rationalize the commandments genetically,
meaning according to historical origin.
Maimonides developed a religious instrumentalism.
That's an important word where causality reverted to teleology.
So it's like 3 terms there. Instrumentalism is basically
using something for a purpose, right?
Causality of what was the cause of something and.
Teleology is going is what the purpose of doing something in
the future is. So he said, causality reverted
to theology. It's all part of the same thing.
It has to sort of do with the historical.
Perspective we talked about. Classically, what's what Ramos
most famous thing talks about the let's say the Corbinot,
right? So if the Corbinot or because of
Egyptian or other countries idolatrous practices and those
practices don't exist anymore, they maybe don't need the
Corbinot, right. And then that's, that's for the
future. Maybe you could say the same
things about kashrut or any other things we're doing now.
The the Rav for Slovic, it was a very dangerous approach and
didn't actually he basically saying that the Rama didn't
contribute anything to our to, to Judaism.
In that, in that sense, even though he's a big, you know, fan
of the Ramba, he, he, he couldn't accept that approach.
He's not the only one with cook with Hirsch very similar
writings about criticizing the round bomb in his in his
approach to to Tammy Mitzvah. The Robertowitz is a little bit
different. On the one hand, in an earlier
book, he he maybe is more, a little bit more aligned with
salivation. For example, he says in God's
man history, which came out in the 50s, he said, what is the
purpose of the law? Nor is our our ambition to try
and fathom the intentions of the law giver.
It is enough for the believer to know he is to do the will of
God, meaning he didn't impressing.
We don't need to necessarily understand the the God's
motivations. For the mitzvot.
Right, but it's opening up a rabbit hole.
Yeah, and we can. Well, I that's the question.
In other words, I, I don't, I don't think that necessarily
Berkowitz had the same concerns that Salvage was worried about
what's this going to do to us? But Berkowitz, I think might
just easily said, look like we can't know.
We can't know God's will in that sense.
And so, you know, what's the point of trying to do this?
But in a later book, and I think other words in in through his
electric in general, you get a slightly different idea.
So he writes in in Jewish Women in Time and Torah, which I think
his last book he said. But the principle that the
Rambam uses for his interpretation has general
validity and reveals Judaism's basic method for the application
of the eternal world to God in a time conditioned reality of the
human situation. So basically what Berkowitz is
saying is the Rama, whether or not he actually maybe accepted
the, the you know, the, the idea of what the Rama's answers were,
you know, for, you know, more and more other places.
But the idea that the Torah was given in a historical context to
help solve historical problems is something he he thinks has
relevance, He said. That's the that's shows the
reveals Judaism basic method for the application of eternal word.
In other words, the Torah was given at a particular time in
history, but we need to have the halaha effect what's going on in
our time, just like in every generation.
And the fact that the Torah was based in history a lot give
that's what gives us the permission to cough.
What are we going to call it to to interpret the the Torah in or
apply the the Torah in in each in each generation.
So that's the so he didn't reject the time in the same in
the same out route rate out right way that Rosso of aging
did. Well, didn't Khazal in a way.
The problem with me saying this is that I don't have the exact
ideas in my mind, so it's going to come out flat.
But if I, if I remember correctly, when you look at what
Avodah Zara, Avodah Zara is in homage, there's a sort of
reinterpretation of ghazal into into the context of idolatry.
Am I wrong about that? That's the.
Problem I don't have the actual things in my.
Mind I mean there are definitely you know that we have certain
that are given historical reasons in the in in the Torah
right and including some of the reasons are related to Alvarez
right For example, you talk about the not you know sacrifice
slaughtering outside the tent because.
You don't want to be like the people who were who were
slaughtering at the time right to to demons and things.
Obviously some are clearly for historical purposes, like
Shabbat and Pesach and everything.
Which lends itself to so so that's so so.
How would Rov Soloveitchik understand when when Mikra is
clearly given historical context of mitzvah?
So I think he's just saying that it doesn't he he needs an
eternal answer because otherwise it won't speak to the.
People who are hearing it. I'm not saying he's, I don't
know if for Salvecic, if you, if you, you know, put him in the
corner, he said. Could this have been the reason?
Would he have agreed or not? That's hard to say.
He's saying he's saying the Rambam is not doing a service to
anyone by giving the ancient spiritual.
Context. So in for example, I didn't, I
didn't quote this here, but in in the in that section in the
lhic mind of Salavecic quotes the Rambam in Mourinhovulkham on
chauffeur. And I don't remember exactly
what he said, but he gave you some, you know, reason for it.
But then he quotes the Rambam in the Misha Torah on chauffeur and
he says it's Uri Shamim. You know, you have to wake up.
And that's something that can speak to every generation.
And that is it's, it's, it's applicable, it's relevant.
And, and so he's not necessarily saying he's not getting a
history thing of saying it's true or not true.
He just the, the resolvation just says it's valueless.
It doesn't help. What do you think?
You're not an, you're not an Egyptian.
You know, you're not, you're not being challenged right now by
Egyptian idolatry. So how does it going to help you
to know that the sacrifices were to do that?
You need an answer that's going to be relevant for all time,
otherwise it'll just eventually drop off and not be not be
applicable and won't help. You at all, but it will just
dissolve naturally and you'll have people just.
Just. Saying, you know, we don't need
to do this anymore, right? And and the truth, look, you can
say this about similar things today.
I mean, this is not, you know, you could say, I don't know,
take something a Minogue that is based in some questionable
sources. It's I don't know, people.
Let's say, I don't know, let's say you talk about Kaparos,
right? I don't know, I know, or you
talked about, you know, maybe Kaparot had idolatrous origins
or Schlisselhala. When you know, any of these
things not we're clearly not talking about mitzvot.
Now they might have had they might have had, you know,
origins which were not ideal or even or even worse, clearly you
wouldn't say, you know, we should do those things because
of the idolatrous practices. They were done at the time.
But if those practices are not relevant anymore and they
provide religious, uplifting, spiritual value benefit to the
person who's doing them, then it could have benefit to life, even
if it may be even better if they don't know the the history of
it, you know, if they think that, again, obviously, you
know, it has. To be the shame of mine.
But that maybe that's a little easier to understand in our
time. Versus going all the way back to
the Torah. But then there's the obvious
like, you know, Torah laws, like, for example, like a
captive woman, right, The laws of the captive woman that is
only relevant for the biblical. It's not relevant anymore in a
way. So I, I mentioned actually one
point, I think in the essay, or maybe I didn't put it in, I
don't recall, but it was the, the, you know, there's some
famous Halehot that or mitzvot that the Gemara says that are
no, never happened. And you know, like it.
That's where and Ian Dachat maybe and some others.
And there was one place I read in Russell Ovechuk where he
basically said, like, that's our ideal mitzvah because it was so
disconnected from history that it wasn't even necessarily
relevant anymore. And we can, we can, the
application of it doesn't, isn't dependent on whether it happened
or not. We can say, ah, now we're really
just doing it, you know, shame, shame or, or, or it's just, you
know, it's giving the message without being worried about
whether it actually, actually happened or not.
And that's so, so look, either side, either side here.
I'm not trying to say the necessary, you know, Berkowitz
is, is 100% right. And, and Russell Ovechuk was
wrong. There's obviously historical
things the road doesn't talk about some, you know, some of
them, for example, the road doesn't talk that much about
Hanukkah, for example, in this in historical sense, right,
Because those are more innovative, you know, things
he's more comfortable in the, in the more eternal mitzvah and the
ones that weren't dependent on time.
So it's, it is interesting that especially in like you bring
Korbanot as an example and then with the, with the but Rambam
in, in Mishnatura actually says that, you know, it is a positive
mitzvah to establish the temple and re rededicate the not the
Rambam is sort of he's he's sort of anticipating the problem,
right. And and saying that, you know,
it makes no difference what the reason was.
Once the command is given, it has eternal significance.
Right. So the the question of how?
How did you know fit the Rambam into the you?
Know the square. Peg of the Rambam in the round
hole or whatever is difficult. There was actually a professor
of Hubria University who passed away a year or two ago who I
think actually gave the most good answer.
Professor Sheldon Rosenberg, who basically said he gives it
because at the end of in Hiljot to the Hiljot Mela where they
talk about, you know, hectic and and the Rama says there that he
gives the example of, you know, you can be do hectic for sticks
and stones to become. Kadosh.
And become holy. And the he said that's a
Michelle for for the mitzvot, which is a very kind of unusual
thing to say. So Professor Rosenberg said no,
you're, he said, even if there, according to Rama, even if there
were historical reasons, once they were sanctified, then they
have just as much validity as forever.
Which is why the Rambam, unlike the other halachic writers, was
willing to include the mitzvot in his in the mission.
That weren't relevant in his time because.
He wasn't he, He the the Rambam's view of history is kind
of complicated. In some ways it's very anti
historical. Some ways it's very historical.
It's it's, it's confusing it, you know, if you look at, let's
say the introduction to the Rambam makes it out like there's
no history going on. It's, it's, it's but so I think
each the Berkowitz Andrew Salvage are kind of able to sort
of pick and choose a little bit in terms of each following the
Rambam for the, you know, because you can find aspects of
each. For example, the the, the while
the salvage rejected the Rambam's approach, the time he
very much supported the codification of the Halafa in
the Mishnah Torah. I have I quote in the essay from
from the salivations grandson, who's another Rushi, Vlad Sion
of Moshe Salivation, who said why they why the why the
Briskers, why the, you know, his family loves learning the Rama
because this is all everything is there.
They don't have to pick and decide what's what happened once
and what's not longer relevant. Whereas Ruth Berkowitz said no,
that was a disaster in a sense the codification because it
wasn't allowing it to be flexible to deal with the
changes that are happening in each in each generation.
So they find connection problem in some ways, rejection others
it's. Complicated.
Yeah, that is very interesting. OK.
And then on a on a heavier a question on a heavier node and I
imagine I can already see that this is we're going to interplay
it again. How do they differ in their
understanding of evil, in particularly the Shua?
So they both approached the Shoah in in some way similar
ways. You can see some similar
language quoting the same Naveen and things like that and their
essays that. Salvage most famously discusses
it in in Codedito fake and the while Berkowitz who was staying
in. Europe longer than the rough so
he it for salvage. A lot of this was like a sense
of. Eulogy of the Generation.
That he lost his family. That he lost.
But Berkowitz was in. He was in Berlin.
Later at the once the Nazis had common power.
He was in Leeds during the war, so he was in.
You know, England and he was more exposed.
To it. So I think it's a little.
More, you know. Fresh for him.
But they both have similarities. They both are careful to give
intellectual understanding to the shore.
They don't want to give say we understand why things happen
that goes back into this again, sort of understanding what God
is doing. By the way, one thing very
similar, I should point out, they both similarly similarly
reject the Rambam when it comes to, you know, the what they call
like the scholastic approach to discovering God.
They don't believe you can discover God through through
proofs and and things like that. They both both were Salvagek and
and Berkowitz reject that they don't think they they were
modern philosophers in that sense, where Kant basically
proved that that was impossible and they accept they both
accepted that approach. So they wouldn't, you know, the
issues both of them were in the clean and there are things that
were Robin talks about how you can discover God that that they
reject. And so that it's a similar type
of thing with why they reject the ability to understand why
God, why the the nature of evil in the world.
You can't understand it on a on a philosophical level.
They both said that. Like in existential, they were
into they they they went more towards the existential.
So I don't know if I, I mean, yes, in a sense certainly where
Salvatrik did. I mean, I think he's, you know,
I think you can definitely define him as an, as an
existentialist. Salvatrik basically said there's
no answers. And this goes back to him
looking at everything through the prism of Halafa, right?
You don't need to know the why. To do the halacha, you don't
need to know the reason for any mitzvah and you just need to do
it. So salvatrix says look at, look
at the Shah. I don't know what the reason.
For the Shah was why God let this happen or you know the.
There's a punishment, none of that.
But he says that there are certain understandings that we
need to take from from learn the lessons.
So we have to do what is the question is what?
What do I need to do now that this suffering has happened to
me? We need to have a Jewish state,
we need to have an army, we need to defend ourselves, we need to
fight out the Semitism. All these things are halacha
questions in the like I said, small H talacha, like that's
alacha alacha. What do you how do you deal with
a a disaster like the Shoah? Now, Ruberkowitz also says that
there's no answer in terms of like the question of Sudi
Guerrello and like why things happen.
But he says if there is an answer and there's no
philosophical, he says no philosophical answer, but there
is an answer, but it's found in history, it's found in the
survival of the Jewish people, right?
So he says he, he said that the dilemma cannot be resolved on
the intellectual level alone. Yet the Zeema was resolved not
in theory, not on the philosophical hypothetical
level, but strange enough in history itself.
God's unconvincing presence in history, meaning in general, you
don't see God anywhere in history, if you look at all
terrible things, is testified through the survival of Israel.
So his answer, he says, if you want to know what happened,
well, Israel survived. That's your answer.
You know, it's, it's a complicated answer.
It's not like giving a justification, certainly, but it
is saying, OK, we haven't. It's it's this is this is
something Rosalvechi wouldn't have accepted.
He wouldn't accepted to say that Israel was the answer in history
would be giving an answer to this question.
He, he says that like Rosalvechi said, he called you a fake.
He said talking about the ideal approach is devoid of the
slightest speculative metaphysical coloration.
The center of. Gravity shifts from the causal
and teleological to its practical aspect.
He's only talking about what to do now.
He's not trying to understand God at all With with Berkowitz,
we can't again, we can't look into we can't understand what's
God's motivations, but we can understand what God did right.
In other words, we can understand that he the God after
the show or the show. I guess I already, you know,
this is just the Zionist movement was saying, OK, God is
still in history. He didn't give up on us and
that's where you can see that the you know, the the gods, the
God is still. Involved in our lives.
It's like a, it's like a Shem's answer to Moshe, which is like,
you can't see my face and live, but you can understand when
you're looking back right on the back of me, you can see, you
can, you can piece together the purpose after the fact, but
while it's happening, while you're facing it, it's, it's
never going to be clear, right? So that's a, that's a very
interesting example, but it's the particular understanding of
that, of, of that passage of Moshe.
Russovacic famously talks about the example of the tapestry.
So he says that it's imagine looking at a tapestry from the
back from the backside. I don't know.
I'm curious if salvation mentioned what you said, but
look at the tapestry on the backside.
You have no idea what you're looking at, right?
It's a mess. But the other side makes sense.
But he I don't think what salvation would even get to the
point where you say looking back, you don't even understand
because he said the problem with if you look at the causal
approach, what what the causal was, then you start to make
claims on God that you that you can't justify.
And so he just saying, OK, I need to know what to do now.
Fascinating. So can you explain their
different understandings of the nature and purpose of Halacha?
Right. So first of all, that's I, I'm
not even sure that the there was salvage would agree to question
the purpose of halacha. That may be something he might
reject, you know, as a question, but I, I, you know, I think it's
important to to write about it. Berkowitz's book was his his He
wrote a book in English called Not in Heaven, but it's a book
in Hebrew, which is a larger and it's more like kind of a.
I, I guess a little bit more heavier tone in terms of like
traditional resources, because it's not written.
It's not written more for like a, you know, some of the
audience of people who understand the, the, you know,
traditional biblical text. He called that halacha, Kohava
Tafkida, the, the halacha, it's power and its purpose.
And you know, the Russell, I don't know if this would agree
with that question of purpose. So I'll start with Russell
Vision Rus salvation, viewed history.
As a threat to halacha, he he's following his grandfather and
his great grandfather who. Who?
Saw movements like the reform as being a threat to as as using
history as a as a as a way to an excuse to change Aloha.
So if salvage writes that not only could history not be
concerned Aloha, but psychology couldn't be a concerned Aloha
sociology. Haloha needs to operate
independently of those factors. It's a priori it's it's just
math and science. The Haloha itself is the goal of
the. Haloha.
No external ideas, even noble ones.
He says even the most noble ideas can't shouldn't be a
factor for the post sake. And by the way, I think what's
also important to notice is that for, for Sylvacic, there's no
difference between Torah and Halaha.
There's no, there's no daylight between them.
They're based, they're they're essentially the same thing.
Or or part of one. You know, big hole, but there's
no difference. Rosalvatian wrote an essay which
is somewhat even controversial even when it came out and
probably. One of the more controversial.
You know you should. Think of a sense of like,
controversial in terms of, you know, very controversial by
people who didn't. Accept him in general, but this
is even by his followers. Founded Founded.
Somewhat controversial. It was an essay called Mato
Dehmidod and it was a eulogy for his uncle.
Who gets some example of velvil? Velvil, the Brisker of.
And in it he talks a lot of his grandfather, and he compares
Kant's approach to philosophy to his grandfather's approach to
Holocaust again. That's also a little, he's
saying like. You know Kant, but I don't know.
I, I find that stuff remarkable. I personally, by the way, I, I
wrote an essay, a different essay where I talked about how
when reading one of her solid matrix works, I, I felt sad
because he loved the Rambam so much as a kid.
He could defend the Rambam. He was saying he would want to
make sure that he'd be able to defend the Rambam from the
driver. Didn't you know where his father
would be able to? But I thought you could defend
the Rama for the rival, but you couldn't defend the Rama from
Kant. Like I felt like this is, you
know, really I felt it was painful.
Just you know, you view the Rama as his friend.
He talks about the Rama anyway in in my definitely do it.
He said it's it's he he he talks about Kant.
He talks about Rufayim, his grandfather, and he says it's
like math, a math question. Can be inspired by an event in
the real. World.
But the question can't influence the answer.
It's not like, OK, 2 + 2 = 4 because you have two, you know,
you have two this and two that. Then you want to, but it can't
be like, well, I really wish that I had more, so I'm going to
make this one 2 + 2 = 5 because you know, I really need the
extra or whatever. I'm, you know, adding up.
It's it's it's independent and he in terms of the teleology of
a ha, the purpose of a ha in in lonely man of faith that Rufs
Olovatrix says that it's the teleology of a ha is the
paradoxical, paradoxical yet magnificent dialectric which
underlies the halachic gesture. And if I understand that
correctly, he's basically saying the purpose of Aloha itself.
You don't need another purpose. There's no additional purpose,
right In Aloha man. He says the theoretical Aloha,
not the practical decision, the ideal creation, not the
empirical one, represent the logging of Aloha man.
They're just trying to work in a laboratory.
But the laboratory isn't the actual isn't the isn't the
Michelle he uses. He uses a very significant
Michelle. This is Michelle I actually
heard about first time. When I was in the Shiva some 35
years ago and it it, it, it stuck with me.
He talks about it like a satellite, where the thing that
launches the satellite to Earth, you know something?
Going on Earth, but once it's in orbit, it is it's no longer
affected by what's by what's happening in its path in its
orbit. It's it's entirely independent
of it. This is the example he uses in
in modern ethnic mode. He says that in the same way the
that the the the satellite revolves or, you know, orbits
the Earth independently, so too does the halaqa question.
Also, it's might have been launched.
You know, somebody came throughout and asked this
chicken kosher. But but the once he's he's in
that world, it's no longer affected the decisions on Earth
can no longer the considerations on Earth can no longer affect
the local decision. It has to be has to be
independent of that. Berkowitz again, I'm sure that
this is this one. I don't think is is is a jab or
a proxy, but he named his work in English, not in heaven famous
Lower Shamani. He rejects the approach that
it's based on something that the Halachi is in orbit, is in, is
distant from us. It's independent of what's going
on. It's no, no, no, it's not.
It's supposed to be what's happening on Earth.
It has to it. It has the Halafa has to to
reflect to the change in reality.
That's exactly the that's that's what Torres Chabalpet is.
It's if we don't have that and we're just like carrots, we're
carrots like thrash Chabalpet. But we think things can change.
But we have Torres Chabalpet because it allows us to adjust
to the situations that we're in. And he says that that was
definitely true in the galut, but in the golu there was not
that many things that. Could affect us because we a lot
of these things were out of our hands, right.
We didn't have control over the political and and social and
economic things around since we have our own state and we turn
to artists around and it's now it's really a danger if they
have still fossilized like it would have been.
In the Golu and we have to revitalize the thrash little
bit. So he says that if if Russovajic
said that the the noble ideas can't be factors or Berkowitz
says that they must be factors, right?
And he gives the example of Tanur Shalakhnai, right?
The story of the The Lotus Shalimy and and how.
You know when they when they went to be.
Madras and they were asking could the what can determine
Alihak and they asked God for the determine the bottcole and
everything and they and they said he says no, they it has to
be determined by what's going on earth and it's Lobo shamimy and
it it it's that's the example of where the the the halacha has to
stay on on earth. It has it He says that the
Berkwood says, for example, the transformation of the oral
torrent into a text. It was an unavoidable violation
of the ethics of Aloha when the spoken word was forced into a
straitjacket of a written mold. It was spiritual calamity of the
first magnitude Orthodoxy, meaning his time.
He's in a sense halacha in a straitjacket.
We become carrots of this new written Torah, written for a
meaning like the Shokan or whatever.
It is right that if Rosalvej didn't see any daylight between
Torah and Halahan, Berkowitz said there absolutely is
daylight between the two. For Berkowitz, you have a
process. The halaha is the application of
three things, he says. There are three things.
You have the do you have the mitzvot in the Torah?
You have the values that the Torah.
Guides us in dark air dark. Eidola Bahaiba and you know all
these all these different guidance guidelines dark E
Shalom and then you have the particular historical situation
that. They're living in.
And put those in the big pot and mix them together and that's
where you get dalaha. Dalaha isn't isn't.
Torah is what needs halacha to apply it, which is why it's
relevant in every generation. If it wasn't that way, it would
no longer be relevant. And that's for, so for
Berkowitz, that's the, that was what makes the halacha vital and
alive is his ability to react to the changing things.
Now, it's important to note, Berkowitz, for any of you
listeners out there, was a committed Orthodox Jew.
He was committed to Aloha. If you he, there's, you know,
both from his family members and his self and everything about
him, He was fully committed to Haloha, to the Aloha, to the
Orthodoxy. But he felt the Orthodoxy was
actually going down the wrong path.
He was abandoning Haloha in a way so unlike the people who are
looking in other movements, reform conservative movements
who are looking to use a circle, circumstance, circumstance as an
opportunity to move. Away from Aloha.
Berkovitz was looking at historical circumstances as a
way to to deepen our commitment to Aloha.
Because the only way it could be continued to be relevant is if
we look at the changes and, and the way this is the way that
Aloha been done forever. You know you have.
You'd go to a rabbi. And you'd ask him a question.
And it might be give a different answer than he gave.
Different people and different answers.
And it wasn't showing the the the Torah was less valid.
It was showing the the Torah was was could survive in every in
every possible scenario. Dynamic dynamic.
That's that's the difference. Yeah.
OK. All right, And how do you view
their different legacies? It's well, if Soloveitchik
gained more prominence than Berkowitz, more known, more
celebrated in a way, or more studied, maybe that's a better
word, right? Why do you think that is?
And why do you think that Roberkowitz should be considered
more relevant today? So.
First of all, I can't tell you why.
I mean, it is like a teleological question of why the
rub was more successful than, you know, than Roberkowitz.
It might have been chance, historical circumstances,
personality, and you know, decisions that they made to go
to one place or another. I think that it's incredibly
important for me to emphasize that Rev Salvage did an amazing
thing in America together with others, but Rev Salvage
certainly did is that he was, he kind of saved Orthodoxy in
America and maybe, you know, in other parts of the world as
well. By taking a more, you can call
it extreme. You can call it determine
whatever, whatever the word you want to use is stands on the
influx of on the on the formalism of halacha.
He wasn't going to allow all these changes to be, to come in
and undermine Orthodoxy. And, and it's hard for us to
know now because, you know, we, we live in a time when Orthodoxy
is on the ascent and you can get a kosher of, you know, meal in
every city and you can, there's arrows in there.
We don't, we don't feel a threat.
But in the 1950s, it was not like that 1940s fifties people
thought Orthogher was just going to disappear.
And it was through the efforts of people like Rav Salvatrik,
who said, no, I'm going to put I'm going to draw a line in the
sand. There's not going to be mixed
seating and there's not going to be driving the Shoal.
And there's not going to be, you know, many of these changes
that, you know, that people want to, to allow.
And by doing that, he said, OK, Orthodoxy can survive and
orthodoxy can thrive. And that was really important.
That was a continuation of what his grandfather had done.
And, and his great grandfather and, and in that he was, he was
different than them in the sense that he, he embraced Zionism,
but he was similar to them. And the fact that he realized
history could be a threat to, to halacha and his work.
I don't know, you know, I don't think you the three of us.
And who knows else would have been be, be sitting there today
in an Orthodox world. If, if, if Lajic hadn't made
those hadn't made those efforts and not in a fully already way.
In other words, he didn't have to say we're going to be
isolated from the rest of the world to do that.
That you could do. But then how would that survive
either? That doesn't that doesn't
necessarily show that that could work.
He was shown you can be modern orthotics.
You can be, I don't know if you use that word, but he could
definitely you could be involved in this world and still be
committed to Aloha and study the secular subjects, philosophy and
literature and everything else. And you're and you and you can
be committed to to Judaism without giving up on your
halachic principles. So that's what we're solid age.
And I think that was something that his students were able to
carry out with him and that was something that they were, you
know, his students and that was students, students and so on.
And, and they, and that was probably important to his
success, right? There's always, you know, to a
degree conservatism, it's definitely lowercase, lowercase,
see conservative. But when you're, when you have a
kind of a, a lowercase conservative approach, you can
people feel more comfortable. And so probably that to a large
degree is what contributed to success.
But I think that there's things going on now that, you know,
they both died, you know, so they died in 1993 and Rickwood
side in 1992 that they couldn't, they didn't anticipate, they
didn't see, they didn't fully see the survival of orthodoxy in
a way, even by the 90s, it was there, but it wasn't the same
level that it that we see now 30 years later.
What are the challenges? Orthodoxy, I don't think is
threatened by the former conservative.
That doesn't seem to me to be the threat.
You know, they have, they have their lanes.
We have our lanes. You know it's not I.
Don't know. Maybe in some particular
community here and there, but in general we have a, you know, we
have self-confidence to to say what we believe in and we follow
and so on. What is what has changed are
this there's been a lot of the you know, the numbers of
immigrants to Israel that has grown dramatically in the
decades since they passed the importance of Israeli you should
vote and even when people don't don't live in America, it's like
we live in Israel, but they go to you should vote and major
short and seminaries in Israel and they come back home.
Suddenly Israel is much more central to Orthodoxy than have
been in the past. And So what is the what is the
challenge to orthodoxy today? I think it comes from people who
want to who are committed to Halahan, but they they want to
have Aloha to fit their values as they understand them.
It's not they're not like deciding all this Holocaust and
programs will leave Orthodoxy and you can find it in all kinds
of ways and different and not always in the same boxes.
You know, you can have how people wearing tail it.
That was something that was kind of bottom up.
People decide they want to do it.
No one forced you to wear tail on your seat.
You could talk about kit nyot the way that ashrazim have come
to some Ashrazim come to reject Kit Nyot harabite.
Certainly in the news. These days, without going into
any my own particular opinions about it is definitely a bottom
up thing, right? The rabbis were saying no and
people saying sure, I you know, I want to do it.
It's important to me. It gives me spiritual value,
whatever it. Is and and and.
Probably most dramatically, all of them is the role of women in
Judaism, right? You know the role of women in.
Judaism, going to the army for religious girls, all these
things. People aren't asking questions
in the sense that they asked, you know, they didn't say, oh,
can I do this? And if they say no, they're,
they're moving forward and they're and they're leading, but
they're. Doing it out of a commitment to
Aloha and for. That I think you need to, you
need to have a halacha that responds to those changes
because otherwise you're going to, you know, it's, it'll be,
it'll be unchecked. You want to make sure that Aloha
system works and and, and and responds to it.
And I think that this was historically the way that
halacha worked right there. What before the Enlightenment,
when people go to rabbi and ask them a question and you can see
them open up to vote, you're going to see different answers
for different generations. It wasn't like, you know, no
one's going to be shocked to see that.
But then there became a crisis. The crisis was reacting to that
crisis. I think while we're still having
issues with it, it's not the same as it was before.
And so a a returning understanding the purpose of
Halahan. Remember we talked about the
instrumentalism. That's something that's missing.
You could talk about making, you know, if you want to make and
we're not going to politics, but just people have an idea of how
they want the Jewish state to run.
How can Halaha Silver roll, Brookwood talked about all the
time he was saying. You know the.
Traffic law should be based on Halaha and you could have all
the, you know, medical ethics and all these are things that
has something to say about because the purpose is trying to
make the society better. So that's something that that's
something that they both that I think that makes him relevant
now in ways and I think that is. Showing his his growing
popularity, you know, you see people reading his books and
some of the books, some of it just again, because books are
recently published, they were books published by the Shalim
Institute. And now Maggie has published
some and others have published different works by him.
There's Hagadot and Hagadahvis and a lot of different works.
But I think. It's, it's, you know, the, the
time is ripe in a way that hasn't been before.
This was an amazing discussion. Thank you, really thank.
You so much. And before we go again, if you
could tell everybody where they could find you.
If you want to plug anything, please let us know.
Gosh. Well, I have essays out here or
there. I guess you can just spell my
name and you'll probably find I write a lot about Hebrew
language and the origin of Hebrew words occasionally.
Right now essays about Tanakh and Jewish philosophy.
You know I will. Continue to find these topics of
interest and then continue. Like letting people know.
Nothing. You know, I'm working now on an
essay about, I think this could be a really interesting one
about the literary approach to Knox study and how that could be
a kind of revolution in the way people bridging gaps in in
understanding. Of the Torah and understanding
of faith in ways that I think we're also, I mentioned like the
time is ripe. I think the time is ripe for
that as well. So people, people I'm following,
people like Rabbi David Foreman and Professor Yoni Grossman who
are revolutionaries in this thing, finally were there and
maybe people can start reaching out to knock on ways they
haven't done before. So that's I'm not there.
Robbie Kerwin, thank you so much.
We really appreciate it. I really learned a lot right
now. We hope to have you on again.
In fact, this essay that you were talking about right now
that you're in the process of is, is right up our alley.
That's something we're very interested in.
We, we're big fans of the the Gooch method and its potential
in the larger scheme of the Jewish world.
You're a very forward thinking, practical thinker and you're
very faithful when you when you discuss, when you discuss
historical figures or or or whatever it is that you're
discussing, you discuss it with with in a very straight way.
You're not into taking sides. You're into understanding and
then trying to extract from that and understand what might be
better going forward today. And we really appreciate your
insight and thank you for everything.
We appreciate it and stay safe as we're filming this right now,
as we're interviewing him right now.
It's there was as well. I just sent a lot of rockets
into Israel and we're hoping and praying that everything works
out and comes to. Conclusion.
Thank you very much for the opportunity.
To talk to you guys. Thank you.