Dilemmas On Screen: A Jewish Perspective

Inglourious Basterds (2009) gives us a fictional account of Jewish-American soldiers hunting Nazis behind enemy lines and doing some truly brutal things to them. But does fighting an evil enemy mean that anything goes? In this episode of Dilemmas On Screen: A Jewish Perspective, we’re joined by Rabbi Jon Jaffit, a rabbi with nearly a decade of experience in the Canadian Armed Forces and a particular interest in military ethics, to examine the Basterds through the lens of both Jewish law and the modern laws of war. What exactly is a war crime? Does the Torah recognize limits on how soldiers may treat the enemy? We explore the killing of captured soldiers, torture, scalping, psychological warfare, and the Basterds’ practice of carving swastikas into surviving Nazis. Then we turn to Hans Landa’s extraordinary deal with the Allies. Can you let a monster escape justice if doing so could end a war and save thousands of lives? And once you make a deal with the enemy, are you obligated to keep your word? Along the way, we discover some surprising differences and similarities between international humanitarian law and the Jewish approach to warfare, and confront a larger question at the heart of the film: when fighting evil, how do you make sure you don’t lose your own moral boundaries? I am excited to welcome Rabbi Jonathan Jaffit to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Jaffit was raised in Sault Ste. Marie, ON. He moved to Toronto in 2002 to pursue an undergraduate degree in Life Sciences at the University of Toronto and subsequently completed a Master's degree in History at York. During his university tenure, Rabbi Jaffit was actively involved in Jewish campus life, serving on the boards of Alpha Epsilon Pi, Hillel and the Zionist Students' Association. Rabbi Jaffit, together with his wife and sons, lived in Israel from 2009-2014, where he pursued advanced rabbinical studies in Jerusalem. There he also taught in a number of Jewish educational institutions. When he's not busy engaging Jewish students, Captain Jaffit can often be found serving in the Canadian Armed Forces as the assistant brigade chaplain in 32 CBG.

Is it more important to be right, or to do the right thing? In this episode of Dilemmas On Screen, join me and Rabbi Rick Fox (MEOR Penn) as we turn to Curb Your Enthusiasm and Larry David’s hilarious obsession with social etiquette. Why should you have to stop and chat with someone? Why say “thank you for your service” simply because everyone else does? And how Jewish should you appear when you find yourself in a place where Jews aren’t necessarily welcome? The three Curb scenarios we cover are classics - the "stop and chat", the "thank you for your service" to a vet (with PTSD), and the infamous Palestinian chicken episode. We explore deeper Jewish ideas about gratitude, humility, sensitivity to others, and going beyond the bare minimum required by Jewish law. We also discuss the difference between doing what is technically required and becoming the kind of person who does the “right thing,” and why sometimes winning a social argument can mean losing the bigger moral battle. As always, we use the comedy and absurdity of popular television to ask some surprisingly serious questions about how Judaism thinks we should treat other people—and the kind of people we should strive to become. I am excited to welcome Rabbi Rick Fox back to the podcast as he joins us on this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Fox formerly joined us three times. First, to discuss the Matrix, and what the Torah approach is to taking the blue pill or the red pill. Second, to discuss Pulp Fiction and the Jewish perspective on the events in our lives, whether it is Divine intervention or luck. Third, to discuss how Judaism views intermarriage, through the lens of Nobody Wants This. Rabbi Fox is the Executive Director of MEOR Penn, which is a Jewish outreach organization, servicing the Jewish community at the University of Pennsylvania as a campus chaplain, educator and mentor. A graduate of the Wharton School of Business at Penn with a minor in music. Rabbi Fox began his career in marketing consulting even as he remained an avid musician. While on sabbatical in Israel, Rabbi Fox developed a passion for Jewish education, eventually returning to teach Jewish students at his alma mater in 2015. Rabbi Fox resides in Philadelphia with his wife and four children. His wife, Rivkah Fox, is an active shadchanit i.e. matchmaker and founder of BlindFate, a dating platform for Jews all over the world. You can find Rabbi Rick Fox online on his podcast, “So, What Does Judaism Say About..?”, which is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Amazon, and on Instagram @rabbirickfox. You can find his wife Rivkah Fox on Instagram @rivkahfox. If you enjoy this episode, please leave us a five star review, share it with your friends, and hit follow! That’s the best way to grow our following, and feel free to leave a movie suggestion and dilemma in the comments. We’d love to hear from you. Rabbi Rick Fox: https://www.instagram.com/rabbirickfox/ Rivkah Fox: https://www.instagram.com/rivkahfox/

What if the afterlife isn’t a reward you cash in after death—but the natural consequence of who you became during your life? In this episode of Dilemmas On Screen, join Rabbi Moshe Friedman and I as we dive into The Good Place and its surprisingly deep exploration of heaven, hell, morality, and what happens after we die. We unpack the show's different versions of the afterlife and compare them with Jewish thought. Is divine judgment really a cosmic point system? Should everyone be judged by the same standard when we all start life with radically different circumstances? And if the afterlife is about becoming a better person, why wait until then to start? The conversation explores the Jewish understanding of heaven: that the person you build yourself into in this world determines your ability to experience the next. We also discuss free will, Rav Dessler's understanding of free will, reincarnation, doing mitzvot for the wrong reasons, unintended consequences, and why Judaism sees this world—not the next—as the place of effort and growth. Ultimately, The Good Place raises a profound question: Are we earning our way into heaven, or are we becoming the kind of person who can experience it? A fascinating conversation about one of television's most philosophical shows—and what Judaism has to say about where we're ultimately heading, and how to get there. Rabbi Friedman is a Jewish educator, musician, spoken word artist, video essayist, and author. He has spoken and performed for audiences around the world, and continues to explore innovative ways of spreading Jewish wisdom through art, music, and media. You can find his work at rav-mo.com and on his YouTube channel "Mensch Sense" at https://www.youtube.com/@menschsense1 . If you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review and share with your friends. We also welcome comments and reviews with suggestions for future episode ideas as we continue to dissect moral dilemmas in the biggest movies and TV shows out there, all from a Jewish perspective.

Should Batman be arrested? Was Captain America right to reject government oversight in Captain America: Civil War? Should Superman answer to the law, or only to his own conscience? From Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, and The Avengers to The Boys and Dexter, superheroes and vigilantes constantly face the timeless moral question: is it ever right to take the law into your own hands? In this episode of Dilemmas On Screen: A Jewish Perspective, Rabbi Jack Abramowitz and I explore superhero ethics, vigilantism, justice, and the rule of law through the lens of Torah and Jewish ethics. Together we discuss: Can anyone ever be morally or legally above the law? Is Batman a hero—or simply a vigilante breaking the law? Was Captain America right to reject the Sokovia Accords and government oversight? Do extraordinary abilities create extraordinary obligations? Is Spider-Man justified in hiding his identity from the people he loves? What separates a true hero from someone who simply believes they know better than everyone else? Drawing on comic books and blockbuster films and franchises, we examine questions about justice, authority, personal responsibility, truth, and the ethical limits of power. Whether you're a fan of Marvel, DC, comic books, philosophy, law, ethics, or Jewish thought, this episode tackles one of the biggest questions in superhero fiction: Who watches the watchmen? If you enjoy thoughtful discussions about movies, superheroes, morality, and Jewish ethics, be sure to follow Dilemmas On Screen: A Jewish Perspective for more conversations exploring the greatest moral dilemmas in film and television. I am excited to welcome Rabbi Jack Abramowitz, MS Ed., to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Abramowitz is a writer, editor and educator with decades of experience in Jewish outreach. Rabbi Abramowitz runs the Orthodox Union's OU Torah website and serves as educational correspondent for Jew in the City. He is the author of twelve books, including The Nach Yomi Companion, The Complete Targum Onkelos and Ask Rabbi Jack, published by Kodesh Press and available on Amazon.

What makes us human—and could artificial intelligence ever cross that line? Join Rabbi David Kosofsky and I as we explore the moral and philosophical questions raised by Ex Machina. As a brief overview, the movie is about programmer Caleb who is invited to evaluate Ava, an advanced AI robot, and conclude whether she passes the Turing test. Caleb becomes convinced that Ava is more than a machine. The central question of this episode is whether Caleb owes Ava, and other AI-robots like her, a moral duty? In the course of this discussion, we cover whether intelligence alone makes someone a person? If an AI appears conscious, do we owe it moral consideration? Generally speaking, what does Judaism teach about consciousness, suffering, free will, and the soul? Along the way, we compare secular and Torah perspectives on morality, discuss the difference between intelligence and consciousness, and ask whether AI could ever truly become sentient. The conversation ultimately turns inward: if machines can outperform us intellectually, what remains uniquely human? Drawing on Torah sources, philosophy, and neuroscience, we explore why self-awareness, morality, spirituality, and inner knowledge may be the qualities that define personhood, and why the rise of AI challenges us to rethink what truly matters in life. I am excited to welcome Rabbi David Kosofsky to this episode to answer our questions. Originally from Massachusetts, Rabbi Kosofsky now lives in Jerusalem with his wife and three kids. Rabbi Kosofsky teaches a weekly class at Machon Yaakov delving into the mystery of consciousness. His sessions integrate Torah sources, meditative practice, and modern psychological frameworks to explore the essence of human experience. Alongside his Torah learning, Rabbi David has extensive experience practicing and teaching insight meditation, including multiple long-form silent retreats and years of consistent daily practice. He holds a double major from Washington University in St. Louis in Philosophy–Neuroscience–Psychology and in Spanish Literature.

What can Cinderella teach us about Jewish ethics? In this episode, join Rabbi Gershon Schaffel for a surprisingly deep journey through one of the world’s most famous fairy tales, explore questions you probably never expected Cinderella to raise: What obligations does Judaism place on caring for orphans? Does a child have to honor a stepmother — especially an unfair one? Could Cinderella wear a dress made from discarded materials? Is marrying royalty considered ideal in Jewish thought? Is marrying INTO royalty restricted to only a select few? Is there any Jewish concept similar to a “fairy godmother”? What does Judaism think about benefiting from miracles? Is there any benefit to returning one shoe - to clarify, if I lose one of a pair of earrings, am I liable for both earrings, or for only one? Whether you grew up with the 1950 animated classic or know Cinderella through modern retellings, this episode uncovers layers of meaning hiding beneath the glass slipper. I am excited to welcome Rabbi Gershon Eliezer Schaffel to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Schaffel was raised and continues to live in Skokie, Illinois, with his family. He received his bachelor’s degree from the Hebrew Theological College and his Rabbinical Ordination from Rabbi Shlomo Morgenstern, former Dean of Hebrew Theological College. Rabbi Schaffel received Yadin Yadin semichah in the area of Jewish Business Law which qualifies him to serve as a judge in a Jewish Court (Bais Din) involving civil matters. In addition to serving as the Rabbi of Young Israel of Skokie since 1995, Rabbi Schaffel teaches at several schools in the Chicago Jewish community and leads one of the most well attended Daf Yomi shiurim. Rabbi Schaffel also writes articles for Business Weekly, Daf Yomi Digest, and Mishna Brurah Yomi which are distributed worldwide. He lectures on a variety of topics for many different community organizations. For more Rabbi Schaffel, please follow his podcast at https://listen.jewishpodcasts.fm/rabbigershonschaffel for links to various podcast platforms.

In one of the most iconic endings in film history, Rose closes her eyes after telling the story of the Titanic—and returns, somehow, to Jack. For many, it’s a beautiful and emotional conclusion. But for others, it raises a deeply uncomfortable question: after a lifetime of marriage, children, and family, why does Rose’s final vision center on a man she knew for just a few days? In this episode, we explore the tension at the heart of Titanic: is this a story of true love—or something more complicated? The characters Jack Dawson and Rose DeWitt Bukater captured the hearts and imaginations of a generation. Joined by marriage counselor Rabbi Raffi Bilek, LCSW and relationship coach, we take a step back from the emotion and ask a fundamental question: does Judaism believe in love at first sight? What exactly are we feeling in those powerful, immediate connections—and can they be trusted as a guide for lifelong decisions? Through the lens of Torah and real-world relationship experience, we examine the difference between passion and commitment, between infatuation and love. We explore what it actually means to build a lasting relationship. Finally, we revisit the controversy surrounding Rose’s final choice and consider whether her story is as romantic as it seems, or whether it is a culmination of an unrealistic fantasy. I am excited to welcome Rabbi Raffi Bilek to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Bilek was born in Montreal, Canada, and moved to the U.S. as a teenager. He went to college at Brown University in Providence, RI, where he studied computer science and graduated with honors. After college he spent a year teaching underprivileged children in a school in Brooklyn, and then moved to Jerusalem where he remained for six blessed years. Rabbi Bilek has a master's degree in social work from Yeshiva University, semicha from Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg of the Jerusalem Beis Din and Rabbi Noach Weinberg zt''l of Aish HaTorah, and a clinical social work license for Maryland. His experience includes work in psychiatric outpatient settings, family therapy institutes, domestic violence units, and community service agencies. He has worked with individuals, couples, and families, with children, teenagers, adults, and the elderly. Rabbi Bilek is presently working as the Program Director for the Montgomery County Abused Persons Program in Rockville, MD and the director of the Baltimore Therapy Center, LLC. ​Rabbi Bilek currently learns masechet Brachos and Shabbos, and the commentary of Rav Schwab on the Torah. He speaks English, Hebrew, French and Spanish, enjoys playing Scrabble and Bananagrams and telling good (and bad) jokes. He lives in Baltimore, Maryland with four beautiful daughters and his very special wife who is his greatest support in life. Check out his website and books below. https://www.frumcounselor.com/about https://www.thecommunicationbook.com/ https://www.amazon.com/First-Ten-Letters-Secrets-Universe/dp/1952370787

In this third episode tackling The Lord of the Rings, Rabbi Yoni Ganger (MEOR: Harvard) and I tackle one of the saga’s most powerful moral questions: Was Frodo right to show mercy to Gollum? Tolkien famously suggests that it was precisely the mercy of Bilbo and Frodo that allowed the quest to destroy the Ring to succeed. Without pity, there would have been no salvation. But from a Torah perspective—is that really true? In this episode of Dilemmas on Screen – A Jewish Perspective, we explore: What does Judaism actually mean by mercy (רחמים)? Is mercy always virtuous—or can it sometimes be destructive? When does compassion become irresponsibility? Does Judaism believe that “putting good energy into the world” guarantees good outcomes? Are there people who are beyond redemption? And perhaps most unsettling: can empathy itself sometimes be dangerous? We examine powerful Torah sources, including: The story of Yosef and his brothers Shaul and Amalek The destruction of the Second Temple Talmudic discussions about capital punishment and restraint We also analyze whether Gollum was truly redeemable—and whether Frodo’s empathy clouded his judgment. Is mercy about canceling justice? Or is it about delaying justice to allow for growth? And most importantly: when someone is actively dangerous, does the Torah expect us to stay merciful—or to act? A nuanced, timely, and deeply relevant discussion. To tackle these questions, I am excited to welcome back Rabbi Yoni Ganger to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Ganger formerly joined us on two podcast episodes The Lord of the Rings, "Was Frodo's Failure a Moral Failure", and for Whiplash, "Pushing to Greatness or Pushing Too Far?" Rabbi Ganger has lived in Boston with his family for the last 11 years working on the Harvard campus as the program director of MEOR, a Jewish outreach organization. He also runs the MEOR BOSTON Jewish Young Professional program. In addition to Jewish education, Rabbi Ganger works as a therapist at the Center for Anxiety, a private practice therapy group with several offices in the Northeast that specializes in treating a wide variety of mental health issues using evidence-based treatments. Rabbi Ganger aims to weave psychology with Jewish wisdom both on campus and in his practice in order to best serve both his students and his clients. Rabbi Ganger also has two of his own podcasts: Realizing Potential and MEOR Mastery covering the basics of everyday Jewish life. Please reach out at yganger@meor.org for any questions about Judaism, Psychology, or Lord of the Rings. MEOR Mastery: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/meor-mastery-master-the-basics-of-jewish-practice/id1799495092 Realizing Potential Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/41WAyzvlRt4kK6GbyFgiKW The source mentioned in the .edu article can be found here: https://pillars.taylor.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=inklings_forever

In this follow-up episode to our Nobody Wants This discussion on intermarriage, we “double-click” on a listener question we didn’t fully unpack last time: what ARE Jewish values — and how do they differ from the broader Western values most of us grow up with today? We move beyond surface-level differences like holidays or synagogue vs. church and explore deeper theological ideas and how these ideas may manifest themselves culturally. From Judaism’s love of argument and debate (rooted in Torah and Talmud) to its radical view that the physical world—food, work, money, pleasure—can be a path to holiness rather than an obstacle, we examine how Jewish ideas filter down into everyday behavior, humor, ambition, and even a readiness to challenge authority. The conversation also tackles big questions head-on: • Why Jews argue—and why that’s a feature, not a bug • Why food, wine, and physical enjoyment play such a central role in Jewish life • How Judaism differs from other religions in its relationship to politics, economics, and the material world • What “chosen people” actually means (hint: responsibility, not superiority) • Why being commanded can be spiritually greater than acting purely on instinct Along the way, we draw on biblical stories, Talmudic principles, pop culture (from Meet the Parents to Harry Potter), and personal anecdotes to show how these values still show up today—sometimes in ways people don’t even realize. If you’ve ever wondered whether intermarriage creates real value conflicts—or whether those conflicts run deeper than December decorations—this episode gets to the core of it. I am excited to bring back Rabbi Moshe Friedman on the podcast. He formerly joined us for our first episode released, Harry Potter, and whether Harry owes a debt of gratitude to the Dursleys, despite their mistreatment, in addition to our more recent episode on The Avengers: Was Thanos Right? Do the Ends Justify the Means? Rabbi Friedman is a Jewish educator, musician, spoken word artist, video essayist, and author. He has spoken and performed for audiences around the world, and continues to explore innovative ways of spreading Jewish wisdom through art, music, and media. You can find his work at rav-mo.com and on his YouTube channel "Mensch Sense" at https://www.youtube.com/@menschsense1 . If you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review and share with your friends. We also welcome comments and reviews with suggestions for future episode ideas as we continue to dissect moral dilemmas in the biggest movies and TV shows out there, all from a Jewish perspective.

In this episode, we welcome back Rabbi Rick Fox to discuss Nobody Wants This, the Netflix rom-com that sneaks a very real Jewish dilemma into what looks like a light, funny love story. The show follows Joanne, a non-Jewish woman, and Noah, a Reform rabbi, who fall for each other and quickly realize that their relationship raises some uncomfortable questions neither of them can ignore. We dig into the core issue the series keeps circling: intermarriage. The series follows Joanne, a non-Jewish woman, and Noah, a rabbi, as they fall for each other—only to realize that love alone doesn’t resolve the deep religious, cultural, and communal tensions their relationship creates. We look at Noah’s tension as a Reform rabbi who’s trying to be honest about who he is and what he represents, and Joanne’s parallel struggle—whether conversion is something she truly wants, or whether pretending it doesn’t make her uncomfortable is already a problem. Along the way, we talk about what Judaism can bend on, what it can’t, and why these questions still hit so close to home for so many people. Here are a few questions we’d like answered: Well, let’s get it out of the way - intermarriage. Good, great, grand, wonderful? Or disaster, spiritual annihilation? Bring it on. What’s so bad about it? Judaism does value change. Judaism changes. We adapt. That’s how we’ve survived. So what’s so wrong with this? Why can’t Judaism change and just allow this to happen? Regarding conversion: there is something authentic about Joanne being real. She doesn’t know that she wants to convert, and she is willing to break off the relationship for her. Similarly, Noah does say, “I don’t want to be the person who’s asking you to be someone different.” Is it wrong because the kids won’t be Jewish? What’s the source for the mother determining Jewish kids, anyway? Seriously, though - would this be better if it was a non-Jewish boy marrying a Jewish girl? The kids will be Jewish! I am excited to welcome Rabbi Rick Fox back to the podcast as he joins us on this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Fox formerly joined us twice. First, to discuss the Matrix, and what the Torah approach is to taking the blue pill or the red pill. Second, to discuss Pulp Fiction and the Jewish perspective on the events in our lives, whether it is Divine intervention or luck. Rabbi Fox is the Executive Director of MEOR Penn, which is a Jewish outreach organization, servicing the Jewish community at the University of Pennsylvania as a campus chaplain, educator and mentor. A graduate of the Wharton School of Business at Penn with a minor in music. Rabbi Fox began his career in marketing consulting even as he remained an avid musician. While on sabbatical in Israel, Rabbi Fox developed a passion for Jewish education, eventually returning to teach Jewish students at his alma mater in 2015. Rabbi Fox resides in Philadelphia with his wife and four children. His wife, Rivkah Fox, is an active shadchanit i.e. matchmaker and founder of BlindFate, a dating platform for Jews all over the world. You can find Rabbi Rick Fox online on his podcast, “So, What Does Judaism Say About..?”, which is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Amazon, and on Instagram @rabbirickfox. You can find his wife Rivkah Fox on Instagram @rivkahfox. If you enjoy this episode, please leave us a five star review, share it with your friends, and hit follow! That’s the best way to grow our following, and feel free to leave a movie suggestion and dilemma in the comments. We’d love to hear from you. Rabbi Rick Fox: https://www.instagram.com/rabbirickfox/ Rivkah Fox: https://www.instagram.com/rivkahfox/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3Skgi4px0z692jdlwSeiRz Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/so-what-does-judaism-say-about/id1632137067 Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/66b36dd4-0052-40a4-b3c4-40241ed7616e/so-what-does-judaism-say-about

In this episode, join Rabbi Yechezkel Freundlich and I as we dig into the world of The Office and explore the ethics of pranking. Jim’s elaborate schemes on Dwight are some of the most iconic moments in the show — but are they actually okay? What’s the Torah’s view on pranking people in general? Is it just a wholesome way of getting a laugh? Or is this just bullying, albeit orchestrated by a charming bully on an adult dork - and if so, can pranking ever be a positive form of behavior? Can pranking build camaraderie and strengthen a team? The Office is set in the small city of Scranton, Pennsylvania, and centers around characters working for Dunder Mifflin, a company that sells paper. The company has multiple branches, but we’re mostly focused on the Scranton branch. There are probably about a dozen characters in Scranton, which includes the manager, secretary, salesmen, accountants. Two of these characters are Jim Halpert and Dwight Schrute, both members of the sales staff. Jim is funny, charming, and easygoing; Dwight is intense, literal, and entirely devoted to rules, procedures, and duty. Their dynamic — and especially Jim’s pranks at Dwight’s expense — becomes a defining element of the show. Pam Beesly, the receptionist (who Jim later marries), often joins the fun. Over the course of the series, we see a wide range of pranks: - Jim gift-wraps Dwight’s desk, chair, and office supplies. - Jim sends “Future Dwight” faxes warning Dwight of poisoned coffee, causing Dwight to slap a coworker’s mug out of his hands. - Dwight files formal complaints about everyone calling him “Dwayne,” a bloody glove appearing in his drawer, and hitting himself with his phone after Jim gradually weighted it with nickels, and then removed all of the nickels in one shot. Jim becomes the victim of a long con when Dwight teams up with a coworker who loves meatballs, turning the tables on Jim for an entire week. This leads us into the following questions: What’s the Torah’s general view of pranks? Positives, negatives, and why? Go through each prank – what are the issues in each? Dwight getting revenge – can a person start pranking back? Or should he take the high road? When does a prank go from being a friendly joke, to just being mean? What’s the difference between pranking and playing a computer game for teambuilding purposes? When is a prank just a cute way of leading in to a delightful surprise? (the wedding) I am excited to welcome Rabbi Yechezkel Freundlich to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Freundlich serves as the Senior Rabbi of Congregation Beth Sholom in Lawrence, New York. Rabbi Freundlich received his Semicha in 2005 from Baltimore’s Ner Israel Rabbinical College, where he also earned a Masters of Talmudic Law. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from the University of Maryland (1998), and a Master of Science Degree in Professional Counseling from Georgia State University (2006). With his warm smile and engaging personality, Rabbi Freundlich has established himself as a master builder of relationships, accessible and available both for personal or halachik counseling. Utilizing his counseling background, he has been involved in sensitive community issues. Another passion of his is teaching. Beyond the traditional high school classroom where Rabbi Freundlich has taught for many years, Rabbi Freundlich utilizes various models to connect with a wide range of people of varied backgrounds, ages and education, such as formal sermons or a lecture series, a marriage and parenting workshop, or even through on-line videos and podcasts. Together with his wife Rifki, the Freundlichs are parents to seven children. Rabbi Freundlich can be contacted by emailing rabbifreundlich@bethsholomlawrence.org . You can also listen to Rabbi Freundlich on his synagogue's podcast, The Congregation Beth Sholom Podcast, links below. Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/congregation-beth-sholom-rabbi-yechezkel-freundlich/id1642970440 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6wb3l2ezvlWnLfgsukZFij?si=82431809dec04ad4&nd=1&dlsi=fa603ed493b6469a

In this episode, join Rabbi Moshe Friedman (a.k.a. "Rav Mo") in addressing the shocking twist at the end of Avengers: Infinity War - Thanos succeeds. Equipped with the Infinity Stones, Thanos snaps his fingers and wipes out half of all life across the universe. Thanos did this to spare the remaining half what he understood was certain doom. Was Thanos right? In confronting this question, Rav Mo and I address a question, perhaps THE question, that has bothered humanity for centuries, even millennia: can the ends justify the means? As a quick overview, the Avengers are a series of movies about a team of superheroes that defend humanity from those who intend to inflict harm on the human race. Avengers: Infinity War introduces Thanos, a powerful being seeking to collect all six Infinity Stones. Once combined, the stones gives him incredible power. Thanos’s stated goal is to wipe out half of all living beings in the universe to restore “balance.” His motivation stems from his home planet, Titan, which collapsed due to overpopulation and resource exhaustion. Thanos claims his plan is merciful and random — sparing future generations from suffering and starvation. The Avengers unite in their attempts to stop Thanos from wiping out half of all living beings. What makes Thanos so compelling as a villain is that he is not doing this for evil reasons - his motivations are to help people, to do good for others. As previously noted, Thanos recounts Titan’s downfall and frames his plan as an act of mercy. He claims the universe’s resources are finite and overpopulation will cause universal extinction. He insists the solution must be random, impartial, and absolute. No favoring the elite, the rich, the powerful. Thanos even goes so far as to put his own skin in the game - he learns that to obtain one of the six Infinity Stones, he must sacrifice someone he loves. Despite shedding tears, he kills his daughter Gamora, and in doing so shows the depth of his conviction. The film frames this as both a tragedy and as proof that he believes in his cause. After acquiring all six stones, and even being dealt what well could be a death blow, Thanos snaps his fingers, erasing half of all life. He then retreats to a quiet planet to watch the sunrise, seemingly at peace. He destroys the stones, giving up the extraordinary power they bestow, because he doesn’t want his decision to be reversed. Here are a few questions we’d like answered: In Torah thinking, how do we approach Thanos’ decision? Specifically, are we allowed to kill some people to save others? More broadly - do we believe that the ends justify the means? If the means are evil, but the result is good, what’s the Jewish perspective? Thanos clearly believed in what he was doing. He was willing to sacrifice his daughter - whom he loved. He wasn’t some evil madman cackling as he went along, ruining everyones lives out of spite. He did what he thought was necessary to HELP humanity. Does that mitigate the evil of his actions? Speaking of mitigating circumstances - he destroyed the infinity stones after he accomplished his mission. There is a saying - power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What does that say about his intentions if he clearly was not corrupted. He did what he did purely for the sake of what he thought was correct! Speaking of these two mitigating circumstances - is Thanos more dangerous because he genuinely believes he’s right? That, in a way, is scarier than an evil person knowing he’s evil. Here, Thanos genuinely believe in what he’s doing. Does this make it more terrifying and worthy of condemnation, or does this mitigate his evil? I am excited to bring back Rabbi Moshe Friedman on the podcast. He formerly joined us for our first episode released, Harry Potter, and whether Harry owes a debt of gratitude to the Dursleys, despite their mistreatment. Rabbi Friedman is a Jewish educator, musician, spoken word artist, video essayist, and author. He has spoken and performed for audiences around the world, and continues to explore innovative ways of spreading Jewish wisdom through art, music, and media. You can find his work at rav-mo.com and on his YouTube channel "Mensch Sense" at https://www.youtube.com/@menschsense1 . If you enjoy this podcast, please leave us a review and share with your friends. We also welcome comments and reviews with suggestions for future episode ideas as we continue to dissect moral dilemmas in the biggest movies and TV shows out there, all from a Jewish perspective.

In this episode, join Rabbi Rick Fox and I in unraveling one of the most common questions we encounter on an even daily basis: is Gd actively involved in our lives? Are things that happen to us coincidence, or purposefully orchestrated by our Creator? “We got lucky” v. “What happened here was a miracle and I want you to acknowledge it!” Who’s right, Vincent (Travolta) or Jules (Samuel L. Jackson)? As a quick overview: Pulp Fiction (1994) is a nonlinear crime film directed by Quentin Tarantino. In one segment, hitmen Jules and Vincent go to retrieve a briefcase for their boss, Marsellus Wallace. After killing a man named Brett and Brett’s friend, they’re unexpectedly shot at by another friend who was hiding in the bathroom. The gun is fired multiple times at close range… but not one bullet hits Jules or Vincent. They both look at each other in shock and then kill the guy. Jules looks at the wall behind him, and sees a bunch of bullet holes exactly where he was. Jules and Vincent then argue over whether it was a miracle. After the shooter misses all his shots, Jules insists it was “divine intervention.” Vincent casually brushes it off, calling it luck. Things like “Chill, Jules, this stuff happens” Jules cannot accept this. Among the things he says in response are, “Wrong, wrong, this stuff doesn’t just happen. Don’t blow this off. We should be dead. This was a miracle and I want you to acknowledge it.” Jules becomes convinced this was a sign from God and decides to retire from his life of crime. Vincent mocks this, refusing to change. He doesn’t care and shrugs it off. Later in the film, Vincent is killed — while Jules, having “walked the Earth,” survives. With that, we have a few questions we’d like answered: Was it a miracle — or did they just get lucky? What’s the difference, anyway? From a Torah perspective, what distinguishes a miracle from a coincidence? The Torah has examples of people interpreting events as signs — but it can go either way - sometimes it’s positive. But we do have a prohibition against being menachesh, or superstitious, or taking omens seriously. So where’s the line between seeing Hashem’s hand in events, versus reading too much into events? If I miss my bus, is it because G-d willed it, or because I should have gotten there a little earlier? What’s the Torah view on being shaken by life events? Are we expected to change only from trauma, or also from noticing small divine patterns? Is belief in miracles inherently irrational — or can it be a form of wisdom? We can certainly see how the bathroom guy missing from point blank range with a huge handgun was a miracle for Jules and Vincent. Their lives were saved - but that miracle cost the bathroom guy his life. How do we respond to that? That miracle was great for the hit men and a disaster for the shooter. So, firstly: why would a murderer merit a miracle? Secondly, it doesn’t seem fair that the miracle came at the expense of another man’s life! How does the Torah handle that? I am excited to welcome Rabbi Rick Fox back to the podcast as he joins us on this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Fox formerly joined us to discuss the Matrix, and what the Torah approach is to taking the blue pill or the red pill. Rabbi Fox is the Executive Director of MEOR Penn, which is a Jewish outreach organization, servicing the Jewish community at the University of Pennsylvania as a campus chaplain, educator and mentor. A graduate of the Wharton School of Business at Penn with a minor in music. Rabbi Fox began his career in marketing consulting even as he remained an avid musician. While on sabbatical in Israel, Rabbi Fox developed a passion for Jewish education, eventually returning to teach Jewish students at his alma mater in 2015. Rabbi Fox resides in Philadelphia with his wife and four children. His wife, Rivkah Fox, is an active shadchanit i.e. matchmaker and founder of BlindFate, a dating platform for Jews all over the world. You can find Rabbi Rick Fox online on his podcast, “So, What Does Judaism Say About..?”, which is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Amazon, and on Instagram @rabbirickfox. You can find his wife Rivkah Fox on Instagram @rivkahfox. If you enjoy this episode, please leave us a five star review, share it with your friends, and hit follow! That’s the best way to grow our following, and feel free to leave a movie suggestion and dilemma in the comments. We’d love to hear from you. Rabbi Rick Fox: https://www.instagram.com/rabbirickfox/ Rivkah Fox: https://www.instagram.com/rivkahfox/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3Skgi4px0z692jdlwSeiRz Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/so-what-does-judaism-say-about/id1632137067 Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/66b36dd4-0052-40a4-b3c4-40241ed7616e/so-what-does-judaism-say-about

Join Rabbi Ganger and I in exploring the movie Whiplash and how far we can push our students, children - and ourselves - in pursuing our path to greatness. Was Terrence Fletcher a visionary mentor or an abusive tyrant? Whiplash follows Andrew Neiman is a 19-year-old jazz drummer at the elite Shaffer Conservatory, the best music school in the country. He is invited to join the top studio band led by Terence Fletcher, a highly respected but notoriously abusive conductor. Neiman is driven to be “one of the greats” and is confronted with Fletcher’s brutal teaching methods. Fletcher throws chairs at Neiman, insults him , and emotionally manipulates him — all in the name of pushing Neiman, and the other students, beyond what they think is possible. Andrew’s hands bleed, his relationships fall apart, and still he keeps drumming, determined to meet Fletcher’s impossible standards. But at what cost? Did Fletcher’s cruelty unlock Andrew’s genius, or did it cross a moral line that no goal can justify? In this episode, we explore the core dilemmas the film raises: Does Judaism endorse harsh teaching methods in pursuit of excellence? Is there a place in Torah or Jewish tradition for pushing students so hard they suffer, physically or emotionally, for their craft or their learning? Is it ethical for a teacher to manipulate students — even lie to them — if it produces greatness? Does fostering intense competition strengthen people, or does it warp them? And when ambition collides with love, who’s right — the dreamer who sacrifices everything, or the partner who might eventually resent coming second place to their spouse's goals? To tackle these questions, I am excited to welcome back Rabbi Yoni Ganger to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Ganger has lived in Boston with his family for the last 11 years working on the Harvard campus as the program director of MEOR, a Jewish outreach organization. He also runs the MEOR BOSTON Jewish Young Professional program. In addition to Jewish education, Rabbi Ganger works as a therapist at the Center for Anxiety, a private practice therapy group with several offices in the Northeast that specializes in treating a wide variety of mental health issues using evidence-based treatments. Rabbi Ganger aims to weave psychology with Jewish wisdom both on campus and in his practice in order to best serve both his students and his clients. Rabbi Ganger also has two of his own podcasts: Realizing Potential and MEOR Mastery covering the basics of everyday Jewish life. Please reach out at yganger@meor.org for any questions about Judaism, Psychology, or Lord of the Rings. MEOR Mastery: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/meor-mastery-master-the-basics-of-jewish-practice/id1799495092 Realizing Potential Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/41WAyzvlRt4kK6GbyFgiKW

Join R. Siderson for the classic question: who's the bigger hero, Frodo or Sam? A deeper look into what Judaism views as heroism. The Lord of the Rings follows Frodo, a hobbit who inherits a magical ring that turns out to be the One Ring, which was created by the Dark Lord Sauron to control Middle-earth. The only way to destroy the Ring is to bring it deep into Sauron’s territory, Mordor, and cast it into the fires of Mount Doom. Frodo volunteers for the mission and is joined by a fellowship to help him get to Mordor, including three other hobbits. One of those hobbits is Sam, who was Frodo’s gardener and who gets looped into the journey by accident. Eventually, at the end of the first movie, Frodo continues the journey alone. Sam, however, insists on joining Frodo. Frodo and Sam set out to Mordor together. Along the way, they’re hunted by Gollum, who had possessed the Ring for centuries. Gollum is corrupted by the Ring, and wants it back very badly. Sam rescues Frodo a few times throughout the journey, including from Shelob (a giant spider), from orcs who capture Frodo and, most poignantly, on Mt Doom itself, where Sam says “I can’t carry it [i.e., the Ring] for you, but I can carry you!” And he picks Frodo up and walks up the mountain. Frodo and Sam make it to Mt. Doom, and stand in front of the lava. It’s the perfect opportunity to throw the Ring in. Frodo, who had been succumbing to the Ring’s corruptive influence for months as he’s been carrying it, chooses not to throw the Ring in. At that moment, Gollum jumps on Frodo and is able to reclaim it. Gollum eventually falls into Mt. Doom, taking the Ring with him. The Ring is therefore destroyed. There have been debates for as long as Lord of the Rings has been in print as to who is the hero of the story? Or perhaps, who is the most important, or the biggest, hero? Is it Frodo, who carried the Ring? Or Sam, who carried Frodo, both literally and figuratively? View 1: Frodo Is the Bigger Hero Common Arguments: He bears the Ring — the ultimate burden, corrupting and painful. He voluntarily accepts a nearly impossible mission, knowing it could cost him his life and sanity. He resists the Ring for a very long time, longer than most could, even if he ultimately fails at the end. Gandalf, Galadriel, and others venerate him as a Ring-bearer who has earned rest and honor for his service. This view emphasizes self-sacrifice, moral struggle, and spiritual burden. “Frodo undertook a quest no one else dared.” Delving into a bit more detail, when it becomes clear the Ring cannot stay in the Shire (because Sauron and his minions know where it is), Frodo asks, “where must I go?” He voluntarily takes up the quest, despite the danger. Even once he brings it to Rivendell - all he supposedly agreed to do, until his betters can make a decision - he chooses to bear the Ring to Mordor. One of his most well-known quotes is, “I will take the Ring to Mordor, though I do not know the way.” At which point, eight others are selected or volunteer to go with him. In the middle of the journey, Frodo tells Gandalf, “I wish the Ring had never come to me.” And even so, Frodo is fully willing to go by himself, as we see at the end of the first movie. Yes, Sam joins him, but Frodo was still willing to go it alone. As summarized nicely in a comment I saw on YouTube, “It's easy to focus on Sam, because he was such a great character and friend, but this scene is a great example of how brave Frodo was. He was fully ready to go to Mordor alone because he knew it needed to be done. The combination of Frodo's bravery and Sam's friendship here is what makes it one of the best scenes in the series imo” Even in failure (at Mount Doom), Frodo’s journey made victory possible. View 2: Sam Is the Bigger Hero Common Arguments: Sam is consistently selfless, humble, and unshaken. He saves Frodo multiple times, emotionally and physically. He resists the Ring when he briefly holds it — and gives it back, something Frodo couldn’t do. He asks for no reward, and still returns home to build a good, peaceful life. This view emphasizes loyalty, courage in service, and everyday moral strength. Sam was never meant to be the Ring-bearer—yet rises to the task when needed. Delving into a bit more detail, Sam was roped into this by Gandalf because Sam happened to be eavesdropping. He didn’t choose the quest, at least initially. At the end of the first movie, when Sam chases Frodo into the river, he says, “I made a promise, Mr. Frodo. A promise. ‘Don’t you leave him, Samwise Gamgee.’ And I don’t mean to.” As we noted previously, Sam saves Frodo multiple times from Shelob, a massive spider who immobilzed Frodo and was about to eat him). Sam also rescued Frodo, who was captured by orcs. When Frodo is completely passed out, Sam carries Frodo up Mount Doom. Sam also gives the Ring back to Frodo, even when he briefly holds it. He and Bilbo are the only ones who did that. After the quest, Sam returns to a simple life, embodying the ideal of service without glory. The quote that encapsulates people’s view on Sam: “I can’t carry it for you, but I can carry you.” In other words, the general perspective on Sam is that while “Frodo carried the Ring, Sam carried Frodo.” Here are a few questions we'd like to explore: Before we discuss who’s the greater hero, Frodo or Sam - what is a hero in Jewish thinking? What makes a person heroic? What’s greater? Carrying the Ring? Or carrying the Ring-bearer? Frodo carries the burden of the Ring, but Sam carries Frodo. In other words: Is heroism about bearing the weight of evil, or about never giving up on someone who does? I think it’s tempting to say - they’re both heroes. Let’s just leave it at that. But that doesn’t sound satisfying: Is their heroism different, or the same? They’re both doing this as a service to others, going outside of their comfort zone. What nuance should we be picking up on here? Much of what seems to make Frodo the hero here is carrying the burden of the Ring. People often comment, “Frodo wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Sam” - and much of that statement is true. Frodo stumbles regularly, and Sam saves the day. What exactly is the nature of the heroism of Frodo? And the heroism of Sam? I am excited to welcome Rabbi Menachem Siderson to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Siderson graduated from the Center for Kehilla Development in Jerusalem with smicha from the Cheif Rabbanut of Israel in 2020. Since then he has been the Rabbi of the Shul at Aish of the Rockies in Denver Colorado where he guides both the local community and Aish's signature outreach programs. He also serves as a resident Sofer and Mohel for Denver, and is a member of the Denver Beis Din. To reach Rabbi Siderson just send him an email at msiderson@aishrockies.org . Please see below for links to R. Siderson's various social media platforms. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aishrockies/# TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@aishrockies5 X/Twitter: https://x.com/aishrockies YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@aishrockies5 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aishrockies/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aish-rockies-9987252ba Transistor: https://aishrockies.transistor.fm/

In this episode, Rabbi Benzion Klatzko joins us in investigating whether taking revenge is an ideal to strive for in Jewish thinking. As background, Maximus Decimus Meridius is a loyal Roman general who leads the empire to victory in battle under Emperor Marcus Aurelius. The emperor, disillusioned with his corrupt son Commodus, chooses Maximus as his successor, believing he will restore Rome to a republic and return power to the Senate. When Commodus learns of this, he murders Marcus Aurelius and seizes the throne. Maximus refuses to pledge loyalty to him, prompting Commodus to order Maximus’s execution and the murder of his wife and son. Maximus escapes but is too late to save his family, finding their bodies crucified and burned. Stricken with grief and rage, Maximus collapses and is captured by slave traders. He is sold to a gladiator trainer and becomes a powerful fighter in the arena. As his fame grows, he is brought to Rome to fight in the Colosseum, where he comes face-to-face with Commodus once again. Though Maximus initially fights to survive, his ultimate goal becomes revenge: to killCommodus and avenge his family. He hides his identity at first, but eventually reveals himself, famously declaring, “My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.” As he gains public favor, Maximus becomes a political threat. Commodus tries to have him killed, but Maximus’s legend only grows. In the climax, Commodus challenges Maximus to a rigged duel. Although wounded and dying, Maximus defeats Commodus—finally achieving his revenge. With his dying breath, Maximus ensures the restoration of Marcus Aurelius’s vision for Rome before collapsing. His revenge is complete, but it costs him his life. This leads us into the following questions: Generally speaking, the Torah prohibits revenge (Leviticus 19:18: “You shall not take revenge nor bear a grudge”). Why is this prohibition so central, and how does it apply to situations like Maximus’s? Looking at our situation more closely, the revenge here has more to do with a blood debt than a simple "tit for tat" form of revenge. Commodus murdered Maximus’ wife and son! Maximus is seeking revenge for his murdered family. This seems different than the “taking revenge or bearing a grudge” - is it, in fact, different? “Vengeance is Mine” (Devarim 32:35) – The Torah says vengeance belongs to God. Does this mean that personal revenge, even in the face of deep injustice, is always morally wrong? Can Maximus’ desire for revenge be seen as a pursuit of justice, or is it purely personal vengeance? How would Jewish ethics distinguish between the two? These are some of our questions. Let's see what the Torah has to say. I am excited to welcome Rabbi Benzion Klatzko to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Klatzko is an ordained rabbi, a music producer, a published author, and a radio talk show host. Dubbed the “Hollywood Rabbi,” for years Rabbi Klatzko delivered a popular monthly class in Jewish thought to many of Hollywood’s biggest stars. Rabbi Klatzko is one of the national directors for Jewish life on campus in North America and was named “One of America’s Most Inspiring Rabbis” by the Jewish Forward Magazine in 2014. Rabbi Klatzko is also the founder of Shabbat.com, the world’s largest Jewish social network, helping people find Shabbat, Jewish Dating, and employment in over 120 countries. He can be reached at (212) 742-2228 (212-shabbat) or via email at RabbiKlatzko@gmail.com .

In this episode, join Rabbi Yoni Spinka in working through Jim and Pam's relationship over the course of The Office. Do they represent an ideal to aspire to? If so, what are we looking to emulate? If not, what are we hoping to avoid? The Office is set the small city of Scranton, PA and centers around characters working for Dunder Mifflin, a company that sells paper. The company has multiple branches, but we’re mostly focused on the Scranton branch. There are probably about 15 characters in Scranton, which includes the manager, secretary, salesmen, accountants. One of these characters is Jim Halpert, a funny, charming guy, and he’s in his late 20s-early 30s. Another character is Pam Beasly, the secretary - she's Jim’s love interest. Jim and Pam slowly bond over the first two seasons, sharing jokes together, pranking one of their coworkers, and generally having a great time. They have undeniable chemistry. The thing is, Pam is engaged to Roy. As expected, this becomes a key point of tension in the earlier seasons. Roy is not a good match for Pam, but she refuses to acknowledge it or act upon it. Throughout the second season, Pam's romantic feelings for Jim become more evident although Pam herself seems to be ignorant or in denial of its existence. On Casino Night, the season finale, Jim comes clean about his feelings, to which Pam responds by pointing out once again how important their friendship is and that she’s sorry he misunderstood their attractions together. Jim, unsatisfied with Pam's response, kisses her. After Jim and Pam part from their kiss, Pam says that she still has to honor her commitment to Roy and tells Jim that she plans to go through with the wedding. Disappointed and heartbroken, Jim accepts a position at a different branch of the company. Pam eventually decides to call off the wedding and is seen clearly missing Jim's presence in the office. Pam shows multiple signs of remorse over her decision to reject Jim and is clearly excited about his return to Scranton after the closing of the Stamford branch. While Pam is excited about rekindling their friendship, Jim is still unsure of how he feels about her and had started a relationship with Stamford coworker Karen, who also transferred to Scranton to continue her relationship with Jim. It eventually becomes clear, however, that Jim still has unresolved feelings towards Pam which start to cause problems in his relationship with Karen. Pam eventually grows tired of hiding her feelings from Jim and, on the beach day episode, confesses to him in front of the entire office staff that he was the true reason she called off her wedding with Roy and that she misses Jim's friendship. Jim and Karen eventually break up and, finally, soon after, Jim makes the move and asks Pam out on a date. Finally, their relationship is officially on. Over the next few seasons, Jim and Pam date, get married, have kids, and though they go through some tensions (Pam’s stay in art school, Jim’s professional aspirations), they often represent to many people what a wonderful relationship looks like. Jim and Pam’s relationship seems amazing for many reasons: they were friends before they got together, they had chemistry, they respected each other. HOWEVER - this was happening while Pam and Roy were engaged. Roy wasn’t the right guy for Pam, true, but still. This leads us into the following questions: Was it appropriate for Jim and Pam to be so close while Pam was engaged to Roy? We know that kissing crosses a line. But what about before? There was all this emotional buildup. Does that cross the line somehow? On a related note, were Jim and Pam sufficiently honest with their partners (Karen and Roy) before pursuing each other? Was Pam sufficiently honest with Roy? Roy could be a scary guy, as we see in the scene when he trashes the bar after Pam tells him she kissed Jim. Doesn’t that give her grounds to explore her options? She’s scared. She’s human. Thoughts? Let’s discuss Jim and Karen. Jim still had feelings for Pam, even though he was dating Karen. But Pam rejected him. Jim tried something new, and broke it off when he finally realized he wanted to pursue Pam. That’s fair, isn’t it? Or, from a Jewish perspective, do we expect 100% emotional commitment during a relationship? That seems unrealistic. Once Jim and Pam (finally!) get together, some of the sparkle fades away. They encounter problems with their marriage as issues come up. It's not as exciting. Is that normal? They were so exciting to watch beforehand! Then that excitement fades. How does the Judaism understand this? Would the Torah see Jim and Pam as an ideal love story, a realistic one, or a problematic one? Or all three? And why? I am excited to welcome Rabbi Yoni Spinka to this episode to answer our questions. Yoni Spinka is a sought-after keynote speaker, executive performance coach, and Rabbi with over a decade of experience blending ancient mystical wisdom with modern psychology and coaching methodologies. As the CEO of Spinka Group Coaching & Consulting, he partners with executives and CEOs to foster clarity and strategic direction, driving transformational growth. Previously, Yoni served for seven years as a Rabbi at the University of Pennsylvania, where he taught Jewish spiritual practices and mentored hundreds of students through personal and professional challenges. He currently lives in the suburbs of Philadelphia with his wife and five children. To inquire about coaching or to book Yoni for a keynote speech at your organization, please contact him at yonispinka@gmail.com

In this episode, join Rabbi Yoni Sonnenblick in exploring the Jewish perspective on parent-child dynamics. The Torah commands children to respect their parents - it's one of the Ten Commandments! But how far does this authority go? Does it have any limits - if so, what are they, and when do they apply? Top Gun: Maverick (2022) follows Captain Pete "Maverick" Mitchell, a top fighter pilot, who returns to the elite Top Gun flight school as an instructor. Tasked with training a new generation of pilots for a dangerous mission, Maverick confronts his past as he mentors Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw, the son of his late friend, Goose. As Maverick pushes the pilots to their limits, tensions rise, especially with Rooster, who (i) holds Maverick responsible for his father's (Goose) death and (ii) is furious with Maverick for pulling Rooster’s naval papers, which cost Rooster four years of his career. Maverick must navigate these personal conflicts while preparing the team for a nearly impossible mission, ultimately leading them in a high-stakes operation that tests their skills and courage. We later find out that Maverick promised Rooster's dying mother - at her request - that Rooster would not become a pilot like his father. Rooster is not aware of his mother’s request, and Maverick takes the full blame from Rooster so that Rooster wouldn't also blame his mother. With that, we have a few questions we’d like answered: Does a parent have the right to interfere, or request such interference, in her son’s career generally? Does it make a difference if the parent interferes directly, as opposed to requesting a third party to interfere? If not, what if it the child’s decision involves mortal risk? Does that change the calculus? If not, does it make a difference if the career is the same one that got the child’s father killed? Does it make a difference if the parent, or the third party, suspects the child won’t let up, and this will just cause the child to take a longer road? May a senior soldier/officer intervene by pulling a junior soldier’s papers, even though he (presumably) did not have the junior soldier under his command? Finally, can the senior soldier/officer interfere, and then keep the mother’s request quiet to preserve the peace between her and her son? Is it morally praiseworthy for Maverick to take the blame so Rooster doesn’t blame his mom?

In this episode, join Rabbi Rick Fox in figuring out what the Torah would advise Neo: blue pill or red pill? Do we choose to live an illusory life of comfort, or engage harsh reality head on? And why? Neo is a computer programmer puzzled by repeated online encounters with the phrase “the Matrix”. This leads Neo to a meeting with Trinity and Morpheus and the antagonistic Agents. In turn, this leads to the scene where Morpheus presents Neo with the now-famous dilemma: blue pill or red pill? The Blue Pill: If Neo chooses this pill, he will remain in the world as he knows it and forget all the bizarre experiences he’s been having. This choice represents comfort, ignorance, and the continuation of a life lived within the boundaries of illusion, without knowledge of the true nature of existence. The Red Pill: If Neo takes this pill, he will wake up to the harsh, unsettling truth of reality. That Neo’s life up until now, and the life for most of humanity, is a simulated reality created by machines to keep humanity enslaved. The Red Pill symbolizes knowledge, freedom, and the willingness to embrace the painful and difficult truths of life, even if it means giving up the comforting falsehoods. Towards the end of the movie, Cypher, one of Morpheus’ crew members, ends up betraying Morpheus’ crew. This is first foreshadowed in a conversation Cypher has with Neo, when Cypher says, “You know, I know what you’re thinking, because right now I’m thinking the same thing. Actually, I’ve been thinking it ever since I got here. Why, oh why didn’t I take the blue pill?” In a later scene, Cypher meets with Agent Smith to plan Cypher’s betrayal of Morpheus, namely, letting the Agents capture Morpheus, during which Cypher kills members of the crew. In exchange, Cypher will be plugged back in the Matrix and have his memory wiped clean (in other words, the blue pill choice). With that, we have a few questions we’d like answered: If one of us replaced Neo, what would the Torah advise us to do? Do we take the red pill or the blue pill, and why? A person might ask – just as Cypher pointed out when he betrayed Morpheus – what does it mean to have a “real” life? The Matrix felt real. It sent nerve impulses to one’s brain. What’s the issue? What makes something real? This question is highlighted by Cypher and his regret taking the red pill. But Cypher has a point. You have the option between a nice normal life. True, it’s not real, but it feels real. In actual reality, Cypher is constantly uncomfortable and scared and running. What kind of life is that? What difference does it make if he ultimately lives an illusion and his body ages and dies? I think if you were to present many people with two options. Option A: Live a comfortable, really nice life; OR Option B: Live an uncomfortable life, constantly on the run, cold, eating disgusting food, at constant risk – but hey, it’s true! It’s real! They would choose Option A. And they’d tell you, look, you can keep your “reality” – if my brain is telling me “good good good”, I’m going with that option. To clarify, if Cypher was able to get his way and re-enter the Matrix without killing the entire crew or sabotaging their mission – can he do that? Is there something wrong with it? Eat, drink and be merry! Why does it have to be “real”? Why does taking the red pill have to be irrevocable? If someone changes their mind, why can’t you just program a person to retake the blue pill and just re-insert him to the Matrix and wipe his memory clean? Those are some of our questions. Let’s see what the Torah has to say. I am excited to welcome Rabbi Rick Fox to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Fox is the Executive Director of MEOR Penn, which is a Jewish outreach organization, servicing the Jewish community at the University of Pennsylvania as campus chaplain, educator and mentor. A graduate of the Wharton School of Business at Penn with a minor in music. Rabbi Fox began his career in marketing consulting even as he remained an avid musician. While on sabbatical in Israel, Rabbi Fox developed a passion for Jewish education, eventually returning to teach Jewish students at his alma mater in 2015. Rabbi Fox resides in Philadelphia with his wife and four children. His wife, Rivkah Fox, is an active shadchanit i.e. matchmaker and founder of BlindFate, a dating platform for Jews all over the world. You can find Rabbi Rick Fox online on his podcast, “So, What Does Judaism Say About..?”, which is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and Amazon, and on Instagram @rabbirickfox. You can find his wife Rivkah Fox on Instagram @rivkahfox. Rabbi Rick Fox: https://www.instagram.com/rabbirickfox/ Rivkah Fox: https://www.instagram.com/rivkahfox/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3Skgi4px0z692jdlwSeiRz Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/so-what-does-judaism-say-about/id1632137067 Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/66b36dd4-0052-40a4-b3c4-40241ed7616e/so-what-does-judaism-say-about

In this episode, Rabbi Chaim Willis joins us in investigating what makes someone a good person. This dilemma presents itself in the depiction of Don Vito Corleone, a.k.a. "the Godfather", in The Godfather. As background, Don Corleone is the head of a mafia family in New York. He is respected and feared in the world of organized crime. He is most well-known for conducting business based on loyalty, favors, and a strict moral code—helping those who respect him while dealing ruthlessly with enemies. He sought to control crime by either consuming rival gangs or eliminating them, which led to what is termed the Pacification of New York. The various crime families in New York adopted Don Corleone's business model for organized crime because they were convinced of its security and profit potential. This makes Don Corleone a bit of a complicated character. On the one hand, he is a criminal involved in violence, murder, gambling, and systemic corruption (having bribes judges and politicians). On the other hand, he stays out of the drug trade, he stays out of prostitution, he adopted and raised Tom Hagen, an orphan boy, and he helps people in his community and their families. He also made the criminal world less violent, or at least more directed in its violence. He would also help out friends and especially family with their various needs and requests. This leads us into the following questions: How do we approach this nuanced situation? We like Don Corleone. He's loyal to friends and family. He doesn't resort to violence for no reason. He's reasonable in his demands. He's willing to forgo huge profits by refusing to get involved in the drug trade. However, he's still a murder, a violent criminal, and bribes politicians and judges for his nefarious purposes. He even acknowledges that this isn't an ideal life by openly expressing his wish that his son, Michael, never got involved in the criminal world. In other words, is Don Corleone a good man who lives in a violent world and has to make ignoble choices, or is he really a bad man who happens to be better than his peers? Even if he is a bad man, isn't the fact that he played a role in taming the underworld a positive contribution? There will always be criminals. Don't we want more criminals like Don Corleone, who at least control the level of violence? I am excited to welcome Rabbi Chaim Willis to this episode to answer our questions. The son of a New York City police lieutenant, Rabbi Willis grew up in a liberal Jewish home. He received a BA in Chinese from the University of Michigan and then went on to pursue his interests in world affairs and journalism, traveling to India, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Iran, Syria, and Jordan. He would discover the culture of each country he visited, that is until he ran out of money. He would then fly home to work as a cab driver until he had earned enough cash for the next adventure. Rabbi Willis eventually traveled to Israel and, while at the Western Wall, he was offered the opportunity to meet a truly wise man, Rabbi Noach Weinberg. Impacted by Rabbi Weinberg’s deep Jewish wisdom, Rabbi Willis chose to explore Jewish ideas at Aish HaTorah in Jerusalem, delving into the original sources of both Jewish thought and practice. Rabbi Willis, back when he was known simply as Mike Willis, had a lengthy article written about him by his sister, Ellen Willis, which was published by Rolling Stone magazine called “Next Year in Jerusalem," which you can find at https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/next-year-in-jerusalem-51482/. Rabbi Willis co-founded the first Aish HaTorah branch in the United States in Saint Louis, Missouri. He is currently the executive director of Aish South Africa in Johannesburg and has recently moved back to Israel, splitting his time between Israel and South Africa.