Was Thanos right? Rabbi Moshe Friedman (Rav Mo) and Ofir Tzoubari address the timeless philosophical question: do the ends justify the means?

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 f

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

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 J

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?    

A Jewish perspective on whether we should take the blue pill or red pill, as presented to Neo by Morpheus in The Matrix (1999).

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.

In this episode, Rabbi Mordechai Becher joins us in investigating whether the intent to cause harm, but with no ill effect is considered more morally culpable than a lack of intent to harm, but with yes ill effect. This dilemma presents itself in the way Miguel and Robby fought each other on two separate occasions. As background, Cobra Kai is a TV series that serves as a sequel to the Karate Kid film franchise. The show focuses on two teenage karate stars, (i) Miguel, who ends up being trained by Jonny Lawrence, and (ii) Robby, who ends up being taken under the wing of Danny LaRusso. Robby is also Jonny’s son. This serves as a fairly significant point of tension between Miguel and Robby, and the tension continues to build given Miguel and Robby share a love interest At the end of the first season, there is a karate tournament. Throughout the course of the tournament, Robby’s shoulder is injured in a previous round by a different Cobra Kai fighter. In the final round, we have a face off between Robby v. Miguel. Miguel repeatedly, and purposely, strikes Robby’s injured shoulder. Including not only during the actual fighting, but even when Robby is showing good sportsmanship and offering Miguel a hand, Miguel pulls down hard on the (unoffered) injured arm. That being said, there is no permanent damage to Robby’s arm. Miguel ends up winning the tournament, though not directly due to dirty tactics. At the beginning of season 2, Jonny derides Miguel for fighting dirty, explaining there’s a difference between “No mercy” and “fighting with honor.” Fast forwarding to the end of the season, Robby and Miguel are fighting in a school brawl. Robby was trying to break up a fight, but Miguel walked in at the worst moment and assumed the worst, and started fighting Robby. Miguel is constantly taunting Robby throughout the fight, hitting on what are clearly emotionally sensitive points to Robby, like their relationship with a shared love interest, and of course that Miguel is being trained by Robby’s dad. Miguel eventually defeats Robby, pinning him to the ground (in front of a large crowd of their peer students).Miguel remembers lessons about honor/mercy, and says “sorry” and lets Robby go. Robby, in a fit of anger and humiliation, immediately cheap-shots Miguel and kicks him. Miguel reels from the kick and falls down a railing, with his neck cracking on the stairs, paralyzing him. This leads us into the following questions: In Season 1, during the tournament, Miguel struck Robby intentionally on Robby’s injury, though with ultimately no ill effects. In Season 2, Robby also struck Miguel intentionally, but unintentionally sent Miguel off the railing and broke Miguel’s spine. What is worse? Intent with no ill effect (Miguel), or lack of intent with ill effect (Robby)? In other words, does Judaism care more about intent or result? In the tournament, Robby could have ended the fight early, as his own sensei suggested. Not doing so was Robby’s own decision and fault. Does this change the calculus? Moreover, Miguel intended to hit Robby on his injury. Doing so is within the framework of the rules of the tournament, as there is no rule saying “don’t hit an opponent on an injury.” Still, it seems like Miguel is fighting dirty. However, if it's allowed by the rules, does that make Miguel’s actions “fair game”, if it’s allowed by the rules? Even if it is fair game, what about pulling on Robby’s arm, which definitely was an illegal move?Miguel was provoking Robby in that Season 2 high school brawl fight. Is Miguel partly responsible for Robby’s outburst? These are some of our questions. Let's see what the Torah has to say.   I am excited to welcome Rabbi Mordechai Becher to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Becher, originally from Australia, is an instructor at Yeshiva University and alumni Rabbi of Neve Yerushalayim College. He received his ordination from the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem and

We explore whether Snape’s actions with respect to Dumbledore were justifiable from a Jewish perspective.

In this episode, Rabbi Avi Honigsfeld joins us in analyzing that age-old conundrum, particularly as popularized through a timeless childhood hero, Robin Hood: can you steal from the rich to give to the poor? Robin Hood is a legendary figure in English folklore, renowned as an outlaw who "robbed from the rich to give to the poor." His tales have been told for centuries, though Robin Hood’s historical existence remains unconfirmed. Set in medieval England, the story follows Robin, a nobleman (or in earlier versions, a yeoman) turned outlaw, who becomes the leader of a group of Merry Men living in Sherwood Forest. Together, they rob from the rich to give to the poor, challenging the tyranny of the corrupt Sheriff of Nottingham, and/or of Prince John, who usurps the throne in King Richard's absence. Robin Hood's adventures are filled with archery, disguise, and daring rescues, symbolizing the fight against injustice and the hope for a fairer society, and Robin Hood in particular is renown for his bravery, cunning, and sense of justice. The story of Robin Hood has been retold in countless poems, books, movies and on TV. We will approach the legend of Robin Hood generally, but we will occasionally refer to some of the more popular adaptations in recent history, such as the animated Disney version from the 1970s, and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves with Kevin Costner and Alan Rickman. This leads us into the following questions: Is Robin allowed to steal from the rich to give to the poor? More specifically Can Robin Hood steal from wealthy individuals, as opposed to the government? What if the “rich” really means the government? Does the calculus change because the government depicted is corrupt or run by illegitimate government officials? In other words, what if Prince John or the Sheriff are attempting to, or have already, usurped the throne? Does the calculation change if Robin is a yeoman, as opposed to a nobleman? Does a nobleman have some form of authority that legitimizes the stealing? Those are some of our questions. Let’s see what the Torah has to say.   I am excited to welcome Rabbi Avi Honigsfeld to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Avi is a dedicated spiritual leader and educator who received rabbinic ordination from Ner Israel Rabbinical College and holds a Master's degree in Counseling from Johns Hopkins University. Since moving to Dallas with his family in 2012, Rabbi Avi has actively engaged in teaching and Jewish outreach. Rabbi Avi founded the Richardson, Texas community in 2018 and expanded Jewish engagement and connection in the area.

In this episode, Rabbi Yoni Ganger joins us in working through a question Tolkien was asked repeatedly, a dilemma Tolkien himself wrestled with: did Frodo fail his quest on a moral level? Putting aside the fact that Frodo did not throw the Ring in, which may objectively be considered a failure - but was it subjectively? In other words, how far does free will extend, are there limits to how far free will can extend, and did Frodo reach those limits?   The Lord of the Rings is a story about a hobbit, or a halfling, named Frodo, who comes into possession of a powerful magic ring. One of its powers is that when a person puts it on, they become invisible. This ring turns out to be the One Ring, which was forged by the Dark Lord Sauron ages ago to take control of Middle Earth and everyone in it. In order to destroy Sauron, and save Middle Earth, the Ring must be destroyed. The thing is, the Ring cannot be destroyed just anywhere or in any which way. It has to specifically be brought into Sauron’s home territory, Mordor, and thrown into the fires where the Ring was originally forged. Frodo volunteers to undertake this task and is joined by a small fellowship who together embark on the quest to destroy the Ring. Down the road, the fellowship breaks up. Frodo splits off from the group and is joined by his friend, Samwise Gamgee. Further down the road, Frodo and Sam are attacked by Gollum, a formerly hobbit-like creature. Gollum attacks them because, for centuries, he was in possession of the Ring, and he has become addicted to it and wants it back. The Ring has a corrupting influence on any individual who beholds it, and certainly anyone who possesses it. The longer a person holds it for, the more powerful the Ring’s corrupting effect. That said, the Ring does not corrupt everyone equally, and it is noted that hobbits in particular appear to resist many of its corrupting effects. Frodo is able to tame Gollum, and Gollum now serves as their guide to Mordor. Off they go and, long story short, Frodo eventually reaches Mount Doom. He stands exactly where he needs to, takes out the Ring, holds it above the fire. The moment of truth is here! If Frodo casts the Ring into the fire, Sauron will be destroyed, his powers will vanish and victory can be declared by the good guys. But Frodo hesitates. The Ring has worked its corruptive magic on Frodo, and in the end, Frodo does not throw the Ring into the fire, while Sam watches. In the movies, Frodo says, “The Ring is mine.” Frodo then puts the Ring on his finger and turns invisible and tries to escape. Gollum quickly spots Frodo, jumps on him, bites Frodo’s ring-finger off, and claims the Ring. Gollum falls off the cliff with the Ring and both are consumed by the fire. The Ring is destroyed! This leads us into the following questions. Was Frodo’s failure to destroy the Ring a moral failure? At the end of the day, he did not cast the Ring into the fire and, by his own admission, he chose not to do so! In Tolkien’s quotes, we’ll see that Tolkien stated that it was impossible for Frodo to resist. But how do we understand Frodo? In the books, as we’ll see in this episode, Frodo said he chose not to destroy the Ring. Now Tolkien is saying, “actually, he had no free will.” Do we agree? As in, can a person be mistaken about whether he’s making a free will decision? How do we deal with this? We feel like we are choosing. But we’re not. What’s the Jewish perspective on this? We repeatedly discuss in this episode the question of Frodo’s failure. We do not mean whether he, Frodo, succeeded in destroying the Ring or failed to do so; we are asking if he failed morally. Therefore, when we ask different iterations of “did Frodo fail”, what we are really asking is “was Frodo’s failure to destroy the Ring a moral failure; in other words, did Frodo fail morally?” Let’s see how the Torah approaches this dilemma. Note: Tolkien himself addressed this topic, seeing as he apparently received a number of

In this episode, join Rabbi Jack Cohen in an incredible exploration, a question that probably hovers at our consciousness: does your life belong to you? Life is a gift, I didn't earn it, it was given to me for free. Am I making good on this gift? To ground this analysis, we take apart an old favorite, Good Will Hunting, and how Will see-saws between wanting on the one hand to use his genius and on the other hand to stay anonymous and hang with his buddies.   Good Will Hunting is a movie about Will, a genius who is 20 years old. Will is an orphan, poor, a blue-collar worker with blue collar friends living in a rough neighborhood. He works as a janitor at MIT and secretly solves math equations on the blackboards of classrooms and he does so effortlessly. We also learn that he was physically abused as a child, and has trust issues due to abandonment. Will has three principal relationships in the movie. The first is with Gerald Lambeau, a gifted MIT professor. The Professor finds out Will is in trouble with the law, and comes to an agreement with the judge that Will can avoid jailtime on condition that Will (i) does math with the Professor, and (ii) sees a therapist. Professor wants to help Will actualize his potential, and is harder on Will, but still seems to care about him. The Professor is less interested in focusing on Will’s emotional well-being and does not like making excuses for Will even though Will had a rough childhood. The second is with Will's therapist, Sean, played by Robin Williams. Robin Williams enters the picture because Will mocks all the therapists the Professor sets Will up with, so the Professor finally brings in Robin Williams. Therapist is able to get through to Will (very slowly, and with challenges). Therapist wants Will to follow his heart, to play his hand, and is softer on Will, but still challenges him and asks Will, what do you want to do with your life? Will doesn't have an answer. The third is with Chuckie, Will's best friend, who is played by Ben Affleck. Chuckie is like family. Will tells Chuckie that Will is excited to raise their families together once they each get married, Chuckie tells Will that if Will is still around in twenty years, Chuckie will kill him. Chuckie says, “You don’t owe it to yourself; you owe it to me" to cash Will's golden ticket and get out of here and go make a better life for yourself. This is a major impetus for Will to make a real move. This leads us into the following questions, namely: Does Will have an obligation, seemingly a moral obligation, to actualize himself? If he does, is it because he owes it to himself? Or is it because he owes it to others? How do we resolve (i) being true to what one wants versus (ii) actualizing one’s own potential, and even being an asset to other people? The Professor, and Robin Williams, and Chuckie all appear to agree that Will would be “copping out” by not using his talents. Is that true? As an educator, mentor, friend – to what degree do you push a person, and to what degree do you let go and let the person figure out what he wants to do? With respect to pushing Will – is the Professor manipulating Will, as Robin Williams claims? When does “pushing” become “manipulation”? Sometimes, education has to be subtle. Subtlety doesn’t automatically mean “manipulation” – when do you cross the line? It’s true that Professor can be dismissive of Will’s emotional problems. How do we balance that? How long do we have to wait for people to get over their issues and start taking responsibility and making decisions?   I am excited to welcome Rabbi Jack Cohen to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Cohen serves as the Director of Jewish Education and Community Engagement for Hebrew Academy High School in Miami, where he strives to teach Jewish philosophy and character development in a way that is relevant and resonant to 21st century teenagers. He also coaches and supports teachers in the school and works to be an education

In this episode, Rabbi Josh Livingstone joins us and humorously works through Darth Vader's final act of redemption. But was it enough? Did Anakin go too far in his transformation to the Dark Side, and his subsequent acts over the years? How does Judaism view redemption? What do we have to do, and is there ever a point of no return?  Anakin Skywalker was picked up as a kid by the Jedi. He was expected to be the Chosen One who would bring balance to the Force. Anakin was a very powerful Force user. After many years of training, Anakin secretly married Padme Amadala, which went against Jedi rules. Anakin has dreams of Padme dying and is desperate to save her. He is eventually manipulated by Chancellor Palpatine (who is secretly Darth Sidious/the [future] Emperor) into turning to the Dark Side. Anakin proceeds to exterminate the Jedi and bring the Emperor to power. Anakin is dubbed Darth Vader, and becomes the Emperor’s right hand man. Although it is not clear from the original trilogy (episodes 4, 5 and 6), Vader either commits, or is closely allied with those who commit genocide, including when the Empire destroys a planet full of people. In the original trilogy, Luke Skywalker is the hope of the galaxy and is being trained to be a new Jedi. Predictably, Luke eventually fights Darth Vader, whom he eventually realizes is his father. Luke tries to convince Vader to return to the good side. Luke fails to do so, and subsequently defeats Vader, but refuses to kill his father. Instead, he appeals once more to Vader’s good side. The Emperor offers Luke the opportunity to join the Dark Side and to kill Vader. Luke refuses on both counts. The Emperor tries to kill Luke. While Luke writhes in pain, screams, and begs his father for help, Darth Vader is clearly conflicted, looking between Luke and the Emperor, back to Luke, back to the Emperor. Darth Vader then turns to the Emperor, picks him up and throws him down a shaft, killing the Emperor. This is considered a redemption moment for Vader. Luke uncovers Vader’s helmet, and it becomes clear that Vader is back to Anakin/good guy – “you were right about me”, he says to Luke, apparently referring to their earlier conversations where Luke appeals to Vader as Anakin, the good guy. Luke, and clearly the audience, are meant to accept Vader’s act of redemption as genuine. Anakin is given a Jedi’s funeral and appears as a Force-ghost, apparently now accepted as a Jedi Knight. This leads us into the following questions. Namely: What does a person have to do to repent, from the Torah’s perspective? Did Darth Vader do that? If Darth Vader did repent, is this repentance weakened because of his motivation? Vader did not repent the evil because it was evil; rather, Vader sees his son getting killed. If this new Jedi was not his son, but rather a total stranger to Vader, Vader (presumably) would not have redeemed himself. Is there ever a point of return? Can a person ever go so far that they lie beyond the point of redemption Remember, Anakin: Played a key role in exterminating the Jedi, an international peace-keeping organization; Leads an attack against the Jedi Temple; Murders dozens of younglings (little kids training to be Jedi); Murders countless people; Is suggested to have committed mass murder and even genocide, by assisting the Empire in destroying entire planets I am excited to welcome Rabbi Josh Livingstone to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Livingstone lives in Baltimore with his wife and children and has been involved in Jewish outreach and education for the last 18 years. He is currently the Director of Education at RAJE Maryland, which is an organization that works with young Jewish professionals in Baltimore. Rabbi Livingstone is also a marriage coach who specializes in working with husbands in both one on one and group settings with other husbands to help them improve their skills as a husband and improve their marriages. His Instagram handle is @the_hu

If you've ever watched a movie with a legitimate moral dilemma and wondered, "Honestly, I don't really know what the right thing to do is here" - so have we. We take those questions and dive into Judaism's perspective on those questions. What does the Torah have to see? Is it totally black-and-white? What circumstances might mitigate the dilemma? Join us for an interesting, thoughtful discussion and enjoy the Jewish take on these questions. 

In this episode, Rabbi Moshe Friedman, or "Rav Mo", joins us in confronting how Harry should feel towards the Dursleys, and the breadth of, and some limits to, the need to feel gratitude to someone who has done you a kindness. The analysis centers around whether Harry does need to feel a sense of gratitude to them - despite their abuse of Harry, an orphan entrusted to their care!  Harry Potter is a wizard whose parents were murdered when he was a year old. Harry’s only living relative is his mother’s sister, Petunia. Albus Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts, is the most powerful wizard alive, and was very close to Harry’s parents. Professor Dumbledore decides Harry should be raised by his aunt and her husband, Vernon. Harry ends up living with his aunt, her husband, and their child, Dudley (who is the same age as Harry), for the next ten years. Harry was often underfed, was verbally and emotionally abused, and was often given a significant amount of housework and other chores. Harry then goes off to Hogwarts, per Dumbledore, “alive and healthy” and “not [as] a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances.” Nonetheless, Harry returns to the Dursleys during the summer between school years. These summers are not pleasant for Harry. Why did Dumbledore place Harry with such miserable, unloving people? Turns out, Dumbledore knew that he was condemning Harry to ten dark and difficult years. But Dumbledore’s priority was to keep Harry alive, and being raised by the Dursleys was the best way to accomplish that. The Dursleys accepted this responsibility, grudging though that acceptance may have been. In this episode, we will explore the following questions: Does Harry have an obligation to be grateful to the Dursleys for taking him in, despite the mistreatment? If he does, is this obligation mitigated given the mistreatment he suffered at the hands of the Dursleys? What further obligation to be grateful does Harry have, given the magical protection the Dursleys provided for him by allowing him to call their house, “home”? What if Harry earned an additional benefit of not being corrupted by fame, which may have occurred in another’s home where they did, in fact, care about Harry? Rabbi Moshe Friedman will be our guest rabbi for this episode. 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. His Instagram handle is @ravmo_.