B (2:58)

Everything worse, they were responsible for October 7th.

A (3:01)

There weren't for October 7th, nothing ever happened. It was all lies and libels. And like, there's almost, as you said, Lastic, there's no conversation. But leaving the more radical extremes, there still is this sense of deep and profound war. And now recently in New York, we took very strong positions, you and I, about Mamdani. But now we know. What I've read is 30% of the Jewish community voted for Mamdani. And we got a lot of responses as well, where people are saying, don't you understand that the issue is more complicated? And I appreciate that. And we weren't talking about New York politics in that sense. We weren't doing an analysis of Mamdani or Cuomo's strengths or weaknesses or what was happening in the cost of living and vegetables. Like, we're not New York. You are a New Yorker. But we were focused on our naval from a Jewish perspective alone. But at the end of the day, now 30%. And while the letters and the arguments and the pre election fighting was vehement, now post election, we have a question, and that's our question for today. How do we live with this level of disagreement? How do we live with it? This is a meta subject that always concerns us. But at the end of the day, there is a Jewish people. Boundaries, tolerance, pluralism. This level of disagreement is so deep that we understand that in many ways it's not sustainable. But at the same way, the solution is not, or some myth that these disagreements are going to go away either. How do we live with this? And we want to do a deep dive with this. And I want to start with you, Yossi, because, you know, we know each other really well for a very, very long time. There's something that is very common, a common line that you often express. He or she, they've crossed the line. They've crossed the line. And inevitably there'll be a whole bunch of response is, I don't want to speak to them, I'm not going to lecture to them. I'm not going there anymore. They're finished with me, they're done, I'm leaving. Then inevitably, you don't act that way. But this notion of lines, not always. Not always, it's true. But this notion of lines is very, very deep in your consciousness. Let's try to unpack. Like, when do you activate? I remember judicial reform. Mamdani, let's try to unpack your theory of lines. When they're activated, what defines them?

B (5:34)

So it's interesting, Daniil, because Jews are known to be litigious. We're a litigious people. We're also a people that is very quick to delegitimize each other. To say, you've betrayed the Jewish people, you're a bad Jew, you've betrayed Judaism. And I think that there are broadly speaking two categories in which Jews tend to draw the line. This is the red line, you've crossed it. One is doctrinal, theological. Think of Jews for Jesus, for example. There you had virtual unanimity in the Jewish community. They crossed the lines. Bujus, Jews who are Buddhists, everyone leaves them alone. No one thinks about throwing them out of. It's interesting. So it isn't strictly. Even when it is supposedly religious, it isn't really because there are layers of history and memory that go into making those collective decisions. But let's say broadly speaking, there's the doctrinal divide, you've crossed the line. And then there's the political. And by political I would really sharpen that by saying it's more the existential. When Jews feel threatened, if you, the other camp, are threatening my most basic well being, you've crossed the line. Now, I don't belong to the first camp of boundaries. I don't think about that. I'm not interested in saying you're a good Jew, you should believe this, you shouldn't believe that. I'm a Hartman Jew when it comes to that. You know, really it's believe and let believe. And especially in the postmodern Jewish era. And we have enough problems that for me that is a level of boundary keeping that I don't think the Jewish people has the luxury to indulge in. I think it's something that really belonged more to the pre modern period. Today, what I think is very relevant for our time is figuring out what are the boundaries of who is really threatening the physical well being of the Jewish people and what do we do with them. So that's for me, and I was thinking about your boundaries, Daniil, because so my boundary is physical safety or how I perceive how one perceives threats to physical safety.

A (8:08)

So. But could you extend that for a moment before you come to me, extend that to judicial reform? Because I remember for you that was a line and Netanyahu has like never going to.

B (8:19)

Because it was.

A (8:20)

Does that fit the.

B (8:21)

Yes.

A (8:21)

Is that Absolutely. That's political, not. Not doctrinal.

B (8:25)

Oh, for sure. And it's not just political. It was, for me it was existential. I felt that Netanyahu, by trying to dismantle Israeli democracy, was threatening the Israeli success story, which is what our security is based on. He was threatening startup nation. He was creating a situation in which tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of liberal young Israelis would feel I have no future in this country. That for me was a direct existential threat.

A (8:58)

It had no ideological, theoretical background.

B (9:02)

None, None.

A (9:04)

It had nothing to do with the fact that you're putting forth a vision of an Israel which is antithetical to my Zionism, my Declaration of Independence.

B (9:12)

That was you.

A (9:13)

No, I know. I'm asking you. That's what I'm. So I realize, I know me.

B (9:17)

I know.

A (9:17)

So I'm talking about you.

B (9:19)

No, no, look, that came.

A (9:20)

Where did it go? It went like from you. Like you were afraid that your kids were going to leave.

B (9:24)

Absolutely.

A (9:25)

So that's where it becomes personal.

B (9:27)

It was totally personal and literally existential. This government is threatening the long term viability of Israel.

A (9:36)

Nothing to do with ideology.

B (9:39)

A little bit, nothing. That was a secondary level, you know.

A (9:43)

But it's not the line that says this is it with Yossi. You're done. I'm done with you. I don't want to talk to you. You're illegit all of that.

B (9:50)

No, but you see, you and I, I mean, we've said this before. You and I agree on our trigger points. We just prioritize them differently. So that would be my second response.

A (10:03)

But it wasn't the line. I know it aggravated you, but the red line.

B (10:08)

No, no, it wasn't the line.

A (10:09)

It has to do with then it's not just the physical well being. It's also there's a sense of a viability, the way of life that we've become accustomed to. It'.

B (10:17)

No, no, it was literally the.

A (10:19)

Oh, you saw judicial reform was a.

B (10:21)

Survival, a long term threat to our survival. Definitely. Definitely. Now, thinking about you, Daniil.

A (10:29)

Are you enjoying having a conversation with me?

B (10:31)

I am, I am, I am.

A (10:32)

You're possessed.

B (10:33)

I'm enjoying debating with you. I realize that that's just in myself.

A (10:37)

I know, I realize that. Go for it.

B (10:39)

So I think that your red line, if I may be so presumptuous, is, is someone who threatens the moral credibility of the Jewish people.

A (10:50)

Not just I hear you see, it's.

B (10:53)

Interesting and I think that's what offended you so deeply about this.

A (10:57)

But they're not red lines, they're lines.

B (11:01)

Say more. What's the difference between a line and a red line?

A (11:05)

Like who do I disagree with? Who do I distance myself from, who do I not invite into the Hartman Institute to speak? But the idea of pushing them out of the Jewish people or.

B (11:18)

That's a really important distinction.

A (11:21)

This is the issue of red lines. It just so Happens that this is what I wrote my PhD on. Just so happens, so to speak, you.

B (11:28)

Wrote the book on it.

A (11:29)

I wrote a book on it. Now we know you never write the book. You can write a book on it. It's called the boundaries of.

B (11:35)

That's so frustrating, Danielle, because I so much, my whole life I've wanted to write the book, whatever the topic is. That's.

A (11:42)

Sorry, that's.

B (11:43)

That's the arrogance of a writer.

A (11:45)

It's like I learned. Or you write a book and I don't know how many people read it and you teach it and it. The idea is I'm slowly learning. A book is just supposed to advance. Advance thought. That's it. You want to do more than that. You know, that's messianic. But I wrote a book and I analyzed. When in the Jewish tradition do we activate red lines? Now, there never is a red line, almost with the exception of about 100, 200 years in Jewish history where some people were even willing to conceive that we could deny or take away Jewishness. But throughout the whole biblical period, Rabbinic for sure, Biblical period, had a complex notion of Jewishness. You were just born. But from the rabbinic period, they just. Jewishness wasn't taken away. So even when you had a red line, you didn't.

B (12:37)

What about Spinoza, when he was excommunicated?

A (12:39)

No, there were people excommunicated.

B (12:41)

Was his Jewishness taken away?

A (12:42)

You can't.

B (12:43)

From the. No, they were not.

A (12:44)

You can't. You cannot do it. Now, I'd have to check again whether somebody mistakenly made those statements. But you can't take. So you excommunicate from the community, not from your doesn't. You don't. And again, I know this is not what my friend Gilbert Troy was meaning, but you don't unjew. You can't unjew somebody. There is no such thing as unjews in that technical sense where he wasn't arguing that, but that you lose your Jewishness, that you're outside. That doesn't exist. But what does exist is that even though you remain a Jew, you are someone who I distance. I see you as, let's call the term, an outsider within. I don't have loyalty to you. I don't care about you. I shun you. My whole sense is that my community. You're formally a Jew, but the community that I build, you're really not a partner of who I care about and concerned with. And here, when I looked at how the rabbis used these terms, and here I'm talking about the rabbinic period from roughly post destruction 70, 100 to 500. There was one primary criteria and that was whether you had exited yourself, whether you perceived yourself as now belonging somewhere else.

B (14:07)

And would the rabbis recognize that as grounds for your actually being severed from the Jewish people?

A (14:13)

Yes. Severed though, is never losing your Jewishness in the sense that if you legally, if you marry another Jew, your marriage is binding, but it would be to sever the deepest sense of peoplehood, which is a sense of loyalty. So like we go now to the Jews for Jesus and the Jubu. One of the reasons for the distinction is people who are Jew buus, and you might have called them bujus, I don't know what you said beforehand, but is that they didn't see themselves as leaving. They saw themselves as Jews and Buddhists and that the integration of the two was possible. And since they didn't leave, the vast majority of people who saw themselves as Jewish members or followers of Jesus, in essence, even though many of them are even non Jews, the majority of Jews for Jesus aren't even Jews in a literal sense. They're Jewish in the sense that Christianity has Jewish roots. But you're belonging to an alternate exclusive community. And as a result, listen, if you're saying to me I'm gone, then you're gone. Now it could be just again, not to aggravate anybody, but it is possible in the not too distant future, given the increase in intermarriage, that we will have people who have dual identities of Jews and Christians. In which case the boundary in which you have to choose to leave for me to say, oh, you're leaving? Well then I want to tell you you're not one of me. Like it's a self defined category now. This is a dominant category. And so when I look at these boundaries, one of the things I ask myself and there's a difference, are you still seeing yourself as a player within and somehow within this tradition or not? And so the minute you say I'm not a player, I don't belong to the Jewish people, I don't belong to this tradition either one of those two in the sense, like if we mirror Ruth's famous comment, your people are my people, your God is my God, when this people is not your people, and no dimension of Jewish tradition applies to you, when you self exit, then the Jewish community says that's a red line. So once you don't do that, I'm profoundly struggle. I struggle and therefore, and I know that that's not good enough.

B (16:30)

But some of the disagreements, that's relatively easy. Someone who says, I'm not part of you anymore. We can mutually agree. It gets more complicated when you have individuals or groups who, who hold ideas that are considered deviant and more than that, antithetical to Jewish identity, to Jewish well being. So let's look for a moment at Jews for Jesus or Messianic Jews as they call themselves today. You do have communities of Messianic Jews who identify as Jews and yet they have been effectively written out of, if not the Jewish people, the Jewish community. And maybe that's an important distinction, but it's even more.

A (17:16)

Is a sense that I don't want to get too much into the Jews for Jesus because it's an evolving community and on one level it's shrinking.

B (17:23)

But I'm coming. I'm using them as an example.

A (17:26)

I'm sorry. Okay, so I won't say because the.

B (17:27)

More the more far.

A (17:29)

It's not an urgent issue.

B (17:30)

No, no, not at all.

A (17:31)

And you know why it's not emergent?

B (17:32)

It was a generation ago.

A (17:33)

You know why it's not an urgent issue? Because of intermarriage. There's a huge intermarriage rate in the Jews for Jesus community and they're leaving.

B (17:41)

So it's not the same.

A (17:44)

It's very hard for Jewish. There's a huge amount of Messianic Jews who call themselves Jews for Jesus. But that's not our issue.

B (17:51)

This generation's version of Jews for Jesus are anti Zionist Jews.

A (17:57)

Okay, I don't know.

B (17:58)

And that's where I'm trying to go here. I once heard you say, Daniil, that when a deviant idea begins to take on a critical mass within a Jewish community, it's no longer deviant, it's no.

A (18:13)

Longer a red line.

B (18:14)

That's correct. It's no longer a red line.

A (18:15)

The term is intolerable deviance. Because for me, intolerable deviance is a sociological category. And the Jewish people as a sociological reality have to take into account what the Jews do. Like God at Mount Sinai could decide A, B and C. And the Jewish people, you know, the whole Bible could be more or less summarized. And God spoke to Moses saying, speak unto the children of Israel and say unto them, do A, B, C and D. And the Jewish people said to Moses, tell God no. So like God could fantasize, prophets could fantasize, rabbis could fantasize. Jews don't keep, have always deviated. But what happens is that once we deviate from the prescribed notion. I'm not saying that you're the ideal Jew, but what you in fact do begins to define what Jews do. It's like what Jews do. Because we have such a strong national identity, it becomes part of our conversation. And so if we'll move this, like if Jews for Jesus, there's a small group, it's easy. If it became a dominant one, statistically, it would be something different. An example is interfaith marriage. Interfaith marriage in our lifetime moved from being a red line. Parents would sit shiva, they would mourn, they wouldn't. To being something that's just a very mainstream. Not only does the Jew not think they're leaving the non Jew, very often Jews through marriage. So here it is. We saw a category shifting.

B (19:42)

Danielle, this week I spoke to 130 visitors to Israel, part of a program called Honeymoon Israel. Sure, you know it.

A (19:51)

Of course. It's a great program.

B (19:53)

Extraordinary, phenomenal intermarried couples. Their first encounter with Israel.

A (19:57)

Phenomenal program.

B (19:58)

And it was one of the most moving Jewish experiences that I've had in a long time. You're sitting there with people who are just so open and that's a proof they haven't left. They haven't. And I felt you're all part of the family.

A (20:12)

And we already know and statistically also know that when the Jewish community doesn't see interfaith marriage couples as leaving, they don't see themselves as leaving. And then their Jewish identity and Judaism goes on to their children. And this brings us to the all this issue is we're not talking about Jews for Jesus today. We're really talking about Madani voters.

B (20:30)

Right? Right.

A (20:31)

This is what we're talking about. And so the Mamdani voter. Are they saying they're leaving the Jewish community? Fact no. Are they saying they don't care about Jews? Fact no. Are they saying that they hate Israel?

B (20:48)

Not necessarily.

A (20:49)

I would say not necessarily at all. They're not. October 8th Critics of the war. Some of them might be.

B (20:55)

Some of them are.

A (20:55)

Some of them might be.

B (20:56)

Some of them.

A (20:57)

But that wasn't that. The 30% is not that. They're saying some much more subtle things. Maybe about here too. It's beyond our pay grade. But they're saying things about Cuomo. They're saying things about cost of living, but they're also saying things about their liberal values and. And their sense that if I have to pick who is good for my liberal New York vision and Israel, I could pick that even more. So some of it. Someone gave the statement, I think this was on Yuda Kircher's phenomenal podcast Identity Crisis, where the person he was interviewing said, if there was no Netanyahu, there would have been no Mamdani. And part of it was, this is not my Israel. So he's angry at Israel, I'm angry at Israel. So he's mega, mega angry at Israel.

B (21:42)

But.

A (21:43)

Or he's anti Semitic. It's just. But I could support, because there's a family resemblance. Now here it is. You saw them or you see the election. And I think both of us saw it as creating a profound existential change. Whether we call it a danger, a change, a safety change for Jews, a mayor who says he's going to arrest the prime Minister of Israel and who's going to join BDS and all. It's like, this is not the same. But the Jews who supported. Is that so clear for you that it crosses your lines, Yossi?

B (22:16)

Well, now I'll quote you. There are lines and there are red lines. Not every line is a red line. It certainly violates a deep line. For me, it's not a red line. And the Jews who voted for Mamdani were making a statement about their Jewishness and about their relationship to Israel, which is. It's not our top priority. Jewishness, not our top priority.

A (22:45)

I would disagree.

B (22:47)

How can you say that?

A (22:48)

I don't want to stop you, but could you. Would you be willing to distinguish between Israel and Jewishness?

B (22:53)

Yes. No. No, listen. No, but that was a trick question. But what they were saying was that the well being of their own Jewish community, the concerns of 70% of the Jewish community, the frantic concerns, was not their concern.

A (23:18)

Or they were saying they were wrong.

B (23:20)

Now, the fact I don't share those concerns, Danielle. The fact that 30% of New York Jews voted to empower the representative of, of the camp that turned Jewish students into pariahs on American campuses, to me is something that I can't begin to get my head around. I refuse to justify that in any way. I find it such a profound violation.

A (23:52)

So let's play with that.

B (23:53)

But that's okay. I'm not talking about red lines. I'm not talking about. You're out. I'm out. I have nothing to do with you.

A (23:59)

I talk to you.

B (24:00)

I. But there is one red line here, which is rabbis. And we touched on this last week. Poor rabbi. I'm a rabbi.

A (24:07)

Could you please leave them alone?

B (24:08)

Oh, come on. I have a long history with rabbis.

A (24:11)

Like, I love rabbis. You know, why can't a rabbi be just like every other Jew?

B (24:14)

Because A rabbi? No, let's not talk about rabbis. Let's talk about Jewish leaders. Okay. Let's secularize. Okay.

A (24:21)

So I could be a little more relaxed.

B (24:22)

You could relax. Okay, good. The category is because really some of.

A (24:25)

My best friends are rabbis. All right?

B (24:27)

If you, if you presume to be leader of the Jewish people at such a sensitive moment, such a dangerous moment for your community, and right now, I'm not talking about Israel. I'm really talking about American Jewry. And it's not on your radar. It's not your concern. You're concerned with tikkun olam, social justice. You're concerned. Yes, Cuomo was an awful candidate, an awful human being. All true. But there are moments in the life of a people, in the life of a community, when you need to prioritize the safety. And even if it's just the psychological well being, I think it's more than that, but it's certainly the psychological well being of the New York Jewish community. That's not your priority. You're telling me something. And then, you know, you've ruptured something very deep in our fabric as a family. You're still part of the Jewish people. I have members of my extended family that, you know, I could take or leave, and we all have that. And Jews who voted for Mamdani, for me, emotionally, are in that category.

A (25:40)

Are in that category. Like, they cross the line.

B (25:43)

I don't. They're still my family. They're still my relatives.

A (25:47)

See, you know, I make a distinction between before the election and after the election.

B (25:52)

That's interesting.

A (25:54)

Before the election. I'm with you. I'll say the same thing. And I think we sit before the election. I want to argue that to vote was a mistake. And when people wrote us and said, but don't you understand about Cuomo and don't you understand about cost of living and don't you understand about people's anger towards Netanyahu? What you're basically saying is, I got all of that. I'm not even denying any of it. I'll accept all of it. But it's just not sufficient to override the other side. Because the line is not ideological. It's the safety and well being of the Jewish people. And when safety and well being of the Jewish people is on the table, you have to stand up and say, hineni, here I am. I vote for that. Over that, all your considerations are fine. I disagree. And if somebody says, oh, he's not so bad, fair enough. He's not dangerous because he's not the president. He's just a mayor. All the above. Then you will say to them, I think you're wrong. And that's why we're pushing for this. It could be ideological, it could be political. Whatever it is, once the election is over, we have to ask ourselves, okay, so how do we move forward? We now have a community, 30% of which voted for Mamdani for a whole slew of reasons, many of them I disagree with. I would not have voted for Madani. And again, I'm not getting involved in.

B (27:13)

I understand what you're saying today.

A (27:14)

Now it's there, now it's done. Now I look at these people and I could say, I thought you were wrong. But now you are 30%. This is not 5%. This is a third of the Jews of New York. How do we begin? And that's why I also don't. Your distinction between leaders and rabbis. These are our leaders, these are our rabbis that go from presidents and chairmen of this to that to simple people, a whole spectrum who for whatever reason, made a decision different than yours. How do we now recognize that these lines are counterproductive?

B (27:49)

So here's the thing. First of all, I personally make a distinction between just ordinary Jews who made what I consider to be a disastrous miscalculation deeper than a mistake. For me. It's a sin. Actually, it's a sin. It's a sin against the Jewish community. And I'm using religious language. That's how deeply I feel about it. But, okay, Yisrael B' Shehatai. Yisraeli. The rabbis tell us, Israel, even when it sins, remains Israel. So, okay, you sinned, but it's a sin. And don't expect me to smile and embrace you. You're my brother. It's a little premature for that. I'm still sitting with the after effects of a feeling of betrayal. Yes, you betrayed the Jewish community very.

A (28:36)

Often just together with lines. Another word that I hear you use very often is betrayal.

B (28:41)

Yes, that's another very popular Jewish word. We throw that around. Aladdin.

A (28:45)

It's interesting. I almost never use that term.

B (28:48)

Yeah.

A (28:48)

So, okay, I don't feel it like you've betrayed me. You see, it also gets very personal for you.

B (28:54)

Very personal.

A (28:54)

See, this is also. It's like there's a certain distance. I'm just trying to look at the differences between us. I hope you don't think. I'm not trying to put you down. But these are terms. They've crossed the line. It's a betrayal, you know, And Yeah.

B (29:08)

No, I own it. Of course I own it.

A (29:10)

And when you do a betrayal, the technical fact that you're still a Jew is irrelevant.

B (29:15)

No, no, no, it's. Listen, it's not okay to.

A (29:18)

Sweet. You're a Jew, you know, that's what Yitzchak Rabin, you're a boguet.

B (29:21)

No, you're not a.

A (29:22)

You're a traitor.

B (29:23)

You're not a traitor. You have betrayed the Jewish community. It doesn't make you a traitor.

A (29:28)

It doesn't trait. It's not.

B (29:29)

No.

A (29:30)

The verb and the noun don't become synonymous.

B (29:31)

No, no, no. Not necessari. But look, if you cross the red line into organized anti Zionism, you become an anti Zionist activist, then you. To my mind, it's not just an act of betrayal, it becomes your identity.

A (29:50)

I remember someone once said to me, student at another phenomenal. One of our partner organizations here in Jerusalem, one of the good people in the world from Pardes. I was once lecturing on the boundaries and said that if you see yourself as leaving, and I use the Jews, and the question was, is Zionism you see yourself as leaving? When someone said, what happens if I separate from Zionism? But I don't separate from the Jews. I still care about the Jews of Israel. I said, technically, there's a big difference. I still care about their well being. It's just Zionism is not as critical for me. All these terms.

B (30:24)

Listen, listen. There are gradations, okay? See, so these.

A (30:28)

I feel that a lot of the. A group of. It's not that they don't care for Jews, it's not betrayal. I actually think a lot of it was doctrinal and theological. Or maybe before the election it was a safety issue. Maybe this is a way of analyzing our difference before the election. I'm with you. We gotta make sure that we win because there's gonna be consequences. Now that the election is over, it's done. It's like the train has left the station. Now it becomes a doctrinal issue.

B (30:59)

No. And once it's a doctrinal issue, now I have.

A (31:02)

Okay, you did it. Now I have to try to talk. How do I live with you?

B (31:05)

It's not for me. It's not a doctrinal. It's an educational issue.

A (31:09)

Okay? That's why you reach out. But the difference is doctrinal. Then I have much greater tolerance. Red lines aren't used as often. Now here it is. I have to ask myself, how do we live as a people now? Because the divisions. Yossi, you don't Have Mavdani supporters walking around on Yom Kippur, pounding their chests and saying, I was wrong. I feel so terrible. Maybe he might do something.

B (31:33)

Oh, that's coming. You will see that I don't know. But what's bothering you?

A (31:37)

Tell me what's bothering you? What is it about what I'm saying that's bothering you? Because there's something, I see that there.

B (31:43)

Needs to be consequences in our internal Jewish dynamics.

A (31:49)

Interesting. Can I stop you there?

B (31:51)

Yeah. Why?

A (31:53)

Why? Are you the policeman of the consequences?

B (31:55)

No.

A (31:56)

Because that's not your personality.

B (31:57)

No, no, no. I'm not a policeman. But I'm someone who will experience the consequence of what you did.

A (32:05)

But once it's done.

B (32:06)

And there are patterns in Jewish behavior. Look, in my memory, it goes back to the Jewish Stalinists. I remember Jewish Stalinists in Brooklyn in the 1960s. I had two cousins, the Fuchs brothers, Stoneman, may they rest in peace. Two bachelors. So there are no children. We're fine. And I don't know my second third cousin. I called them Holocaust cousins. You know, it's distant cousins. And maybe they weren't even related. They were cousins. They were Stalinists in the 1960s. The last Stalinists. There is something intractable. We have a stubborn streak as a people which sometimes serves us well. Amc she oref the Torah calls us. We're stiff necked people. That's helped us survive. It also creates a repeated pattern of, to coin a phrase, Daniel, Own goals.

A (33:04)

Own goals. Ah. What does that mean?

B (33:06)

Ah, you see? Now we can learn something from soccer and football.

A (33:10)

Please.

B (33:11)

Right. And so, and so when you see this pattern just in the last century of Jewish life, I'm not even going to go back thousands of years. Just what we've experienced in, in our lifetime and you see this tremendous self destructive pattern of Jews not recognizing danger. And we don't even have to go to the 1930s for this.

A (33:35)

Leave that alone.

B (33:36)

But there's something pathological in our inability to do what any vulnerable minority would do instinctively, which is I'm alert to threatening. And when I say this is an educational moment, there needs to be some consequence in our internal conversation. We can't paper this over.

A (33:57)

See? Fair enough. I hear you. It's just here. I'm not going to argue because I understand it. I don't feel like consequences is an important thing for me to think about, certainly, since I have to decide because I have to police them. But I understand what you're saying. Historically, if there aren't consequences, you're just Going to keep on repeating them.

B (34:15)

Let me tell you, a friend of mine, a Jew living in. In Poland, Stasza Krajewski, a leading philosopher, mathematician, and really one of the founders of the revived Polish Jewish community after 1989. Just a fantastic human being and sterling Jew. And Stasik said to me once, he said, you know, we need a self reckoning in the Jewish people for the Jewish communists. We've pretended that it didn't happen. And this is someone whose parents were high up in the party. And he said part of the Jewish people was complicit in one of the great evils of our time. And we've all pretended that there's something sweet about it because it's the Jewish tendency for social justice. Tikkun olam. And he said, no, he said, we need to face what's wrong with us.

A (35:12)

That's fair enough. That's already we're getting into ideological and I want to get. It's when it's like, and therefore what? And therefore either I should kick them out of shul.

B (35:20)

No.

A (35:21)

So that's what you're saying. Consequences.

B (35:23)

No, the consequences that I mean is a communal conversation. I need to be able to express my anger and not immediately go into unity Mode. Something happened. 30% voted for the camp.

A (35:38)

But a communist turns. Fair enough.

B (35:40)

Your children into pariahs.

A (35:42)

Fair enough.

B (35:43)

But yes, there needs to be a conversation about that.

A (35:47)

But a conversation. When I speak about post election, it's not about, oh, we're all lovely, let's go on. Of course the conversation will entail debating things.

B (35:58)

Anger. I need anger. I need to express my anger. Okay.

A (36:02)

I never have as much need to express anger.

B (36:04)

It's like, what do you do with your anger?

A (36:06)

I don't know. I know what I do. I get a backache, my back. It's like if it's stuck inside, it's going to go somewhere. It's just not a major. I don't do anger and that get flames out very quickly by me. I don't have sustained anger. Maybe I do, but I just don't recognize it in any meaningful way. But fine, you want to have your anger, you want to be able to continue to critique them. And in one of our seminars you were saying, listen, North American Jews feel very comfortable criticizing Israel. Now I'm criticizing certain parts of the North American Jewish community. That's illegitimate. Quite to the contrary. Communicating, criticizing, arguing against. That's part of what it means to build a community. But there's a difference between saying you're outside Or I don't want to talk anymore. The Mamdani supporters, you want to be angry.

B (36:56)

I'm not saying that. So that's a fair. I'm not saying that.

A (36:59)

So we're much closer.

B (37:00)

But I am saying that.

A (37:01)

But I want to talk to you, and I want to tell you that for the first 15 minutes, I want to shout at you.

B (37:06)

I need to say to you what I hear from you all the time about Israel. I have a critique. I now have a critique of liberal American Jews.

A (37:16)

How else will we learn and talk to each other? Part of a community that I yearn for is not a community which flattens into some parav whipped cream which tastes like kaka. It's like. It's not about that. It's about having serious conversations and disagreements, and we talk. So. But now, post Mamdani and post the election, as we move forward, there has to be some sense, post causal war, would you say, where there's a nature of a conversation instead of the banishing? Because what's happening now is banishing. What happens now is if you did this, it's canceling. This rabbi didn't do this. They're canceled. This person, this leader, said this. This community, this neighborhood, they're not mine. Part of where you rebuild is through this vociferous debate, argument, criticism. I'm all in.

B (38:07)

Okay?

A (38:07)

If that's what it is, I'm in.

B (38:09)

I accept what you're saying, and I agree with you. There's no such thing as unjewing any Jew, but there is such a thing as unleadering certain leaders.

A (38:20)

So you want to stick with your leaders, then?

B (38:22)

Yes. For me, a Jewish leader who supported Mamdani has forfeited.

A (38:29)

Can I share something with you, though?

B (38:31)

Right.

A (38:31)

I appreciate that.

B (38:32)

To lead a community which is vulnerable. Can I ask you a question which isn't that easy?

A (38:36)

Could I just challenge you on that for a moment? Yeah. Like, did you appoint them? Like you're unleadering them? Really? I'm happy that you feel good about yourself. So let me tell you. Let me tell you. This rabbi is sitting in a. The rabbi of a shul. And their community loves them, and they're reflecting. So Yossi's now unleadering them. What is that? What are the consequences?

B (38:55)

Listen. Okay, fair enough. Fair enough. Let me give you. Let me give you an historic analogy, which is completely inappropriate, but I'm going to say it anyway, which is, after Baruch Goldstein's massacre in Hebron in 1994, Yitzhak Rabin stands up in the Knesset. And he says, I excommunicate Baruch Goldstein. Now, Yitzchak Rabin had no jurisdiction to do that. The rabbis who supported Mandani, God forbid. There's no comparison with Baruch Goldstein. So it's an inappropriate example.

A (39:32)

What do we.

B (39:32)

This is what we do. This is how Jews.

A (39:35)

But you know what happens? I'll let you.

B (39:37)

Let me vent.

A (39:37)

But can I tell you. I'll let you vent. First of all, I can't. I've tried in 15 years to try to control. Like there's nothing. I can't control anything anyway. So I could say, of course. So once I've lost, I say, I'll make it into an ideology. I'm not trying to stop you from venting and saying, but somewhere along the line, you're an unleader, you're an. It's like it just spreads a poison that doesn't really help your accountability issue. But that's aside. I'm going to add one last point and then we'll come to our final comments. You move this conversation away from theological, doctrinal. Is it doctrinal or doctrinal?

B (40:14)

I've heard either one.

A (40:15)

Okay, because I wanted to correct your English, but after your own goal, I wasn't doing this anymore because I grew up with it's doctrinal. Maybe it's a Canadian thing, but you moved it away from that. As it's all political. There's actually very profound red lines which are doctrinal Ben Vere Smoodrich. Now, they apply to the doctrine, not to the person. See, I'm not interested in banishing and excluding Ben Veren Smotrich.

B (40:45)

You wouldn't have them come speak at the Institute. That's because, you know, it's my house.

A (40:49)

That's not denying their inalienable rights and freedom of speech and let them, you know, compete. Go knock yourself out. The Supreme Court decides whether you could run for the Knesset. I'm not even about. Without telling them they can't run for the Knesset. Let democracy on this sense. As long as you don't physically call for the harming of fellow citizens, as long as you're not doing that formally, and that's the criteria of the Supreme Court, on the basis of which they cancelled and made Kahana illegal. And some members of Benvir's party were removed from the list as a result of that, you could run. But when you have doctrinal or doctrinal lines, a red line from a doctrinal point of view, what I say is, it's not that you're not a Jew. But this is not Judaism.

B (41:32)

This is an intolerable deviant.

A (41:33)

This is not Judaism. Now, when I say it's not Judaism, I'm not saying that it doesn't have sources in Judaism. Of course it does. Judaism has some of the best ideas and some of the worst ideas. All of our traditions have chapters that some people hail and some people are embarrassed by. All of us do we all have racism and we all have bigotry and immorality and within our scriptures, as Shakespeare says, the devil quotes scriptures. The devil doesn't have to misquote scripture. It's in there.

B (42:02)

Great lie. We have it.

A (42:04)

We got it. So for me, what I say is that's not Judaism, but I mean that I have a cultural war. This has no place whatsoever in my Judaism. There.

B (42:14)

Is that a red line?

A (42:15)

Yes, but see, so what I'm trying to say is that once it's theological or doctrinal, I can make a red line about an idea, but not about the person. And so maybe that too, by removing the Mamdani voters only to a safety issue. Maybe if we allow that there's a doctrinal argument about Israel, about priorities, about so many things where I could say this articulation is not mine, but it doesn't break down the relationship. I wonder whether that's helpful or not.

B (42:48)

Very helpful.

A (42:49)

We're now going to come to.

B (42:50)

Wait, I want to respond.

A (42:51)

No, you're going to.

B (42:52)

Yeah, yeah, I want to respond to this. It's very, very helpful.

A (42:54)

I'm going to let you. But you'll do it in the context of our closing remarks.

B (42:58)

So you've helped me clarify how I understand anti Zionism. Anti Zionism is a doctrinal or doctrinal issue and it has no place in Judaism, in your Judaism, in Judaism. Well, it also depends what kind of antizy Zionism, you know, if it is an anti Zionism, for example, like Jewish Voice for Peace, which published a Haggadah that excised any reference to one of the central themes of the Haggadah, which is the destination to which the Jewish people was heading in the desert, which is the land of Israel, that to me is not Judaism. If you're saying, well, we shouldn't have a state until the Messiah comes, which is the position of Satma Hasidim, I have a deep disagreement. But you can make a case there's a place in Judaism for that. But when you take a position that's not just an abstract anti Zionist position, you are actively aligning with the enemies of the Jewish people. That's not only political, that's doctrinal. Because you are declaring war against the overwhelming majority of the Jewish people. And the most basic sense of what.

A (44:11)

They understand, that should not be a part of Judaism.

B (44:15)

That's. And that's not a political disagreement.

A (44:18)

I appreciate it.

B (44:19)

It's Jews for Jesus. But to my mind, much more now.

A (44:24)

I would just comment as we're thinking about this, you know, and as our audience is driving and we're a little longer, so hopefully they got to their location already or we're forcing people to exercise longer than they normally were cooking. And I hope nothing burnt. But it's not simple. There's something messy about lines and it's something messy. And the one thing I want to reaffirm there has never been in the history of humankind any social structure that has existed without red lines. There has to be a there there for you to belong there. Otherwise what does it mean to be there and not somewhere else? Red lines are essential, but there's differences between red lines that you aspire for, clarity that you aspire for. Or there might even be moments in the history of a community where certain lines are simple. But when we're in our period right now of such profound, not just political difference, but doctrinal theological differences, and it's not for, not that you called it a sin, they intersect with each other. It's going to be a mess. And it doesn't mean, though, and this is one of the most important distinctions, because I'm willing to accept or engage an idea doesn't mean that I become a relativist, doesn't mean that all ideas are the same. And because I could understand your perspective, therefore I have no perspective. Like there's a certain symmetry between open mindedness and losing your mind. No, I want to go back to something that you said that I actually think is critical. You have a position, argue it, critique it. It's an essential dimension of building the identity. This is what we do as a community. And the idea that now that the election is over or this is my fear about Israel, that we're going to have a unity government which basically does nothing because the only way we can get together is by not standing for anything. No, pluralism is not the same as relativism. And most of our treatment of differences is actually tolerance. Pluralism is when I look at another opinion and I say it's not my opinion, but your opinion is of equal value to mine. There is no hierarchy between us. Tolerance is, I think, you're wrong. But I don't believe for a whole slew of reasons that I could exclude your opinion from the discourse either. I don't exclude it because I want opinions to remain so that future generations intellectual societal growth is dependent on keeping opinions. Or more often than not, tolerance is politically motivated because the Jewish people, the country, the citizens aren't. I don't control it. It's like nobody died and made me the king of Jewishness. But it doesn't mean that I think you're right. And so maintaining a way to argue, not to silence the argument in the name of unity, but the opposite in the name of unity, to emphasize the argument, because that's what we're talking about. We're talking about who we are. But I'm just seeing your body. I want to give you the last, last, last, last, last word.

B (47:31)

I actually want to end on a conciliatory note. Last week we talked about your father's interpretation of the evil son. When your father defined heresy in Judaism as what the evil child at the Passover Seder says, you and not me. It's not including oneself in the community. What always struck me about that passage is that it's happening at the seder, which means that the evil child is present. So yes, you're supposed to rebuke him, break his teeth, as the text very graphically puts it. But he's there. He hasn't been driven out of the family. And so here I would make a distinction between those who sin against the community and maybe need to be in some ways rebuked, maybe excluded from the communal framework, but not from the family, not from the seder, not from the synagogue.

A (48:35)

So the question we have, Yossi, is how do we make sure that we still have seders together in the largest sense when we don't have seders together? Beware, Yossi. Still complicated and we'll keep on talking about it, but it really was a pleasure being with you.

B (48:51)

It was great. Thank you. Thank you.

A (48:52)

Yes, here are some other things that are happening at the Shalom Hartman Institute this week. Thoughts and Prayers is a new limited series from the Shalom Hartman Institute that explores the complexity, beauty and struggle at the heart of Jewish prayer. The first episode drops this Thursday, November 13th. To be the first to listen, subscribe now at the link in the show Notes. Looking for more ways to connect with the Hartman Institute in North America? Join us for the Winter Leadership Conference 12-12-14 in Old Greenwich, Connecticut. Limited spots are available for this special and intimate gathering bringing together Hartman's most committed supporters for a weekend of learning and deep conversation with our premier faculty. Learn more and register at the link in the show notes. Imagine a gap year that's not a detour but a launchpad at the Shalom Hartman Institute's Chavuta Gap Year program, students spend the year after high school in the heart of Jerusalem immersed in serious Beit Midrash learning with Hartman's World cup faculty, including leaders such as Daniel Hartman, Tal Becker, and Ilana Steinhane. Blending community leadership and rigorous learning, Kavuta pushes students from North America and Israel to grapple with the most significant questions facing the Jewish people and a Jewish and democratic Israel. If you're looking for a gap year where you're challenged, grounded and ready for campus and beyond, learn more and apply@shalomhartman.org Gap year.

B (50:13)

For heaven's sake is a product of the Sholom Hartman Institute and ARC Media. It is produced by me, Daniel Goodman, with help from Miriam Jacobs, Adar Taylor Schechter, and Aviva Kat Manore, and studio support from Go Live Media. Our episode was edited by Seth Stein. Natal Friedman is our executive producer and our music was composed by Yuval Sama. Past episodes can be found@arcmedia.org where you can explore more of Arc Media's podcasts. You can watch the video versions of our episodes on our YouTube channel. Follow the YouTube link in the show Notes. Also, to receive updates on new episodes, please follow the link to arcmedia.org and subscribe to Arc Media's weekly newsletter. For more ideas from the Shalom Hartman Institute, visit our website@shalomhartman.org.