For Heaven's Sake — Episode: "Coming Apart" (November 12, 2025)
Hosts: Dr. Donniel Hartman and Yossi Klein Halevi

Overview

In this episode, Donniel Hartman and Yossi Klein Halevi explore the growing and deepening divisions within Jewish communities in Israel and North America, particularly in the aftermath of the judicial reform debates and the recent contentious New York election in which 30% of the Jewish community supported Mamdani. The discussion centers around the nature and function of boundaries ("red lines") in Jewish identity, politics, and community, examining both historic and contemporary cases of inclusion, exclusion, and disagreement. The hosts ask: How do we live with such pervasive and profound disagreement within the Jewish people?

Their signature style—intense yet thoughtful, passionate but reflective—presents multiple angles on the problem of maintaining a community, embracing robust argument, and defining the limits of pluralism.

Key Discussion Points

1. Jewish Red Lines: Identity, Doctrine, and Safety

• Red lines in Judaism: Yossi introduces the idea that Jewish communities have always drawn lines—doctrinal (theological) and existential (political/physical safety).
  • “There has never been in the history of humankind any social structure that has existed without red lines.” — Donniel (00:42, 44:24)
• Examples given:
  • Jews for Jesus seen as a doctrinal red line.
  • Jews who endanger communal safety—a political/existential red line.
• Yossi: Emphasizes his boundaries are triggered when he perceives threats to physical safety, like the judicial reforms, viewing them as existential to Israel’s survival (08:21–09:27).

2. Personal and Communal Boundaries

• Donniel’s stance: His boundaries are less about “red lines” and more about who he will engage with or invite into community spaces, resisting full “excommunication” (11:05–11:21).
• Distinction between ‘outsiders within’ and total exclusion: Even if someone deviates, Donniel argues that Jewishness is not formally erased—rather, loyalty and partnership are withdrawn (13:43–16:30).
• Spinoza and historical precedent: Even with excommunication (Spinoza), “you can’t un-Jew someone” (12:43).

3. Contemporary Application: Mamdani Voters

• Post-election reality: The episode is anchored in the aftermath of a New York election with a significant Jewish vote for Mamdani, described as alarming by both hosts.
• The challenge: How do Jewish communities integrate or relate to a significant minority with divergent, even distressing, priorities?
• Donniel: Advocates for recognizing complexity in motivations—e.g., some may vote out of concern for liberal values rather than rejection of Jewish interests or Israel (20:57).

4. On Betrayal, Anger, and Communal Consequences

• Yossi: Expresses a deep sense of betrayal (27:49, 28:36), but draws a distinction:
  • “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—Israel, even when it sins, remains Israel.” (27:49)
• Need for Consequences: Yossi argues, Jews must reckon with internal misjudgments ("own goals"), not simply “paper them over” for the sake of shallow unity (33:57).
  • “There needs to be consequences in our internal Jewish dynamics.” (31:43)
• Donniel’s approach to anger: He does not experience sustained anger and does not see “consequences” as central; instead, wants vigorous post-disagreement debate, not banishment (35:58–36:56).

5. Pluralism, Tolerance, and Communal Conversation

• Pluralism vs. Tolerance: Donniel warns against confusing pluralism (equal validity) with tolerance (accepting but not necessarily agreeing) (44:24–47:31).
  • “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. Tolerance is, I think, you’re wrong.” (44:24)
• Communal healing through argument, not silence: Both agree on the need for passionate, honest debate post-election, not silencing dissent in the name of unity (35:58–38:07).

6. Leaders and Accountability

• On “unleadering”: Yossi repeatedly calls for holding Jewish leaders especially accountable if they support causes he sees as dangerous (38:07–38:55).
• Donniel’s challenge: Questions the practicality and legitimacy of “unleadering”—leaders are chosen by communities, not by commentators (38:31–38:55).

7. Doctrinal vs. Political Exclusion

• Doctrinal exclusion: Donniel distinguishes between banishing people and rejecting dangerous ideas as un-Jewish. “I can make a red line about an idea, but not about the person.” (42:15)
• Yossi agrees: For example, modern anti-Zionism that severs ties to Jewish peoplehood is doctrinally outside Judaism (44:11–44:19).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On boundaries and inclusion:
  • “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.” — Donniel (00:42, repeated 44:24)
• On existential threats:
  • “This government is threatening the long term viability of Israel.” — Yossi (09:27)
• On betrayal and family:
  • “It’s a sin. It’s a sin against the Jewish community. And I’m using religious language… But, okay, Yisrael b’shehatai Yisraeli—Israel, even when it sins, remains Israel.” — Yossi (27:49)
  • “They’re still my family. They’re still my relatives.” — Yossi (25:43)
• On anger and unity:
  • “I need to be able to express my anger and not immediately go into unity mode.” — Yossi (35:23)
  • “I don’t do anger … it flames out very quickly by me.” — Donniel (36:04)
• On post-election engagement:
  • “Once the election is over, we have to ask ourselves, okay, so how do we move forward? … How do we now recognize that these lines are counterproductive?” — Donniel (27:13–27:49)
• On leaders and legitimacy:
  • “There’s no such thing as unjewing any Jew, but there is such a thing as unleadering certain leaders.” — Yossi (38:09)
• On doctrinal lines and identity:
  • “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… but 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.” — Donniel (42:32)
• Conclusion, on the Seder table as metaphor for communal inclusion:
  • “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… But he’s there. He hasn’t been driven out of the family.” — Yossi (47:31)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Definition of red lines: 00:42, 44:24
• Judicial reform as existential threat: 08:21–09:27
• Distinction between boundaries, lines, and red lines: 11:01–12:44
• Discussion on Mamdani voters: 20:30–25:47
• Debate on betrayal vs. ongoing engagement: 27:49–31:02
• Anger and communal consequences: 31:43–36:56
• Pluralism, tolerance, and unity: 44:24–47:31
• Seder and communal inclusion: 47:31–48:35

Final Reflections

Both hosts articulate a vision of Jewish peoplehood that is robustly argued, passionately critiqued, and ultimately guided by a refusal to “unjew” any Jew. Yet, they draw lines—sometimes doctrinal, sometimes practical—about who leads and what constitutes legitimate communal discourse. The challenge for Jewish life, especially post-crisis and post-election, is to maintain the possibility of Seders together even as fierce arguments continue—a metaphor for holding the community together amidst difference.