C (8:03)

Thanks, Yehuda. Good to Be back with you. Yeah. When I'm leading, which I've done so many years in so many different contexts, to be honest, this may sound strange, but the meaning of the words is often very far from my mind in terms of my response responsibilities in the moment. What I feel is most important as a leader is to project my sincerity, to use a word that you introduced the conversation with, to project the sense that I am in it. I am not at a remove from it. And that's the key thing, I think, as a leader, you have to offer in order to draw other people in. It doesn't mean the words are irrelevant, but it means the cadence of the words is just as important as their decoding. Now, the words, of course, do matter.

A (8:54)

They matter.

C (8:54)

And I think I think about them almost less for myself and more refracted through the people in the room. It could be, what is my daughter thinking of these words? What is that person? I've had some discussions or arguments with thinking of them. What would my parents want me to think of the words in that sense? There is actually a certain luxury to being a leader. I feel sometimes the difficulty of not leading any amim no arye, when you're sort of trapped there, as it were, with the words themselves, without the ability to transcend them and build on them with all those other dimensions.

A (9:33)

Yeah. I feel similarly as a prayer leader. I'm not a particularly theological person. I don't know what that actually means. I feel like I'm a ship captain. I'm helping people to have a particular religious experience or spiritual experience or whatever term you want to use, partly out of a sense of obligation we all have to be there, but more out of a sense of, like, we have the opportunity to participate in something transcendent, and let's do that together, but then let's confront the words themselves. In all of your years of teaching and your writing, you have been a very strong advocate to be a. I'll use the term, a sympathetic reader, an engaged reader. Right. Taking the tradition not at its face value and leaving it there, but not walking in and saying, how do I kind of counteract what it's trying to do by doing something different? So now let's take that mode, and I want to hear your kind of thinking about what it means to pray a liturgy. And you can be a venom Alcano, but it can be plenty of other things in the liturgy that live at odds with some of our instinctual ethical sensibilities.

C (10:40)

Yeah, absolutely. The reading sympathetically is, I think, also another way of expressing the desire to speak in the dialect of eternity. If I can use an overly profound phrase. You talked about, you know, sort of praying in the present with the language of the past. I think it's all also about how do we locate ourselves. This is what it means to have a liturgy. I'm not writing the words right. I could say other stuff that just comes to me on some level. The choice to be in liturgy in any form is to say, I'm going to receive something and imagine that by speaking through these words, what I feel and what I have to say will be more profound. Now, how does one do that? I mean, there's a lot of different ways. Look, some. Sometimes there's got to be, if not changing, supplementing, right? That is to say, you encounter certain prayers. I was just talking about this with my daughter a few days ago. You encounter certain prayers, specifically in the days of all liturgy that are full of men and women are completely absent, even though all the way back to the Bible, women have been among the most significant supplicants to God in our narratives. You think about at the end of the Yom Kippur service at night, a passage said by many people, the Misha Anah prayer, the one who answered. And then you get this litany of people who called out to God, God answered them. And we say, God will also answer us. And it is glaring. It is simply glaring how Rebecca is missing from there, Hannah is missing from there. People who are core models for the sages and for us in terms of what it means to pray. Certainly when I'm leading Davening, we always hand out a supplement with that and we fill out the words. And many communities have begun to do that. Sometimes there is just more to be said. Actually, the old expressions will not exhaust right, what you need to do. And some people, as you point pointed out, will do that with Avinu Malkeinu. They'll shake it up in the translation or the original. And I agree with your assessment that in the wrong configuration of mucking with certain things on the high holidays, you will get a spiritual riot, if not a physical one. So there, I think part of also what it is to be a sympathetic reader is to actually have the humility of realizing you are probably not the first person to have the problem. And so instead of going for the jugular of the text and modifying it or deleting it, to have the patience and the good fortune of guides who can point you to this to find interpretations or rereadings that just give it a Different interpretation. Yeah, I'll share one that I only encountered, you know, as an adult, but which was extremely and is extremely meaningful for me and a reminder of how our takes on these Tfilot can change year after year, depending on what we learn. Rav Yitzchak Hutner, one of the great and underappreciated 20th century rabbis, in one of his discourses around Rosh Hashanah, is puzzling over the fact that in the Talmud, God is presented as saying, say the Malchuyot verses. Say the verses about kingship, about sovereignty. I think we can extend it to invoke that theme throughout the holiday so that you will crown or coronate me over you. And Rav Hutner notes that this is a little tautological. I mean, what do you mean? You're saying the verses in order to say the verses to proclaim God as king. How is that provoking some kind of divine response? Like when we blow the shofar, we want God to remember us. And he says something quite profound, which is clearly speaking as a modern Jew responding to a world without kings, without kings that are serious role models or holders of authority. And he says, Rosh Hashanah is actually not the time where Jews acknowledge God as king. It's the time where Jews are coronating God as king. And just like that, he sort of flips the whole metaphor to a concept descent of the govern model, where when you're saying malkeinu, you are less reflecting on some objective reality of God serving as a sovereign. You are actually being offered by the tradition this profound right, this profound place of establishing God as your ruler. And from that perspective, you take something that is a profoundly disempowering metaphor in a certain way and turn it into again, the notion that the people are actually, on some level, what makes the king.

A (15:23)

You said a lot of profound things there. I want to pull out two different threads. One is going to be around egalitarianism, one is about prayer, not surprisingly, given the topic of your work. So let's start with the prayer piece. The way that you were describing the experience of this kind of prayer and that interpretive process is almost like you can't step in the same river twice. The river, of course, is same. You are not right. And when this year that I step into the river, this experience looks a particular way, and the river has evolved in time and so have I. So that implies that there's something incredibly elastic about this vessel that we describe as the prayers and the liturgy themselves. Where is the resistance for you, I assume you just because I know you. There are certain limits to what you want out of people in terms of the elasticity of how they're using the theology of the prayers, where it stretches beyond what you would feel comfortable in. And not just in I'm changing the prayers themselves, but even in the I'm walking in, assuming that because I'm carrying this certain set of questions or concerns to the world, that the prayers are automatically capable of changing in the moment to meet what I'm thinking about. Where's that resistance for you of like, you're not always the one coronating the king?

C (16:42)

Yeah, I think for me, the resistance. And it's very hard to point to where this line is. So it's maybe more of a standard than a guideline. It's the difference between when prayer is an experience of rebelling and resisting and outsmarting the words, as opposed to genuinely feeling like you are their heir and are speaking a truth they wanted you to speak. And if it's the latter, I'm not sure I have any limits. Assuming we talk about a shared set of words, I'm not sure I have any limits almost on what someone imagines the those words to project, as you say, when the business becomes one of figuring out what to change, what to modify in all kinds of ways that will become contentious. I remember this actually sits at an interesting intersection of gender and liturgy. I remember years and years ago, when I was a much younger, less tolerant, even less wise person, I was sitting with someone who was very active in. In Boston, where they did a lot of creative liturgical work. And I would say as a liturgical conservative, small C. I viewed this with a tremendous degree of skepticism and a sense, you know, you're changing things around. And one of the points of contention often has been, forget about avinu malkeinu, just our regular brachot, our regular blessing blessings, which point us to say melech haolam, and let's just translate it simply as king of the universe, over every single action that we do that demands a bracha, a blessing. And that's been vexing for people for whom both the hierarchy and the gender image of that have been upsetting. And so you'll find in any number of liberal prayer books shifting melech ha' olam to ein hachaim, you know, the source of life, the spring of life. This always seemed to me like a sort of playing fast and loose, you know, modification of the prayer book. And I remember sitting down with someone and talking about this and asking a sort of pointed critique from the angle of halacha on this. And he said to me, yeah, that's a great question. You know, actually, if you look in Kabbalistic literature, the essence of Malchutt is not actually really about kingship. It's about there being a single source of authority. And so when we say ein Hachaim and invoke the image of a spring, which is the notion of all the water comes from that Ayin, that spring that I. We're really actually emphasizing the critical element of malchut. And I remember leaving that lunch and saying, I don't think I'm ever going to stop say that. But wow, that person completely changed my entire perspective. And what they did in that conversation was show me I care about this and the meaning of this just as much as you. If anything, I'm concerned that the maleness and hierarchy of this is leading us to lose malchut.

A (19:54)

But I would say in that example, I don't want to impose this on you, but I'm guessing that one of the things that helped sway your response was that the person said said in the Kabbalistic tradition. In other words, what they didn't say was, I don't like it. It doesn't feel good. It doesn't sound good. Now they, of course, are saying that. They're saying, I can't utter these words. Right. And maintain a sincere sense. I feel almost victimized by them. Right. So there is a strong personal moral instinct that's driving this. But it may be that the reason that that makes sense to you is because it captures that sticky word authenticity. It's still old, right?

C (20:35)

Yeah. I think also besides the old, it goes back also to that word of sincerity combined with being an heir of something.

A (20:45)

Right.

C (20:45)

In other words, because you can be sincere and stand outside, you can be sincere as a critic. We also, I think it's important to note we all start as critics. Whenever we notice a problem, whenever anything is difficult for us, we begin from a stance of, well, that doesn't feel right. That's not working for me. What's been my spiritual path and, you know, my scholarship in this area has intended to promote is, can we start from that place of critique and ultimately sublimate it into being a faithful heir of the tradition? A lot of the work of which is figuring out what are the voices, right. That grappled with this before. I don't think anyone around that lunch table would have suggested that Lurianic Kabbalah was dealing with the same concerns that a late 20th, early 21st century Jew was dealing with. But the whole point of our tradition is that there are unexpected resonances of our concerns with other voices across the time and space. And that's the beauty of Talmud Torah, of study, of being in that larger tradition.

A (21:54)

There's a second religious value that seems to be at stake here. When we confront a liturgy or a tradition in general and feel this dance between the desire to make it speak an intelligible language to us versus, as you said, being the heirs of it, which is the question also of humility. Are the prayers meant to humble us in some sense? Yes. When you have to say the words sovereign of the universe or king of the world. Right. You are subordinating something in yourself. Whereas if your instinct is to make it sound a little bit different and a little bit more palatable, you are elevating the desire for autonomy and empowerment in yourself. And I will say, as a Davners, a person who prays and a person who prays for others, I feel this pretty acutely. Like, there's one line I detest right at the end of the silent prayers that we say before the repetition, which is, before I was created, I was undeserving. And now that I am created, I am undeserving, I am dust of the earth, et cetera, I actually find it kind of appalling, like, gross. I don't like talking about the human condition that way. And by the way, having been and led services in a room with people who feel very vulnerable because of their lack of self worth, I find it to be like a violent text. So in that moment, how do I dance between, I'm not going to say that I don't like it, it's hurtful, I don't want to say it versus well, somebody wants you to say it and thinks it's important for you to say it. And who the hell are you to tell that imagined person of the past that you're better than it?

C (23:36)

Yeah, it's always helpful when things are tucked away in the private quietly read section of things. And then, you know, yeah, but you both intrinsically have more license. And also, no one's really going to know exactly what happens. But Your point stands 100%. We could go through the whole moxa and find all kinds of things that have a different kind of impacts for different people. I think that the way I think about that and you touched on at the end of your question here, there are two dimensions that feel really important for the liturgy, sort of being allowed more or less in the public space. To remain whole. Number one is there are so many different people with different needs. I would say I used to feel the way you just described about tachonun on most mornings, the practice of falling down and saying things about how horrible it is and my bed has been stained with tears, etc. It felt to be over the top, even on a national level at a time of Jewish power. It seems irresponsible. And I remember when one of the students in the early years of the yeshiva at Hadar, when she got up, giving like a dvart fila a little comment on the service at the end the of of the morning, saying her favorite prayer was Tachanon. And why? Because it was a place that she felt gave her license to cry and to name the fact that there were a lot of things in her life that were horrible. And she spent so much of her life having to pretend everything was fine and uplifted and actually she just wanted to be seen by God as having a tear stained bed. And that really stopped me in my tracks because I said to myself, well, I can decide at home any given morning to invoke the strong rabbinic precedent that tachanun is optional. And if you're not moved on a given morning to say it. But who am I to cut even one word from the public recitation if this will resonate with this person? That's one. The other thing is, I think there is no text that doesn't have its moments. And even the text you talk about of the worthlessness of the human being, I remember many times with my older son as a little kid, he hated other versions of that too. In the Davenings. I don't want to say I'm dust and ashes. Like, I'm not. I'm a person. I'm trying to build myself up. And I look around the world now and I see figures with massive power, arrogance, a sense that they can do whatever they want. And I think to myself, boy, do we need a dose of human worthlessness and humility. Now, I think the pastoral work here, and this is sometimes done by rabbis and sometimes done various resources. Is the folks in the room that you're rightly concerned, will these texts be violent towards? Well, you have to have a way of also spreading this message if what I'm saying is right. There's also a way to say to people, yeah, I'm not sure that text is for you. I'm not sure that text is speaking to you. The challenge of prayer, of course, is we're not there for everyone's intimate moment with the words or with God. And, yeah, it can be tough and damage can sometimes happen. But I think the liturgy is aiming for that broad impact horizontally across the diversity of community and vertically through the axis of time, for challenges and needs that are not yet clear to us.

A (27:11)

I think you're helping me understand my own bias as to why I so strongly prefer the collective experience of prayer and even the activity of singing as part of the collective experience of prayer. Because I find that it kind of thatches us together, something that seeks to not leave anybody behind in that place of a kind of vulnerability when people are saying their prayers silently. Some people do need that and want it and do weep. Otherwise, I find it a little bit scary that we're leaving people kind of on their own to struggle through this, and then we kind of get to pull it back together and lift them up. Rabbi Saloveitchik distinguishes between what he calls the prayer of the individual. It's not just the prayer of the individual, and then, as though you have the individual prayer rendered in community, but it's Tfilat Hatzibor. It is the prayer of the congregation, and it's a totally different animal than the individual experience. And maybe my own bias has just been to lean on that side of things because we then have more. It feels to me almost like there's more safety and control in theory. Nobody gets left behind.

C (28:27)

Yeah. You know, look, one of the things, that particular prayer that you're referring to, I think this is the irony, of course, that prayer about, before I was created, I was nothing. This was the personal prayer of an individual Talmudic sage, which then was found compelling enough by later people that they started saying it. And then by the time you get to them printing things, they decide, this is going to remain and go in. There's a little bit of personal variety. There's meant to be some degree of personal variety, even in a liturgical context. And I think the reason that prayer hits hard and betrays that origin is it's in the first person. Right. The other way we shield ourselves from things, not always helpfully. We shield ourselves from things by putting them in the plural. I think that subjects itself, itself, to the danger of the classic thing of the rabbi who gets up and gives a sermon of rebuke, and then the congregant comes over afterwards and says, I'm so glad you said that, because Cohen really needed to hear that. And actually, it was for you, too. And the communal prayer, in that sense is tricky. When we say Alchayt Shechatanu, the sins we have sinned. You can easily say, well, I don't really do any of these, but a collective repeat repentance, you say, which is not the way we say it. You're much more exposed. I think it is interesting that for the most part, whether for your concerns or others, there is this bias of we don't really pray in the individual, in the singular, that much. But then the moments where that appears, they hit us even harder.

A (30:02)

So let's go back to the egalitarianism conversation, because it really is one of the modern cruxes of the theological weight, the ethical consequences. It's such a deep part of human experience, of people's own sense of empowerment and their worlds in which they live. I want to offer you a kind of taxonomy of how people do egalitarianism. I want you to reflect a little on the strengths and weaknesses, and one of them is going to be. The fourth take is yours. I'm going to read back your own words. There's one strategy I think, that exists in the world, which is, no, we don't actually tinker with the core material of liturgy or ritual, but everybody gets to lead it and everybody gets to say it. People of all genders get to speak in the language of the masculine. Right. I would classify that as kind of where a lot of orthodoxy is evolving. Right. It's not a real interrogation of the liturgy itself or the practice of Judaism, but it is licensing different people to be able to have a position of authority over that material. A second is a retrieval method. Right? Ah, look, earlier in the tradition, I can find a source that women did the following or said this or earlier in the tradition, I can find a source that says the source of life as opposed to king of the world. And now I can kind of peg onto that. And now I can make this change. A third strategy, which I will say personally, I gravitate more towards as I get older, which is stop trying to make it work as the words of a famous film. Stop trying to make fetch happen. This is not going to work. The only thing you need to do is just say, I'm not saying those words anymore, or, I'm not abiding by the procedural norms of how I would get to a place to permit this person to do something. I'm just committing axiomatically to a principle of egalitarianism. The rest of the world will follow. And the fourth is yours, which is very subtle. I'm going to quote something you said, a 2017 interview with Alan Brill, he said, think of halacha as an eternal light refracted through changing lenses of reality. Maybe you've said this before or remember saying it. You place a light bulb on a roadway with a red lens, and all drivers know to slam on the brakes, take the same light and put a green lens in front of it, and the same law abiding drivers floor the gas pedal. This is not a shifting law, but a shifting reality. Our claim, and this is to your and Mikey's book, our claim is that the halacha never cared about biology per se when it came to public prayer. Rather, gender was a proxy for other categories of significance, categories that are themselves grounded in social realities. A shifting response to gender and prayer may then be an actually more faithful fidelity to the underlying values of the halacha.

C (32:47)

So, sounds familiar.

A (32:49)

Yeah. Run through the first three and then play out this fourth, because what it feels to me like you're arguing is it's not really about gender at all. And I'm using a very different approach to make possible a gender reinterrogation of Jewish law. So I want you to walk us through that.

C (33:06)

Yeah. There's so much to say on this. I'll say, I guess to build up to the last approach, if I can make a general statement about this. I think what we want to do is be honest and sympathetic readers of our tradition and honest and sympathetic readers of our reality and lived experience. The pitfalls often happen when we give up one or the other of those, or we essentially reduce halacha to some sort of game where I just need to find a secret passcode that will let me get to where I need to go and let me maybe sort of try to take that apart without getting into. I think it's actually very complicated to talk about who is in what camp, but I think it is helpful to talk about approaches. There is an approach that essentially sees the lived experience, experience of gender equality in the world as a distraction, maybe even a seduction, maybe something that's leading us astray. And there's a certain kind of counterculturalism that the halacha is meant to provide on this. And I'm actually sympathetic to that when it's articulated with full sincerity and consistency. And there's a sense of, no, I actually don't really want to live in that world. I think if you live in a world where you don't delegate serious leadership roles to women in all areas of life other than tpila, the result will probably not be a deep honoring of the tradition in the long run, but a sidelining of the tradition. What Professor Veradnoam has talked about putting halacha and Jewish practice in a museum as opposed to making it a normal part of life and its worst iterations. It can be a locker room or, you know, just sort of fun, fun place to hang out, but not anything that has an analog with the other ways we run things. You can also, on the other hand, I think, despair again, I'm not projecting this onto you or anyone else, but you can despair that the language of the tradition and its insights and values really does speak to the contemporary moment. You can say, I actually just live in a different time. I need a certain kind of paradigm shift there. Aside from the fact that I don't think that's correct on this topic, I also think it's dangerous, which is to say, at the end of the day, I'm not sure Judaism has a long term vitality without constantly reinserting its commitments back into the disposition course of the ages. Now, that doesn't mean there can't be moments of disjuncture, but I think moments of conscious disjuncture that are allowed to fester for too long end up doing lots of undermining work. We can look at, you know, various Talmudic passages with you and other of our listeners may be familiar with where the rabbis seem to do a sort of outrageous rabbinization of biblical characters. They go back, they imagine David in the study hall arguing with Avishai, his bodyguard. And there is something that to the historically trained mind, you know, smirks and finds amusing. But they are actually doing something profound there, which is asserting we've made up something new here. We think of ourselves as basically being in an unbroken tradition in the past. And I think that generates a tremendous amount of energy for moving forward, for building things, you know, even before I think this is important. You lovingly described, you know, the placehold Daven for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur and others like it as belonging to a micro denomination. And it's not how I think of it. I think of it as the tip of the sphere of the way that halacha is and must be understood. And like all new insights or ways of synthesizing traditions and realities, it'll start with a certain group of people that are ready to do it. And it will be borne out hopefully on the wings of eagles with great influence in much broader ways, I think, bringing it to my approach. I do think that quote that you brought really does capture my thinking on this, which is, I'm not interested in looking for some stray precedent that I can hang my hat on and say, oh, great, now I have a token, authentic place to park. I really want to understand, what did the sages of old want of me? What would they have done to me today? Requires me, yes, to stretch them beyond their own time, just as it requires me to stretch myself beyond my own time. But to me, that's the whole thing. And we could go through, and the book goes through. What are the arguments I would make from the texts themselves that indicate that this is the case? One of the things in the second edition of the book is there's a new appendix which goes through the sort of analysis of, at a core level of how do you read texts that talk about women, slaves and minors as a legal category, as three people who belong together? It's uncomfortable. You would never say that triad in polite company today. The argument that we make there is that that itself, as we say in Hebrew, that actually proves the point that the category here was a sociological category with various proxies. The very thing that makes that triad uncomfortable for us to hear today is the very social change that makes the underlying value there get applied differently. Which is to say, the underlying value is if you're not of full social, economic, independent stature, you are may not have the full panoply of obligations. When that shifts, when gender actually goes to a different place in our society, we can say, thank God, the circle of expectation expands. But I think what's really important to me is whether or not someone buys that argument on that point or is going to change their practice. I do really believe that the work of these discussions around halacha, around liturgy, is to try to understand what is that metaphor of our Father, our King getting at, Right? What is it meant to do in us? I think one of the things is it makes us humble. It makes us feel loved. Right? I may also feel loved by my mother. But just focus for what does the image of Father do for me? And on some level, it doesn't mean that the words don't get in the way. Right? I can acknowledge they can get in the way. But much more important than the word avinu is how does your father make you feel at the best moments? And how are you trying to channel that into your relationship with God? And then maybe other images and other texts and other things we need to add to that. But that's how I try to think about.

A (40:33)

Yeah, I don't know. I really struggle with this when I First journeyed from an Orthodox background into egalitarian contexts. Your approach was vital to me. As you know, you came and stayed in our house in Brookline with a screaming infant who was being sleep trained. Still, sorry about that. It cost you a night of sleep and you taught a lot of this Torah. What I would say psychologically that Torah did for me at the time was like, it can work, it can work. You don't have to feel bad about leaving behind the Judaism that you know kind of works, but you now can't abide anymore. But this can work. And since shifting to praying in egalitarian contexts and my own drifting, my own impatience, maybe for those who have not gone there, the shift towards. No, I just think this is right. Not. It's right because you've helped identify that these categories in the past were used as related to social class and now we're mapping them differently onto gender. It's just not right. It's just not how human beings should operate. What has been very liberating for me is so by default, I'll probably egalitarian contexts once in a while. You know, my boys like to go to a local Orthodox synagogue. Oftentimes I'll go with them. When I go there, it enables me to no longer feel like this is kind of the real thing. And what I'm stretching to do when I die in egalitarian is to like make it work. And instead I can walk into that room and be like, oh, these people are choosing to not make it work. These people are choosing in the perpetuation of a more patriarchal tradition. They are making their own choice. And I find that like really liberating. When Rachel Adler says, the theologian Rachel Adler says the Torah has to speak to us in a language of human. You reclaim an immense amount of dignity in being able to resist some of that. And maybe it's just that you and I ultimately have a little bit of a. It's not just different strategies. Maybe it's just a different set of orientations, but I don't. I don't know. I don't know.

C (42:47)

Yeah, maybe different orientations.

A (42:49)

I think there may also be different human experience.

C (42:51)

I'm always very open when talking about this in a personal way of noting that I grew up in two different homes. What they shared in common was shmirat mitzvot, traditional Jewish practice and Shabbat observance. And in one, I went to a non egalitarian synagogue. And when I went into an egalitarian synagogue, in that sense, my journey is less One of starting in one place and going to another. It's more about trying to find a way to articulate language that can unite as much of Amisrael as possible around things that feel important to me and feeling very much a part of both of those spaces, or having grown up and davening in those different spaces. Spaces. And in that sense, no one can really find a way to speak equally effectively to everyone. Right. With a different kind of journey. I think yes, what you are tapping into is that for me, I want the common journey to be that we are trying to be Avde Hashem, we're trying to be servants of God, of the King, of the Sovereign. And I serve, strive to see that striving in what other people are doing. And I know they see in me sometimes that I'm going too far on something or I haven't pushed far enough on this. And I can see that in others. Also, I can feel that frustration of people who, you know, anyone who writes a book has a fantasy of, well, now that I've written this book, the world will change because people will read it and they will be convinced. And anyone who's written a book knows that's not actually how it goes. But you do offer people, I think, a way of talking and thinking. I think my humility on this topic, and maybe it goes back also to my humility with the liturgy, also is it's hard to fully foresee what all the consequences of different choices will be. And certainly you can walk into a non egalitarian space and be disappointed with that piece of it that feels misaligned with what you want the world to be. And you will also often find in those spaces metrics of commitment and devotion in other ways that are the gold standard to be adopted by everyone. And that's true of every space. I think every sincere Jewish space with energy has something you walk into and you say, oh, wow, this is really being done well here. How could I bring that in? The critique I will fully accept is this way of thinking requires a great degree of self confidence and patience not to feel overly threatened by different models, different words, not to feel that a certain paragraph in the davening is coming for me and instead to say, here I am, I'm trying to understand what can I get from this. And I don't pretend that everyone's equally equipped to do that at every moment in their life.

A (45:52)

Right.

C (45:53)

I think one of the things that is interesting is when we think about who is equipped to lead davening or Rosh Hashanah Yom Kippur. It's quite striking that formally the codes talk about you needing to be a certain age to have kids. Any number of details, which I would say to you are quite explicitly proxies for people who have felt pain and had deep responsibility. It's not a light enterprise and it requires someone. They may reach that wisdom before 30. They may have plenty of responsibility without having kids, but you want someone up there who has some skin in the game and I think can bear the knocks that the liturgy may deal as they're going through it.

A (46:43)

Last question, which is going back to Avino Malkeinu, our sovereign, our king. This year in particular, a lot of Jews are going to be walking into synagogue with a lot of feelings about authoritarianism and politics and truth and all of their values at stake. What advice would you offer the Jew in the pew coming into a prayer experience this year? In other words, not just those who are showing up just to hear the speech, which is fine, I have no judgment. But for those who are coming to pray, what advice might you give them, all of us, on how to bring in the heaviness and the weight of the world that we feel is slipping away from us in the present as we kind of confront this prayer dialogue with the Trinity?

C (47:31)

Yeah, it's such a hard question. There's what I don't think is a facile answer because I really do believe it's deep, but it has its limits. When we pray for God to rule over the whole world, I think it's important to note particularly what the image of divine kingship means, going back to the Bible and going back to the earliest narratives about the flesh and blood monarchy in contrast to divine kingship. Right. When the people ask for a king under Samuel, he excoriates them because essentially they were supposed to be living under a regime of divine anarchy, if you can describe it that way. And the choice of an earthly sovereign is sort of selling out to human power, which will ultimately corrupt. If you take that seriously, when we say meloch al kola olam kulobich vodecha, we beg for God to be the ruler, that is implicitly a demotion, right, of the centrality of all the other rulers. I think, you know, as Jews, as human beings, that shouldn't mean chaos. It shouldn't be what we think of when we say the word anarchy, but a sense of a world that is not governed by self seeking, self serving individuals. That I think is a central piece. And to the extent there's righteous disappointment, maybe we can call it with the world that comes in, I think the liturgy is there to amplify that. That said, you know, that can be escapist. There's no question. You sit there and you go into your little ritual hive on Rosh Hashanah and you emerge feeling, feeling much better. But you know, the world was the same. It's going to be just a regular Tuesday and Wednesday. It's not even on a weekend this year. The world's just going to be going about and there I think it's important to remember that davening doesn't do all the work. You know, I think davening centers us with a certain set of values, a vision of what the destiny of the world is meant to be. But at the end of the day, day it's got to be translated into what kind of world are you building on the ground? I think from my own exposure to politics as a kid and my family, you have this too. I'm always skeptical of. If you go deep into that work, I think you can make a big difference if you're not directly in the work of high level politics, opinion shaping, etc. I think actually the call is that we do most of our significant work by building the families, the communities, the local spaces we're in and we model what we can in those places. And that's not going to get you a Nobel Peace Prize, but it is going to get you divine favor on the ultimate day of judgment, because that's what matters. That's how I think about it.

A (50:22)

Thanks for coming on the show, Ethan Dior.

C (50:27)

Thank you, Yehuda. Amen.

B (50:36)

Here are some other things that are happening at the Shalom Hartman Institute this week. The Hartman Institute continues to expand our ability to foster deep and meaningful connections around Jewish ideas in our own lives. Last week we launched a partnership with IPF atid, the Young Adult Division of Israel Policy Forum, bringing Cora Hartman ideas to the next generation of leaders who are engaged in conversation about Israel. The session will use Hartman's new Siach resource as the basis for learning and conversation. This learning series kicked off in Boston and will take place through October in Los Angeles, Washington, Toronto, San Francisco and Chicago. We wish all of our listeners a Shanah Tovah Umetuka, a year of goodness, sweetness, blessings and peace for us, our communities and the world. Thanks for listening to our show and special thanks to our guest, Ethan Tucker. Identity Crisis is produced by me, Tessa Zitter, and our executive producer is Maital Friedman. This episode was produced with assistance from Annie Beyer. Chaffetz researched by Gabrielle Feinstone and edited by Josh Allen with music provided by so called transcripts of our show are now available on our website. Typically, a week after an episode airs, we're always looking for ideas for what we should cover in future episodes. So if you have a topic you'd like to hear about, or if you have comments about this episode, please write to us@identitycrisisalomhartman.org for more ideas from the Shalom Hartman Institute about what's unfolding right now. Sign up for our newsletter in the show Notes and subscribe to this podcast everywhere. Podcasts are available. See you next time, Shanah Tovah, and thanks for listening.