Dilemmas On Screen: A Jewish Perspective

9. [The Matrix] Blue Pill or Red Pill?

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

8. [The Godfather] Was Don Corleone A Good Man?

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

7. [Cobra Kai] Intent to Harm (Miguel) v. Harmful Results (Robby) - What's Worse?

In this episode, Rabbi Mordechai Becher joins us in investigating whether the intent to cause harm, but with no ill effect is considered more morally culpable than a lack of intent to harm, but with yes ill effect. This dilemma presents itself in the way Miguel and Robby fought each other on two separate occasions.
As background, Cobra Kai is a TV series that serves as a sequel to the Karate Kid film franchise. The show focuses on two teenage karate stars, (i) Miguel, who ends up being trained by Jonny Lawrence, and (ii) Robby, who ends up being taken under the wing of Danny LaRusso. Robby is also Jonny’s son. This serves as a fairly significant point of tension between Miguel and Robby, and the tension continues to build given Miguel and Robby share a love interest
At the end of the first season, there is a karate tournament. Throughout the course of the tournament, Robby’s shoulder is injured in a previous round by a different Cobra Kai fighter.
In the final round, we have a face off between Robby v. Miguel. Miguel repeatedly, and purposely, strikes Robby’s injured shoulder. Including not only during the actual fighting, but even when Robby is showing good sportsmanship and offering Miguel a hand, Miguel pulls down hard on the (unoffered) injured arm. That being said, there is no permanent damage to Robby’s arm.
Miguel ends up winning the tournament, though not directly due to dirty tactics.
At the beginning of season 2, Jonny derides Miguel for fighting dirty, explaining there’s a difference between “No mercy” and “fighting with honor.”
Fast forwarding to the end of the season, Robby and Miguel are fighting in a school brawl. Robby was trying to break up a fight, but Miguel walked in at the worst moment and assumed the worst, and started fighting Robby.
Miguel is constantly taunting Robby throughout the fight, hitting on what are clearly emotionally sensitive points to Robby, like their relationship with a shared love interest, and of course that Miguel is being trained by Robby’s dad.
Miguel eventually defeats Robby, pinning him to the ground (in front of a large crowd of their peer students).Miguel remembers lessons about honor/mercy, and says “sorry” and lets Robby go. Robby, in a fit of anger and humiliation, immediately cheap-shots Miguel and kicks him. Miguel reels from the kick and falls down a railing, with his neck cracking on the stairs, paralyzing him.
This leads us into the following questions:
In Season 1, during the tournament, Miguel struck Robby intentionally on Robby’s injury, though with ultimately no ill effects. In Season 2, Robby also struck Miguel intentionally, but unintentionally sent Miguel off the railing and broke Miguel’s spine. What is worse? Intent with no ill effect (Miguel), or lack of intent with ill effect (Robby)? In other words, does Judaism care more about intent or result?
In the tournament, Robby could have ended the fight early, as his own sensei suggested. Not doing so was Robby’s own decision and fault. Does this change the calculus?
Moreover, Miguel intended to hit Robby on his injury. Doing so is within the framework of the rules of the tournament, as there is no rule saying “don’t hit an opponent on an injury.” Still, it seems like Miguel is fighting dirty. However, if it's allowed by the rules, does that make Miguel’s actions “fair game”, if it’s allowed by the rules?
Even if it is fair game, what about pulling on Robby’s arm, which definitely was an illegal move?Miguel was provoking Robby in that Season 2 high school brawl fight. Is Miguel partly responsible for Robby’s outburst?
These are some of our questions. Let's see what the Torah has to say.
 
I am excited to welcome Rabbi Mordechai Becher to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Becher, originally from Australia, is an instructor at Yeshiva University and alumni Rabbi of Neve Yerushalayim College. He received his ordination from the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem and holds an MA in Medieval Jewish History from the Bernard Revel Graduate School. He taught at Ohr Somayach and Neve Yerushalayim in Jerusalem and served in the Israel Defense Forces. Rabbi Becher has answered thousands of questions on AsktheRabbi.org,  presents a Talmud class, Dimensions of the Daf, for the Jewish Broadcasting Service and was senior lecturer for Gateways for 20 years. Rabbi Becher’s latest book, Gateway to Judaism, published by Artscroll,  is in its tenth printing. He has taught in the USA, Canada, England, Israel, South Africa, Australia and Russia, and is a scholar in residence for Legacy Kosher Tours. He has led tours in Africa, Australia, Asia, Europe, Central America and the Middle East.

6. [Harry Potter] Snape v. Dumbledore - Can Murder Be Justified?

In this episode, Rabbi Daniel Sentell joins us in working through various possible justifications for murder. The analysis centers around whether the Torah agrees with the justifications provided for Snape's murder of Dumbledore. 
Severus Snape is a professor at Hogwarts. He is a suspicious character who is constantly, over the course of the series, suggested to be in league with the bad guys, and is friendly with the “bad guy” students at Hogwarts.
That being said, Dumbledore trusts Snape, and it is repeatedly made clear how much he trusts Snape. The audience is never told why.
The audience does know that Snape is serving as a double agent and infiltrated Voldemort’s ranks back in the day. When Voldemort returns, Snape goes undercover again. Snape pretends to Voldemort that he is working for Voldemort and spying on Dumbledore on Voldemort’s behalf, but we are meant to understand it is really the opposite – Snape is actually working for Dumbledore. Harry doubts this. Nonetheless, Dumbledore won’t hear a word against Snape.
With respect to the specific scenario we’ll be analyzing, there are two relevant parts:
At the end of sixth movie (The Half-Blood Prince): Dumbledore is cornered by Draco Malfoy, one of the “bad guy” students. Although Malfoy is a bit of a bully and thug, he has not really done anything especially heinous. Harry is present and can see everything (and in the books, he is immobilized and silenced).
We learn that Malfoy was tasked by Voldemort to kill Dumbledore. Dumbledore is lying helpless and wandless before Malfoy. Malfoy has a significant amount of time to kill Dumbledore. Nonetheless, Malfoy continues to hesitate. He cannot bring himself to murder Dumbledore.
Finally, a few more adult and menacing bad guys appear on the scene. These bad guys urge Draco to kill Dumbledore. One even volunteers to kill Dumbledore. Draco still cannot bring himself to kill Dumbledore.
Snape appears on the scene. It is unclear what Snape will do. Remember, he is a double agent - on the one hand, he’s close to Dumbledore. On the other hand, he serves Voldemort. Now, he just entered the scene where some of Voldemort's closest servants are threatening Dumbledore.
Dumbledore, in a begging voice, says “Severus, please.”
Snape then murders Dumbledore and flees with the bad guys. There is no more pretense that he operates with the good guys, i.e. Dumbledore’s folks.
At the end of (part two of) the seventh movie (The Deathly Hallows): Snape is killed by Voldemort. We then get to see some of Snape’s memories, and the audience learns that a few critical facts: (i) Dumbledore, through his own mistake, was on the receiving end of a powerful curse. Dumbledore has up to a year to live. This event occurs at the beginning of the sixth movie/book, and is therefore a little less than a year before Snape murders Dumbledore (which occurs at the end of movie/book 6). That means Dumbledore apparently had only a few months to live.
(ii) Snape was the one to help Dumbledore recover from the curse; otherwise, Dumbledore would likely have died.
(iii) We also learn that (a) Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him (Dumbledore). Therefore, Snape had Dumbledore’s consent; (b) Dumbledore was on borrowed time – he was going to die soon, anyway; (c) Dumbledore did not want to be tortured. In fact, Dumbledore expressed concerns about the exact people who happened to show up when Malfoy had Dumbledore cornered. Snape knew this.
(iv) Dumbledore did not want Draco’s soul to be damaged by murder;
(v) Dumbledore apparently was not certain that Snape, in murdering Dumbledore, would suffer damage to Snape’s soul for sparing an old man (a) pain and (b) humiliation – to quote,
Snape: If you don’t mind dying, why not let Draco do it?
Dumbledore: That boy’s soul is not yet so damaged. I would not have it ripped apart on my account.
Snape: And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?
Dumbledore: You alone know whether it will harm your soul to help an old man avoid pain and humiliation.
(vi) Snape was able to carry on as a spy for the good guys against Voldemort (NOTE: the good guys did not realize Snape was still a spy, as EVERYONE thought Snape killed Dumbledore as a bad act – as such, Snape’s role as a spy was less related to actively supplying information to the good guys, and more to sabotage Voldemort from the inside/protect the good guys (even if the good guys didn’t realize this));
(vii) Snape was able to protect the students at Hogwarts; without Snape, a considerably more cruel servant of Voldemort’s would have taken over.
This leads us into the following questions:
Is murder allowed?
How about consent – can Dumbledore allow someone else to kill him?
Snape saved Dumbledore’s life – does that change anything?
Dumbledore was concerned he was going to be tortured – does that change anything?
What if the victim is going to die soon anyway?
What if it’s one life for another?
Can a person murder for a greater cause? Can a person allow himself to be murdered for a greater cause?
Is someone allowed to incur spiritual damage to oneself for another person’s spiritual well-being? Can I sacrifice my soul to save someone else’s soul?
How about incurring spiritual damage to oneself for another’s physical well-being? Can one, “sacrifice one’s soul” to protect someone else?
Does packaging all of these reasons together, even if separately they do not justify the murder, would they together justify it?
These are some of our questions. Let’s see what the Torah has to say.
 
I am excited to welcome Rabbi Daniel Sentell to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Sentell has served as Rabbi in Congregation Beis Meir Chevra Shas in Monsey, NY, as a Dayan in the Beis Yosef Beis Din in Boro Park, and as an editor for Machon Ayil. He has also served as a scholar-in-residence in Monsey, NY, Worcester, MA, and various other communities. He currently lives in St. Louis with his family.

5. [Robin Hood] Can You Steal from the Rich to Give to the Poor?

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

4. [Lord of the Rings] Was Frodo's Failure A Moral Failure?

In this episode, Rabbi Yoni Ganger joins us in working through a question Tolkien was asked repeatedly, a dilemma Tolkien himself wrestled with: did Frodo fail his quest on a moral level? Putting aside the fact that Frodo did not throw the Ring in, which may objectively be considered a failure - but was it subjectively? In other words, how far does free will extend, are there limits to how far free will can extend, and did Frodo reach those limits?  
The Lord of the Rings is a story about a hobbit, or a halfling, named Frodo, who comes into possession of a powerful magic ring. One of its powers is that when a person puts it on, they become invisible. This ring turns out to be the One Ring, which was forged by the Dark Lord Sauron ages ago to take control of Middle Earth and everyone in it. In order to destroy Sauron, and save Middle Earth, the Ring must be destroyed.
The thing is, the Ring cannot be destroyed just anywhere or in any which way. It has to specifically be brought into Sauron’s home territory, Mordor, and thrown into the fires where the Ring was originally forged.
Frodo volunteers to undertake this task and is joined by a small fellowship who together embark on the quest to destroy the Ring.
Down the road, the fellowship breaks up. Frodo splits off from the group and is joined by his friend, Samwise Gamgee. Further down the road, Frodo and Sam are attacked by Gollum, a formerly hobbit-like creature. Gollum attacks them because, for centuries, he was in possession of the Ring, and he has become addicted to it and wants it back. The Ring has a corrupting influence on any individual who beholds it, and certainly anyone who possesses it. The longer a person holds it for, the more powerful the Ring’s corrupting effect.
That said, the Ring does not corrupt everyone equally, and it is noted that hobbits in particular appear to resist many of its corrupting effects.
Frodo is able to tame Gollum, and Gollum now serves as their guide to Mordor. Off they go and, long story short, Frodo eventually reaches Mount Doom. He stands exactly where he needs to, takes out the Ring, holds it above the fire. The moment of truth is here! If Frodo casts the Ring into the fire, Sauron will be destroyed, his powers will vanish and victory can be declared by the good guys.
But Frodo hesitates. The Ring has worked its corruptive magic on Frodo, and in the end, Frodo does not throw the Ring into the fire, while Sam watches. In the movies, Frodo says, “The Ring is mine.”
Frodo then puts the Ring on his finger and turns invisible and tries to escape. Gollum quickly spots Frodo, jumps on him, bites Frodo’s ring-finger off, and claims the Ring. Gollum falls off the cliff with the Ring and both are consumed by the fire. The Ring is destroyed!
This leads us into the following questions.
Was Frodo’s failure to destroy the Ring a moral failure? At the end of the day, he did not cast the Ring into the fire and, by his own admission, he chose not to do so!
In Tolkien’s quotes, we’ll see that Tolkien stated that it was impossible for Frodo to resist. But how do we understand Frodo? In the books, as we’ll see in this episode, Frodo said he chose not to destroy the Ring. Now Tolkien is saying, “actually, he had no free will.” Do we agree? As in, can a person be mistaken about whether he’s making a free will decision? How do we deal with this? We feel like we are choosing. But we’re not. What’s the Jewish perspective on this?
We repeatedly discuss in this episode the question of Frodo’s failure. We do not mean whether he, Frodo, succeeded in destroying the Ring or failed to do so; we are asking if he failed morally. Therefore, when we ask different iterations of “did Frodo fail”, what we are really asking is “was Frodo’s failure to destroy the Ring a moral failure; in other words, did Frodo fail morally?”
Let’s see how the Torah approaches this dilemma.
Note: Tolkien himself addressed this topic, seeing as he apparently received a number of inquiries about Frodo’s failure. We will be quoting a number of Tolkien’s personal views on the matter and, as an important caveat for the listener: I am obviously quoting specific selections of Tolkien’s writings and letters. It is not my intent to offend by being selective about my quotes, or try to cast Tolkien’s views in a different way than Tolkien intended. I am simply using these quotes to summarize the fairly long contents of Tolkien's letters as I understand them.
 
I am excited to welcome Rabbi Yoni Ganger to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Ganger has lived in Boston with his family for the last ten years working on the Harvard campus as the program director of MEOR, a Jewish outreach organization. He also runs a Jewish Young Professional program. In addition to Jewish education, Rabbi Ganger works as a therapist at the Center for Anxiety, a private practice therapy group with several offices in the Northeast that specializes in treating a wide variety of mental health issues using evidence-based treatments. Rabbi Ganger aims to weave psychology with Jewish wisdom both on campus and in his practice in order to best serve both his students and his clients. Please reach out at yganger@meor.org for any questions about Judaism, Psychology, or Lord of the Rings. 

3. [Good Will Hunting] Does Will Have A Moral Obligation To Use His Genius?

In this episode, join Rabbi Jack Cohen in an incredible exploration, a question that probably hovers at our consciousness: does your life belong to you? Life is a gift, I didn't earn it, it was given to me for free. Am I making good on this gift? To ground this analysis, we take apart an old favorite, Good Will Hunting, and how Will see-saws between wanting on the one hand to use his genius and on the other hand to stay anonymous and hang with his buddies.  
Good Will Hunting is a movie about Will, a genius who is 20 years old. Will is an orphan, poor, a blue-collar worker with blue collar friends living in a rough neighborhood. He works as a janitor at MIT and secretly solves math equations on the blackboards of classrooms and he does so effortlessly. We also learn that he was physically abused as a child, and has trust issues due to abandonment.
Will has three principal relationships in the movie.
The first is with Gerald Lambeau, a gifted MIT professor. The Professor finds out Will is in trouble with the law, and comes to an agreement with the judge that Will can avoid jailtime on condition that Will (i) does math with the Professor, and (ii) sees a therapist. Professor wants to help Will actualize his potential, and is harder on Will, but still seems to care about him. The Professor is less interested in focusing on Will’s emotional well-being and does not like making excuses for Will even though Will had a rough childhood.
The second is with Will's therapist, Sean, played by Robin Williams. Robin Williams enters the picture because Will mocks all the therapists the Professor sets Will up with, so the Professor finally brings in Robin Williams. Therapist is able to get through to Will (very slowly, and with challenges). Therapist wants Will to follow his heart, to play his hand, and is softer on Will, but still challenges him and asks Will, what do you want to do with your life? Will doesn't have an answer.
The third is with Chuckie, Will's best friend, who is played by Ben Affleck. Chuckie is like family. Will tells Chuckie that Will is excited to raise their families together once they each get married, Chuckie tells Will that if Will is still around in twenty years, Chuckie will kill him. Chuckie says, “You don’t owe it to yourself; you owe it to me" to cash Will's golden ticket and get out of here and go make a better life for yourself. This is a major impetus for Will to make a real move.
This leads us into the following questions, namely:
Does Will have an obligation, seemingly a moral obligation, to actualize himself? If he does, is it because he owes it to himself? Or is it because he owes it to others?
How do we resolve (i) being true to what one wants versus (ii) actualizing one’s own potential, and even being an asset to other people? The Professor, and Robin Williams, and Chuckie all appear to agree that Will would be “copping out” by not using his talents. Is that true?
As an educator, mentor, friend – to what degree do you push a person, and to what degree do you let go and let the person figure out what he wants to do?
With respect to pushing Will – is the Professor manipulating Will, as Robin Williams claims? When does “pushing” become “manipulation”? Sometimes, education has to be subtle. Subtlety doesn’t automatically mean “manipulation” – when do you cross the line?
It’s true that Professor can be dismissive of Will’s emotional problems. How do we balance that? How long do we have to wait for people to get over their issues and start taking responsibility and making decisions?
 
I am excited to welcome Rabbi Jack Cohen to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Cohen serves as the Director of Jewish Education and Community Engagement for Hebrew Academy High School in Miami, where he strives to teach Jewish philosophy and character development in a way that is relevant and resonant to 21st century teenagers. He also coaches and supports teachers in the school and works to be an educational bridge to parents and the broader community.
Rabbi Cohen has been teaching and mentoring young people for over fifteen years with a focus on building educational ecosystems of growth opportunities that allow participants to choose their own adventure.
Prior to his current role, Rabbi Cohen served as Director of Education for Olami North America and prior to that, as Director of Education for Olami Manhattan. He maintains a close connection with his own mentors, Rav Beryl Gershenfeld, Rosh Yeshiva of Machon Shlomo and Machon Yaakov, and founder of MEOR, and Rav Immanuel Bernstein, renowned author and lecturer.
Rabbi Cohen learned in the Mirrer Yeshiva and Yad Saadia Kollel in Jerusalem. He holds a bachelor's degree in physics and philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania and a master's degree in education (EdM) from Harvard.
He publishes articles about life wisdom from Judaism regularly on his website, www.theExpressionOfLife.com.
He also has a podcast called "Breakthrough!", which is available on Spotify. It is recorded every week in Aventura, Florida in an interactive ask-what's-on-your-mind format, at the following link: https://open.spotify.com/show/5H5WermZNbhVRum1P6I4KG?si=ayecu9_LScebFsd-Li2iHg

2. [Star Wars] Did Darth Vader Truly Redeem Himself?

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

What is "Dilemmas On Screen: A Jewish Perspective"?

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

1. [Harry Potter] Does Harry Owe the Dursleys a Debt of Gratitude?

In this episode, Rabbi Moshe Friedman, or "Rav Mo", joins us in confronting how Harry should feel towards the Dursleys, and the breadth of, and some limits to, the need to feel gratitude to someone who has done you a kindness. The analysis centers around whether Harry does need to feel a sense of gratitude to them - despite their abuse of Harry, an orphan entrusted to their care! 
Harry Potter is a wizard whose parents were murdered when he was a year old. Harry’s only living relative is his mother’s sister, Petunia. Albus Dumbledore, the Headmaster of Hogwarts, is the most powerful wizard alive, and was very close to Harry’s parents. Professor Dumbledore decides Harry should be raised by his aunt and her husband, Vernon.
Harry ends up living with his aunt, her husband, and their child, Dudley (who is the same age as Harry), for the next ten years. Harry was often underfed, was verbally and emotionally abused, and was often given a significant amount of housework and other chores. Harry then goes off to Hogwarts, per Dumbledore, “alive and healthy” and “not [as] a pampered little prince, but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances.” Nonetheless, Harry returns to the Dursleys during the summer between school years. These summers are not pleasant for Harry.
Why did Dumbledore place Harry with such miserable, unloving people? Turns out, Dumbledore knew that he was condemning Harry to ten dark and difficult years. But Dumbledore’s priority was to keep Harry alive, and being raised by the Dursleys was the best way to accomplish that. The Dursleys accepted this responsibility, grudging though that acceptance may have been.
In this episode, we will explore the following questions:
Does Harry have an obligation to be grateful to the Dursleys for taking him in, despite the mistreatment? If he does, is this obligation mitigated given the mistreatment he suffered at the hands of the Dursleys?
What further obligation to be grateful does Harry have, given the magical protection the Dursleys provided for him by allowing him to call their house, “home”?
What if Harry earned an additional benefit of not being corrupted by fame, which may have occurred in another’s home where they did, in fact, care about Harry?
Rabbi Moshe Friedman will be our guest rabbi for this episode. Rabbi Friedman is a Jewish educator, musician, spoken word artist, video essayist, and author.  He has spoken and performed for audiences around the world, and continues to explore innovative ways of spreading Jewish wisdom through art, music, and media.  You can find his work at rav-mo.com and on his YouTube channel "Mensch Sense," at https://www.youtube.com/@menschsense1. His Instagram handle is @ravmo_.