Dilemmas On Screen: A Jewish Perspective

In this episode, join Rabbi Rick Fox and I in unraveling one of the most common questions we encounter on an even daily basis: is Gd actively involved in our lives? Are things that happen to us coincidence, or purposefully orchestrated by our Creator? “We got lucky” v. “What happened here was a miracle and I want you to acknowledge it!” Who’s right, Vincent (Travolta) or Jules (Samuel L. Jackson)?
As a quick overview:
Pulp Fiction (1994) is a nonlinear crime film directed by Quentin Tarantino.
In one segment, hitmen Jules and Vincent go to retrieve a briefcase for their boss, Marsellus Wallace.
After killing a man named Brett and Brett’s friend, they’re unexpectedly shot at by another friend who was hiding in the bathroom.
The gun is fired multiple times at close range… but not one bullet hits Jules or Vincent.
They both look at each other in shock and then kill the guy. 
Jules looks at the wall behind him, and sees a bunch of bullet holes exactly where he was.
Jules and Vincent then argue over whether it was a miracle. After the shooter misses all his shots, Jules insists it was “divine intervention.”
Vincent casually brushes it off, calling it luck. Things like “Chill, Jules, this stuff happens”
Jules cannot accept this. Among the things he says in response are, “Wrong, wrong, this stuff doesn’t just happen. Don’t blow this off. We should be dead. This was a miracle and I want you to acknowledge it.”
Jules becomes convinced this was a sign from God and decides to retire from his life of crime.
Vincent mocks this, refusing to change. He doesn’t care and shrugs it off.
Later in the film, Vincent is killed — while Jules, having “walked the Earth,” survives.
With that, we have a few questions we’d like answered:
Was it a miracle — or did they just get lucky? What’s the difference, anyway?
From a Torah perspective, what distinguishes a miracle from a coincidence?
The Torah has examples of people interpreting events as signs — but it can go either way - sometimes it’s positive. But we do have a prohibition against being menachesh, or superstitious, or taking omens seriously.
So where’s the line between seeing Hashem’s hand in events, versus reading too much into events? If I miss my bus, is it because G-d willed it, or because I should have gotten there a little earlier?
What’s the Torah view on being shaken by life events? Are we expected to change only from trauma, or also from noticing small divine patterns?
Is belief in miracles inherently irrational — or can it be a form of wisdom?
We can certainly see how the bathroom guy missing from point blank range with a huge handgun was a miracle for Jules and Vincent. Their lives were saved - but that miracle cost the bathroom guy his life. How do we respond to that? That miracle was great for the hit men and a disaster for the shooter. So, firstly: why would a murderer merit a miracle? Secondly, it doesn’t seem fair that the miracle came at the expense of another man’s life! How does the Torah handle that?
 
I am excited to welcome Rabbi Rick Fox back to the podcast as he joins us on this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Fox formerly joined us to discuss the Matrix, and what the Torah approach is to taking the blue pill or the red pill. Rabbi Fox is the Executive Director of MEOR Penn, which is a Jewish outreach organization, servicing the Jewish community at the University of Pennsylvania as a campus chaplain, educator and mentor. A graduate of the Wharton School of Business at Penn with a minor in music. Rabbi Fox began his career in marketing consulting even as he remained an avid musician. While on sabbatical in Israel, Rabbi Fox developed a passion for Jewish education, eventually returning to teach Jewish students at his alma mater in 2015. Rabbi Fox resides in Philadelphia with his wife and four children. His wife, Rivkah Fox, is an active shadchanit i.e. matchmaker and founder of BlindFate, a dating platform for Jews all over the world. You can 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.
If you enjoy this episode, please leave us a five star review, share it with your friends, and hit follow! That’s the best way to grow our following, and feel free to leave a movie suggestion and dilemma in the comments. We’d love to hear from you.
 
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
 

Join Rabbi Ganger and I in exploring the movie Whiplash and how far we can push our students, children - and ourselves - in pursuing our path to greatness. Was Terrence Fletcher a visionary mentor or an abusive tyrant?
Whiplash follows Andrew Neiman is a 19-year-old jazz drummer at the elite Shaffer Conservatory, the best music school in the country. He is invited to join the top studio band led by Terence Fletcher, a highly respected but notoriously abusive conductor. Neiman is driven to be “one of the greats” and is confronted with Fletcher’s brutal teaching methods. Fletcher throws chairs at Neiman, insults him , and emotionally manipulates him — all in the name of pushing Neiman, and the other students, beyond what they think is possible. Andrew’s hands bleed, his relationships fall apart, and still he keeps drumming, determined to meet Fletcher’s impossible standards.
But at what cost? Did Fletcher’s cruelty unlock Andrew’s genius, or did it cross a moral line that no goal can justify? In this episode, we explore the core dilemmas the film raises: Does Judaism endorse harsh teaching methods in pursuit of excellence? Is there a place in Torah or Jewish tradition for pushing students so hard they suffer, physically or emotionally, for their craft or their learning? Is it ethical for a teacher to manipulate students — even lie to them — if it produces greatness? Does fostering intense competition strengthen people, or does it warp them? And when ambition collides with love, who’s right — the dreamer who sacrifices everything, or the partner who might eventually resent coming second place to their spouse's goals?
To tackle these questions, I am excited to welcome back Rabbi Yoni Ganger to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Ganger has lived in Boston with his family for the last 11 years working on the Harvard campus as the program director of MEOR, a Jewish outreach organization. He also runs the MEOR BOSTON Jewish Young Professional program. In addition to Jewish education, Rabbi Ganger works as a therapist at the Center for Anxiety, a private practice therapy group with several offices in the Northeast that specializes in treating a wide variety of mental health issues using evidence-based treatments. Rabbi Ganger aims to weave psychology with Jewish wisdom both on campus and in his practice in order to best serve both his students and his clients. Rabbi Ganger also has two of his own podcasts: Realizing Potential and MEOR Mastery covering the basics of everyday Jewish life. Please reach out at yganger@meor.org for any questions about Judaism, Psychology, or Lord of the Rings. 
MEOR Mastery: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/meor-mastery-master-the-basics-of-jewish-practice/id1799495092
Realizing Potential Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/41WAyzvlRt4kK6GbyFgiKW

Join R. Siderson for the classic question: who's the bigger hero, Frodo or Sam? A deeper look into what Judaism views as heroism.
The Lord of the Rings follows Frodo, a hobbit who inherits a magical ring that turns out to be the One Ring, which was created by the Dark Lord Sauron to control Middle-earth. The only way to destroy the Ring is to bring it deep into Sauron’s territory, Mordor, and cast it into the fires of Mount Doom.
Frodo volunteers for the mission and is joined by a fellowship to help him get to Mordor, including three other hobbits. One of those hobbits is Sam, who was Frodo’s gardener and who gets looped into the journey by accident.
Eventually, at the end of the first movie, Frodo continues the journey alone. Sam, however, insists on joining Frodo. Frodo and Sam set out to Mordor together.
Along the way, they’re hunted by Gollum, who had possessed the Ring for centuries. Gollum is  corrupted by the Ring, and wants it back very badly.
Sam rescues Frodo a few times throughout the journey, including from Shelob (a giant spider), from orcs who capture Frodo and, most poignantly, on Mt Doom itself, where Sam says “I can’t carry it [i.e., the Ring] for you, but I can carry you!” And he picks Frodo up and walks up the mountain.
Frodo and Sam make it to Mt. Doom, and stand in front of the lava. It’s the perfect opportunity to throw the Ring in.
Frodo, who had been succumbing to the Ring’s corruptive influence for months as he’s been carrying it, chooses not to throw the Ring in.
At that moment, Gollum jumps on Frodo and is able to reclaim it. Gollum eventually falls into Mt. Doom, taking the Ring with him. The Ring is therefore destroyed.
There have been debates for as long as Lord of the Rings has been in print as to who is the hero of the story? Or perhaps, who is the most important, or the biggest, hero? Is it Frodo, who carried the Ring? Or Sam, who carried Frodo, both literally and figuratively?
View 1: Frodo Is the Bigger Hero
Common Arguments:
He bears the Ring — the ultimate burden, corrupting and painful.
He voluntarily accepts a nearly impossible mission, knowing it could cost him his life and sanity.
He resists the Ring for a very long time, longer than most could, even if he ultimately fails at the end.
Gandalf, Galadriel, and others venerate him as a Ring-bearer who has earned rest and honor for his service.
This view emphasizes self-sacrifice, moral struggle, and spiritual burden. “Frodo undertook a quest no one else dared.”
Delving into a bit more detail, when it becomes clear the Ring cannot stay in the Shire (because Sauron and his minions know where it is), Frodo asks, “where must I go?” He voluntarily takes up the quest, despite the danger.
Even once he brings it to Rivendell - all he supposedly agreed to do, until his betters can make a decision - he chooses  to bear the Ring to Mordor. One of his most well-known quotes is, “I will take the Ring to Mordor, though I do not know the way.” At which point, eight others are selected or volunteer to go with him.
In the middle of the journey, Frodo tells Gandalf, “I wish the Ring had never come to me.” And even so, Frodo is fully willing to go by himself, as we see at the end of the first movie. Yes, Sam joins him, but Frodo was still willing to go it alone. As summarized nicely in a comment I saw on YouTube, “It's easy to focus on Sam, because he was such a great character and friend, but this scene is a great example of how brave Frodo was. He was fully ready to go to Mordor alone because he knew it needed to be done. The combination of Frodo's bravery and Sam's friendship here is what makes it one of the best scenes in the series imo”
Even in failure (at Mount Doom), Frodo’s journey made victory possible.
View 2: Sam Is the Bigger Hero
Common Arguments:
Sam is consistently selfless, humble, and unshaken.
He saves Frodo multiple times, emotionally and physically.
He resists the Ring when he briefly holds it — and gives it back, something Frodo couldn’t do.
He asks for no reward, and still returns home to build a good, peaceful life.
This view emphasizes loyalty, courage in service, and everyday moral strength.
Sam was never meant to be the Ring-bearer—yet rises to the task when needed.
Delving into a bit more detail, Sam was roped into this by Gandalf because Sam happened to be eavesdropping. He didn’t choose the quest, at least initially.
At the end of the first movie, when Sam chases Frodo into the river, he says, “I made a promise, Mr. Frodo. A promise. ‘Don’t you leave him, Samwise Gamgee.’ And I don’t mean to.”
As we noted previously, Sam saves Frodo multiple times from Shelob, a massive spider who immobilzed Frodo and was about to eat him). Sam also rescued Frodo, who was captured by orcs. When Frodo is completely passed out, Sam carries Frodo up Mount Doom.Sam also gives  the Ring back to Frodo, even when he briefly holds it. He and Bilbo are the only ones who did that.After the quest, Sam returns to a simple life, embodying the ideal of service without glory.
The quote that encapsulates people’s view on Sam: “I can’t carry it for you, but I can carry you.”
In other words, the general perspective on Sam is that while “Frodo carried the Ring, Sam carried Frodo.”
Here are a few questions we'd like to explore:
Before we discuss who’s the greater hero, Frodo or Sam - what is a hero in Jewish thinking? What makes a person heroic?
What’s greater? Carrying the Ring? Or carrying the Ring-bearer? Frodo carries the burden of the Ring, but Sam carries Frodo. In other words:
Is heroism about bearing the weight of evil, or about never giving up on someone who does?
I think it’s tempting to say - they’re both heroes. Let’s just leave it at that. But that doesn’t sound satisfying: Is their heroism different, or the same? They’re both doing this as a service to others, going outside of their comfort zone. What nuance should we be picking up on here?
Much of what seems to make Frodo the hero here is carrying the burden of the Ring. People often comment, “Frodo wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without Sam” - and much of that statement is true. Frodo stumbles regularly, and Sam saves the day. What exactly is the nature of the heroism of Frodo? And the heroism of Sam?
I am excited to welcome Rabbi Menachem Siderson to this episode to answer our questions.
 
Rabbi Siderson graduated from the Center for Kehilla Development in Jerusalem with smicha 
from the Cheif Rabbanut of Israel in 2020. Since then he has been the Rabbi of the Shul at Aish of the Rockies in Denver Colorado where he guides both the local community and Aish's signature outreach programs. 
He also serves as a resident Sofer and Mohel for Denver, and is a member of the Denver Beis Din. To reach Rabbi Siderson just send him an email at msiderson@aishrockies.org. 
Please see below for links to R. Siderson's various social media platforms.
 
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/aishrockies/#
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@aishrockies5
X/Twitter: https://x.com/aishrockies
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@aishrockies5
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aishrockies/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aish-rockies-9987252ba
Transistor: https://aishrockies.transistor.fm/
 

In this episode, Rabbi Benzion Klatzko joins us in investigating whether taking revenge is an ideal to strive for in Jewish thinking.
As background, Maximus Decimus Meridius is a loyal Roman general who leads the empire to victory in battle under Emperor Marcus Aurelius. The emperor, disillusioned with his corrupt son Commodus, chooses Maximus as his successor, believing he will restore Rome to a republic and return power to the Senate.
When Commodus learns of this, he murders Marcus Aurelius and seizes the throne. Maximus refuses to pledge loyalty to him, prompting Commodus to order Maximus’s execution and the murder of his wife and son. Maximus escapes but is too late to save his family, finding their bodies crucified and burned.
Stricken with grief and rage, Maximus collapses and is captured by slave traders. He is sold to a gladiator trainer and becomes a powerful fighter in the arena. As his fame grows, he is brought to Rome to fight in the Colosseum, where he comes face-to-face with Commodus once again.
Though Maximus initially fights to survive, his ultimate goal becomes revenge: to killCommodus and avenge his family. He hides his identity at first, but eventually reveals himself,famously declaring, “My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.”
As he gains public favor, Maximus becomes a political threat. Commodus tries to have him killed, but Maximus’s legend only grows. In the climax, Commodus challenges Maximus to a rigged duel. Although wounded and dying, Maximus defeats Commodus—finally achieving his revenge.
With his dying breath, Maximus ensures the restoration of Marcus Aurelius’s vision for Rome before collapsing. His revenge is complete, but it costs him his life.
This leads us into the following questions:
Generally speaking, the Torah prohibits revenge (Leviticus 19:18: “You shall not take revenge nor bear a grudge”). Why is this prohibition so central, and how does it apply to situations like Maximus’s?
Looking at our situation more closely, the revenge here has more to do with a blood debt than a simple "tit for tat" form of revenge. Commodus murdered Maximus’ wife and son! Maximus is seeking revenge for his murdered family. This seems different than the “taking revenge or bearing a grudge” - is it, in fact, different?
“Vengeance is Mine” (Devarim 32:35) – The Torah says vengeance belongs to God. Does this mean that personal revenge, even in the face of deep injustice, is always morally wrong?
Can Maximus’ desire for revenge be seen as a pursuit of justice, or is it purely personal vengeance? How would Jewish ethics distinguish between the two?
These are some of our questions. Let's see what the Torah has to say.
 
I am excited to welcome Rabbi Benzion Klatzko to this episode to answer our questions. Rabbi Klatzko is an ordained rabbi, a music producer, a published author, and a radio talk show host. Dubbed the “Hollywood Rabbi,” for years Rabbi Klatzko delivered a popular monthly class in Jewish thought to many of Hollywood’s biggest stars. Rabbi Klatzko is one of the national directors for Jewish life on campus in North America and was named “One of America’s Most Inspiring Rabbis” by the Jewish Forward Magazine in 2014.
Rabbi Klatzko is also the founder of Shabbat.com, the world’s largest Jewish social network, helping people find Shabbat, Jewish Dating, and employment in over 120 countries. He can be reached at (212) 742-2228 (212-shabbat) or via email at RabbiKlatzko@gmail.com.

In this episode, join Rabbi Yoni Spinka in working through Jim and Pam's relationship over the course of The Office. Do they represent an ideal to aspire to? If so, what are we looking to emulate? If not, what are we hoping to avoid?
The Office is set the small city of Scranton, PA and centers around characters working for Dunder Mifflin, a company that sells paper. The company has multiple branches, but we’re mostly focused on the Scranton branch. There are probably about 15 characters in Scranton, which includes the manager, secretary, salesmen, accountants. 
One of these characters is Jim Halpert, a funny, charming guy, and he’s in his late 20s-early 30s. Another character is Pam Beasly, the secretary - she's Jim’s love interest.
Jim and Pam slowly bond over the first two seasons, sharing jokes together, pranking one of their coworkers, and generally having a great time. They have undeniable chemistry.
The thing is, Pam is engaged to Roy. As expected, this becomes a key point of tension in the earlier seasons. Roy is not a good match for Pam, but she refuses to acknowledge it or act upon it.
Throughout the second season, Pam's romantic feelings for Jim become more evident although Pam herself seems to be ignorant or in denial of its existence. On Casino Night, the season finale, Jim comes clean about his feelings, to which Pam responds by pointing out once again how important their friendship is and that she’s sorry he misunderstood their attractions together. Jim, unsatisfied with Pam's response, kisses her.
After Jim and Pam part from their kiss, Pam says that she still has to honor her commitment to Roy and tells Jim that she plans to go through with the wedding. Disappointed and heartbroken, Jim accepts a position at a different branch of the company. 
Pam eventually decides to call off the wedding and is seen clearly missing Jim's presence in the office. Pam shows multiple signs of remorse over her decision to reject Jim and is clearly excited about his return to Scranton after the closing of the Stamford branch. 
While Pam is excited about rekindling their friendship, Jim is still unsure of how he feels about her and had started a relationship with Stamford coworker Karen, who also transferred to Scranton to continue her relationship with Jim.
It eventually becomes clear, however, that Jim still has unresolved feelings towards Pam which start to cause problems in his relationship with Karen. 
Pam eventually grows tired of hiding her feelings from Jim and, on the beach day episode, confesses to him in front of the entire office staff that he was the true reason she called off her wedding with Roy and that she misses Jim's friendship. 
Jim and Karen eventually break up and, finally, soon after, Jim makes the move and asks Pam out on a date. Finally, their relationship is officially on.
Over the next few seasons, Jim and Pam date, get married, have kids, and though they go through some tensions (Pam’s stay in art school, Jim’s professional aspirations), they often represent to many people what a wonderful relationship looks like.
Jim and Pam’s relationship seems amazing for many reasons: they were friends before they got together, they had chemistry, they respected each other. HOWEVER - this was happening while Pam and Roy were engaged. Roy wasn’t the right guy for Pam, true, but still.
This leads us into the following questions:
Was it appropriate for Jim and Pam to be so close while Pam was engaged to Roy? We know that kissing crosses a line. But what about before? There was all this emotional buildup. Does that cross the line somehow?
On a related note, were Jim and Pam sufficiently honest with their partners (Karen and Roy) before pursuing each other?
Was Pam sufficiently honest with Roy? Roy could be a scary guy, as we see in the scene when he trashes the bar after Pam tells him she kissed Jim. Doesn’t that give her grounds to explore her options? She’s scared. She’s human. Thoughts?
Let’s discuss Jim and Karen. Jim still had feelings for Pam, even though he was dating Karen. But Pam rejected him. Jim tried something new, and broke it off when he finally realized he wanted to pursue Pam. That’s fair, isn’t it? Or, from a Jewish perspective, do we expect 100% emotional commitment during a relationship? That seems unrealistic.
Once Jim and Pam (finally!) get together, some of the sparkle fades away. They encounter problems with their marriage as issues come up. It's not as exciting. Is that normal? They were so exciting to watch beforehand! Then that excitement fades. How does the Judaism understand this? 
Would the Torah see Jim and Pam as an ideal love story, a realistic one, or a problematic one? Or all three? And why?
 
I am excited to welcome Rabbi Yoni Spinka to this episode to answer our questions. Yoni Spinka is a sought-after keynote speaker, executive performance coach, and Rabbi with over a decade of experience blending ancient mystical wisdom with modern psychology and coaching methodologies. As the CEO of Spinka Group Coaching & Consulting, he partners with executives and CEOs to foster clarity and strategic direction, driving transformational growth. Previously, Yoni served for seven years as a Rabbi at the University of Pennsylvania, where he taught Jewish spiritual practices and mentored hundreds of students through personal and professional challenges. He currently lives in the suburbs of Philadelphia with his wife and five children.
To inquire about coaching or to book Yoni for a keynote speech at your organization, please contact him at yonispinka@gmail.com

In this episode, join Rabbi Yoni Sonnenblick in exploring the Jewish perspective on parent-child dynamics. The Torah commands children to respect their parents - it's one of the Ten Commandments! But how far does this authority go? Does it have any limits - if so, what are they, and when do they apply?
Top Gun: Maverick (2022) follows Captain Pete "Maverick" Mitchell, a top fighter pilot, who returns to the elite Top Gun flight school as an instructor. Tasked with training a new generation of pilots for a dangerous mission, Maverick confronts his past as he mentors Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw, the son of his late friend, Goose.
As Maverick pushes the pilots to their limits, tensions rise, especially with Rooster, who (i) holds Maverick responsible for his father's  (Goose) death and (ii) is furious with Maverick for pulling Rooster’s naval papers, which cost Rooster four years of his career. Maverick must navigate these personal conflicts while preparing the team for a nearly impossible mission, ultimately leading them in a high-stakes operation that tests their skills and courage.
We later find out that Maverick promised Rooster's dying mother - at her request - that Rooster would not become a pilot like his father. Rooster is not aware of his mother’s request, and Maverick takes the full blame from Rooster so that Rooster wouldn't also blame his mother.
 
With that, we have a few questions we’d like answered:
Does a parent have the right to interfere, or request such interference, in her son’s career generally? Does it make a difference if the parent interferes directly, as opposed to requesting a third party to interfere?
If not, what if it the child’s decision involves mortal risk? Does that change the calculus?
If not, does it make a difference if the career is the same one that got the child’s father killed?
Does it make a difference if the parent, or the third party, suspects the child won’t let up, and this will just cause the child to take a longer road?
May a senior soldier/officer intervene by pulling a junior soldier’s papers, even though he (presumably) did not have the junior soldier under his command?
Finally, can the senior soldier/officer interfere, and then keep the mother’s request quiet to preserve the peace between her and her son? Is it morally praiseworthy for Maverick to take the blame so Rooster doesn’t blame his mom?
 
 

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
 

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

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

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.