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 [email protected] 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:

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:

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.

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:

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,

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:

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 [email protected].

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?

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:

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:

OR

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”?

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:

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).

This leads us into the following questions:

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:

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.

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:

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.