Podcast appearances and mentions of joseph soloveitchik

A Rebbetzin, a Priest and a Muslim scholar discuss the problem of Truth in interfaith educationFor easily readable notes on this episode, go to https://shirabatya.substack.com/p/but-which-religion-is-correctThis episode is a real treat: a recording of a panel discussion held at the Limmud Festival in Birmingham UK on 23 December 2024.This is my first post in a while, due to a situation that emerged in Religious Education in Berkshire, which has absorbed almost all of my time in recent months.The new Religion and Worldviews framework has been accompanied by an increasing emphasis on truth-seeking in religious education, as students are encouraged to examine which religious beliefs are more reasonable and look at arguments between competing religious and non-religious “worldviews.”As I worked to tackle this dangerous change in pedagogy, numerous theological questions emerged. My conversations with Father Patrick Morrow developed into an interfaith session. We were honoured to be joined by Muslim scholar Dilwar Hussein, MBE. Bios for all participants are below.Session Description (as in the Limmud Handbook):Judaism does not proselytise, but this is unusual among faiths in Britain. And do we Jews really have no firm beliefs that we wish others would share? Can we teach about our own faiths passionately, without the conversation slipping into persuasion? Can we allow for multiple religious “truths”, and still be rational? What is religious “truth”?The panel includes:* Father Patrick Morrow, a Church of England Priest and Secretary to the Theology Committee of the International Council of Christians and Jews* Dilwar Hussain MBE of the Woolf Institute, University of Cambridge and Chair of New Horizons in British Islam* (me) Dr Shira Batya Lewin Solomons, Rebbetzin of the Jewish Community of Berkshire, and Director of JCoB Education (provider of RE Judaism support to schools across England and Wales)https://www.jcob.org/support_judaism_re.html>BackgroundThis conversation emerged as a product of the ongoing challenge that I have been facing due to the new Religion and Worldviews framework in Religious Education (RE), which is shifting the focus of learning towards truth-seeking and exploration of “big questions”, as opposed to more traditional RE, which prioritised understanding the beliefs and practices of others without making judgments or seeking answers.The new approach to teaching RE seeks to avoid claiming to be able to teach Religions as coherent well-defined traditions, due to a post-modern critique that emphasises the diversity within religious traditions. From this perspective, there are many “Judaisms”, “Islams”, “Christianities” etc. - each individual with their own “personal worldview” based on their own “lived experience” that cannot ever really be fully communicated or understood by others.Teaching has therefore shifted towards developing each child's “personal worldview”, through the exploration of “big questions” and a shift towards philosophy and theology. This involves students exploring and even debating issues such as “Does God exist?” “Where did the universe come from?” “Is religion dangerous?” “What happens after we die?” In the first draft of the new Berkshire RE Syllabus, children were even asked to rank beliefs for their reasonableness.This sort of focus raises major concerns as it had been a rule in RE teaching that we were never meant to ask whose beliefs were right or wrong or make judgments as to whether religious beliefs were reasonable or well founded in arguments. Persuasion and proselytising should have no place in RE, which is about listening, learning, and understanding.When I pushed back at this change in pedagogy, I faced two primary counter-arguments:* There are some matters (ethics, public policy) that relate to religion, where we need to debate, make arguments and reach consensus.* By demanding no persuasion, proselytising, (it is argued that) I am imposing my Jewish or liberal view on others. (Andrew Wright) What if a religion believes in proselyting - what if that is part of their religious expression? Can we really share our faiths without making any truth claims?In my next Substack piece, I will carefully document what has been happening in RE based on our recent experience with the new Pan Berkshire Syllabus. I will look at where this framework came from and at the serious consequences. The discussion here will not address those issues but will focus on the philosophical challenges. I am arguing for RE that is scrupulously free of attempts to persuade, but how do we do that? It's easy enough when teaching Judaism, as we Jews do not seek converts. But what about Christianity and Islam, which traditionally have sought converts? Are we asking Christians and Muslims to be inauthentic?Below is an outline of the contributions of the panellists, with some links to material in case you want to read more. Before reading further, I recommend that you listen to the audio, which is the real event. Note that the notes on Patrick and Dilwar's presentations were written by me and are therefore less detailed.Shira Solomons (Judaism)https://shirabatya.substack.com/I focused on the teachings of two great rabbis: · Joseph Soloveitchik (the Rav) and Rabbi Jonathan SacksRabbi Joseph Ber SoloveitchikRabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik = Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (1903-1993) “The Rav”Famous essay: On Interfaith Relationships (1964)Impossibility of interfaith dialogue on theology etc.* Different religions essentially speak different languages. Different categories and “incommensurate frames” for understanding our place in the world.* Because we speak different languages, we each have our own “unique relationship to God… moulded by different historical events”* We cannot understand the “private” elements that express their “individual religious commitment”When we can and should engage.* Role of interfaith is to work together in matters for which our beliefs are the same.* Certain values in common between Jews and Christians such as human beings in the image of God, Imitatio Dei.* We use our common religious language to work together for things like civil rights, morality, fighting poverty, seeking peace. (Remember he is writing this in 1964.)* Secular people will find it difficult to understand our shared religious language. [Like tone-deaf people who cannot understand music.]My evaluation of Soloveitchik* Judaism has a concept na'aseh venish-mah - In order to understand you must do the action first. So yes, it is impossible to understand fully the religious experience of another faith when we do not and should not share in the practice.* Soloveitchik is not saying Judaism has a monopoly on truth.Argument relates to our ability to learn from others who are different.* I ask: How does Soloveitchik know about the beliefs we have in common (or not) with Christians? Surely we found this out by having conversations.* How do we deal with disagreements when they matter? We do need to agree on some things in order to live together? Not addressed by Soloveitchik at all.Jonathan SacksRabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (1948-2020)Controversial book: Dignity of Difference (2002) (Avoid later editions)All quotes are from the first edition (2002), not the adulterated second edition (2004).First editions are readily available very cheaply on Amazon. The 2nd edition radically altered the core chapter (Exorcising Plato's Ghost pp. 45-66).Gil Student summarises all the changes Sacks made for the 2nd edition here: https://www.torahmusings.com/2007/10/differences-of-dignity/Tower of Babel / Exorcising Plato's Ghost* Yes different religions speak different languages, but this is something to be celebrated. The will of God.* Babbling of the languages of the people building the Tower is something wondrous and good.* Oppressive and totalitarian for everyone to think and speak exactly like each other.Let there be Diversity:* “Religion is the translation of God into a particular language … God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims.” (p. 55)* [A core lesson of the Torah is that] “God is God of all humanity, but no single faith is or should be the faith of all humanity.” (p. 55)* Myth that “If I am right, you are wrong”… “you must be converted, cured, and saved” (p. 50)Universalism is dangerous* Sacks is scathing of those who “attempt to impose a man-made unity on divinely created diversity”* Greatest crimes in history come from attempts to impose universalism on the diversity of human beings.* “Babel - the first global project - is the turning point in the biblical narrative. From then on, God will not attempt a universal order again until the end of days.”* [Related to the Talmudic concept of Teiku - pushing off disputes to be resolved at the end of days, acknowledging the limitations of human beings to attain the Truth on certain matters]Particularity / Covenants* Myth that universal morality is morally superior to particular moralities. Criticism of Jews for being parochial, only marrying each other, taking care of our own before others. This is prejudice, chauvinism.* “We are particular and universal, the same and different, human beings as such, but also members of this family, that community, this history, that heritage, our particularity is our window onto universality” (p. 56)* We understand the human experiences of others by having our own particular human experiences.* “… we learn to love humanity by loving specific human beings. There is no short-cut.” (p. 58)Engagement* Not only are there multiple truths out there, but we can learn something by engaging with them. Unlike Soloveitchik, does not want to hide away, avoid understanding the other.* Importance of conversation, as opposed to debate (politics).* “entering into the inner world of someone whose views are opposed to my own” (p. 83)* In a conversation, you don't win or lose. You grow. You learn something as you “know what reality looks like from a different perspective.” (p. 83)Religion and Politics* How do we deal with difficult questions where we need to agree to live together?* We first have those conversations, so that we understand each other.Then political conversations resolve what we actually do as a society together.* Consequence: Need to be very careful how and where such political debates occur, as they may eclipse the conversations that are really necessary, particularly in educational settings.Patrick Morrow (Christianity)Historical tendency of the Church to assumes it possesses all Truth. Vast majority of Christians wish to leave that behind.Christians tend to prefer Sacks over Soloveitchik. The idea of private truth is very foreign to Christianity due to opposition to Gnosticism (esoteric knowledge). Christianity has taught that its teachings are available to everyone.Three-fold typology of approaches to non-Christian faiths (proposed by pluralists):* exclusivism (we alone have the religious good)* inclusivism (we have the religious good fully, and others may share part of it with us)* pluralism (no way to distinguish who has more or less of the religious good; we are all equal)Another approach: Most takes on other faiths are variations on inclusivism. They can tip into exclusivism (one type of error) or into pluralism (another type of error).Mainstream Christian Inclusivism in the Catholic TraditionKarl Rahner was a Jesuit, before, during and after Vatican II. 1961 lecture: “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions”. Published as pages 115-134 of Theological Investigations Vol 5 (London: Darton, Longman and Todd) Available hereRahner offered four theses. We will look at three:* Christianity is the absolute religion intended for all. This applies only when Christianity enters with existential power into the life of a person or a community. This happens only when a person has a Pentecostal experience. This cannot be seen, and it cannot be forced.* Therefore, it is likely that the other religion in which a person finds himself is legitimate (in God's eyes).* Therefore, a missionary, meeting someone from another faith, should treat them as an anonymous Christian. (God will be working in that person's life. Who is God? For Rahner it is the Trinity. Therefore, the Trinity is present for that person and that person is therefore a Christian.)Catholicism has moved on from here, but this position does mean treating a person from another faith as someone who has their own relationship with God from which one can learn. They may have precisely the teaching that I need right now.[For those who want to read further, Patrick Morrow has written about this issue at length here. Karl Rahner also entered a dialogue with Jewish theologian Pinchas Lapide that included such matters as the Jewish debate about whether Christianity is monotheistic.]Dilwar Hussain (Islam)Importance of humility. Quran teaches people be in awe and wonder of the vastness of Creation and therefore of the Creator.Three main points:1. God has an infinite amount to say to us, so cannot be contained in any finite text.If we believe that all of God's wisdom is contained in the Quran or in any holy text, then we are making God finite. In the view of Islam (with the focus on monotheism), then lends towards idolatry.“If all the seas of the earth were turned into ink and all the trees of the earth were turned into pens, then the wisdom of God would not have been exhausted.”[I shared a laugh here with a fellow Jew in the audience as this is so, so similar to the text in the Jewish prayer Nishmat. “If our mouths were full of song as the sea is with water… we would not be able to sufficiently praise you.”]2. Diversity is created by GodIf diversity is in the world, God intended it to be there. Just like we cannot understand evil, we cannot understand why it is there, but it is there for a reason.“We created you from one soul, and we created you into nations and tribes, that you may come to know each other.”Diversity is a source of wonder and learning. This is part of the Divine intention and part of the human journey.3. How to deal with difference?There are universals. But there will be differences. We will disagree. This happens both within and between religions and across humanity.Some disagreements can be resolved. Others cannot and we leave them to the Day. Right and Wrong in the universal sense is the language of God. We cannot know absolutely so must focus on living in peace rather than who has the right or wrong answers.4. Relevance today / challengesWhy is this such a cause of anxiety for us today? Historically Islam was more inclusive as it saw teachings of Judaism and Christianity as part of its heritage. Today we have too much “brittle religion” because of political conflicts.Religion that is not soft and flexible, and can break. We end up with “brittle, broken religion” (Hamas, Isis etc.).It's not most Muslims, but it is some Muslims and must be acknowledged. A lot of work to do within Islam to reclaim the flexible tradition that is possible.Thanks for reading Heterodox Jewish Woman! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Go to https://shirabatya.substack.com/https://www.jcob.org/support_judaism_re.html> This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit shirabatya.substack.com

In this candid conversation with venture capitalist and author Michael Eisenberg, we speak about economic perspectives on the holiday cycle detailed in this week's parsha and why this perspective is important for Torah study and for the spiritual character of the modern State of Israel. Michael's Book Recommendations: The Lonely Man of Faith, R. Joseph Soloveitchik https://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Man-Faith-Joseph-Soloveitchik/dp/0385514085/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=lonely+man+of+faith&qid=1648110660&s=books&sprefix=lonely+man+of+%2Cstripbooks%2C283&sr=1-1 Halakhic Man, R. Joseph Soloveitchik https://www.amazon.com/Halakhic-Man-Rabbi-Joseph-Soloveitchik/dp/0827603975/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2ML9YHGBV7DGC&keywords=halachik+man&qid=1648110690&s=books&sprefix=halachik+man%2Cstripbooks%2C324&sr=1-1 Range, by David Epstein https://www.amazon.com/Range-Generalists-Triumph-Specialized-World/dp/0735214484 Rational Optimist, by Matt Ridley https://www.rationaloptimist.com/

How has Jewish tradition view sexuality, love, and the family? These topics are particularly relevant today and secular society's views on it are constantly evolving. How has the modern Jewish community's interactions with surrounding cultures and religions affected our perspectives on sexuality and love? In this episode, Ari speaks with Miriam Krupka on how the Tanakh views these subjects as well as modern thinkers, ranging from Eliezer Berkovits to Joseph Soloveitchik to Leon Kass, and secular figures such as C.S. Lewis. Miriam Krupka serves as the Dean of Faculty at the Ramaz Upper School in Manhattan, where she teaches Tanakh and Jewish philosophy. Learn more about this course: https://www.dropbox.com/s/e7eabclz3o5gvcf/Love%20and%20Intimacy%20in%20Jewish%20Thought%20-%20Reader.pdf?dl=0 Check out our offerings at tikvahfund.org/hs

This week, we reflect on the murder of George Floyd and the subsequent protests that have spread across the world, with hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets to decry racism and police violence. Our first guest is Jason Kirschner, Mark's first cousin and close friend from childhood. Their Northeast Jewish suburban upbringings were strikingly similar, except that Jason is black. The cousins catch up by phone, and discuss race for the first time. Then we talk to Rabbi Alex Ozar of Yale's Slifka Center for Jewish Life, who is writing his PhD on what Jewish ethics teach us about our responsibility for social justice, focusing on the work of Hannah Arendt, Abraham Joshua Heschel, and Joseph Soloveitchik. He explains what our obligations are as Jews in the face of injustice. Let us know what you think of the show: Email us at unorthodox@tabletmag.com or leave us a voicemail at (914) 570-4869. You can also record a voice memo on your smartphone and email it to us. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter to get new episodes, photos, and more. Join our Facebook group, and follow Unorthodox on Twitter and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ross and favorite guest Dave Weller talk about ethics in English education. What problems are caused by charging for teaching? What are the ethics of observing teachers? Is it fair to expect teachers to prepare for classes in their own time?Ross Thorburn: [laughs] Hurrah. Welcome to Dave Weller.Dave Weller: You just stole my thunder.Ross: [laughs] I know. What can I say? Regular listeners will understand the joke.Dave: Hello everybody.Ross: Welcome back, Dave.Dave: Thank you.Ross: Today, I thought we could talk about something that is much needed and often much lacking, which is ethics in English education.[laughter]Dave: A deep topic.Ross: Isn't it? I don't know about you, but I've definitely found that most of the schools that I've worked in, not always, but in some ways, been ethically lacking.It's something that we don't often talk about, maybe. Certainly, we've not talked about in this podcast before. It's something that teachers often talk about in teachers' rooms, right? With problems about the ethics of schools. I thought it would be interesting of us to debate here.Dave: Absolutely. People listening, it depends which context you're teaching in, but every teacher I've ever spoken to has a story or several stories to tell about unfairness, discrimination, prejudice. Definitely, there's issues in the industry with ethical behavior.Ross: Maybe, it's more important in teaching, for a lot of teachers that get into teaching, because it should be a net-positive profession. It might be different to some other higher-paying jobs that are more financially motivated, whereas teaching, very few people will get into it to make money, right?Dave: Oh, def.[laughter]Ross: Too late now.Dave: You can't.[laughter]Dave: Is it too late to change my...Ross: I think it is at this point, Dave. We want to play a little quote from David Brooks -- who's got a great book on this topic -- talking to Sam Harris.Sam Harris: What are the resume virtues and the eulogy virtues?David Brooks: The eulogy virtues and the resume virtues are things I, more or less, took from a guy named Joseph Soloveitchik, who was a rabbi in the mid-20th century. He said we have two sides of our nature.One side, which is about conquering the world and being majestic in it. Those are the resume virtues, the things that make us good at our job. Then the eulogy virtues are the internal side of ourselves, the things they say about us after we're dead, whether it's being courageous or honest, or capable of great love.We live in a culture that knows the eulogy virtues are more important. We all would rather be remembered for our character traits rather than our career, but we live in a culture that emphasizes the career parts. We're a lot more articulate about how to build a good career than how to build a good person.Our universities, in particular, are much more confident in talking about professional rise than a moral or spiritual rise.Ross: I would say that's probably also true in our industry, at least, in all the training courses I've worked on. I don't ever remember ethics or the ethics of education ever coming up on them. Obviously, we spend a lot of time talking about how to become a better teacher, but not better in terms of character, better in terms of ethics teacher.Dave: I would agree. It's interesting. I remember the old Greeks used to do several subjects like the triumvirate of rhetoric, logic, and ethics, because they saw it as inseparable from being able to lead a good life.Actually teaching ethics to the young citizens of the time was imperative. They would have thought it very strange not to do so. Yet, it's something missing. Well, I never got taught ethics. Probably why I am why I am now.[laughter]Ross: I thought we could start off with what are the ethics of charging people for education. Obviously, both you and I, pretty much our entire careers, we've worked a little bit in government schools at some point, but mainly it's been paying customers.What would you think are some of the ethical issues or problems there?Dave: Any ethical question, you have to look at all the variables behind it. You have to look at people's income, their wealth, what they are currently studying, government schools, their need, the company that's providing the education, its standards for their own teachers.I think that the context is inseparable. To say in general terms, it's quite tough.Ross: At least, I can see there being some advantages of having education in the private sphere rather than the public sphere. In theory at least, there should be more...In general, there should be more pressure on providers to deliver a better service, because you're getting all this pressure from your competitors.Dave: If government schools and services were perfect, there wouldn't be any need to have private education in the first place.Ross: I can see, maybe, the difficulty there. It's like who do you decide to sell to, or when do you decide not to sell things to people?I've had friends and colleagues who've worked especially with adults. People who they know can't afford an English course, or maybe they're working in a job where English is not going to benefit them very much, or they know that this person doesn't have the study skills. Most people are, maybe, encouraged to take out a large bank loan to pay for something.Dave: Even if the school or institution that's selling the courses, it depends if they do so ethically. If they have a different payment plan so you can pay monthly rather than in a yearly lump sum, which makes it more affordable. If they are offering to people who they think won't be able to complete it in time, or they have other pressures.Even how good their teaching is, which methodology do they follow? Is it up-to-date and evidence-based? If they follow an outdated system because it's easy to market, they'll definitely get more sales.Also, you need to look at the school's retention. What are their results? Can they show that they've helped learners to learn?Ross: You touched on something there, this idea of rewarding teachers for, for example, students signing on, re-signing contracts in private language schools, or demo conversions. Students come to a trial class and they've paid, or they've not paid.That, I think, is an interesting ethical question, of whether that is something that should be rewarded, obviously something that should be punished. Is that a good way of judging people?There is one side of that in that if your students have signed a year contract and they've stayed with you for a year, and they want to re-sign again. That probably does, in aggregate with a lot of people, say some positive things about you. Maybe, if they don't, it says some negative things about you.There's obviously another side to that as well. You're starting to judge teachers by how much money they're generating rather than how much learning they're generating.Dave: Precisely, because learning is such a long process. If a teacher is purely entertaining, they're going to get a very high re-sign rate. That doesn't mean learning happened.Learning is hard. You have to really think. You're perhaps frowning as you grasp a new concept. That is leading to a teacher not getting as high re-sign rate because the students don't want to think in class.The teacher could be technically brilliant and really adept at helping the students to learn. If that teacher is disincentivized from that behavior and think, "Well, actually I earn a decent salary. I enjoy where I'm living, and I want to stay." They could well change their behavior to increase whatever rate they might be being judged on, especially if it's a financial one.Ross: Then you can imagine that being a vicious circle as well, where you would promote the people that get those metrics rather than the metrics of learning, which are harder to measure. That reinforces that whole paradigm, doesn't it? That what we want is re-signs and money rather than learning.Dave: Precisely. This is a problem that I had years ago when I first became a DoS. Before all the technology that we're talking about, I was struggling with the idea of how to measure academic quality. It's really hard to do, because the only way you can do it, as far as I can see, is to directly observe it.We don't have any standard algorithm of what makes good teaching or what makes good learning, because it varies so much depending on the variables of the teacher and the students involved, that is only by direct observation you can see.It affects so many other business metrics within a school. It can affect sales. If you're doing class, you get referrals. It can affect your retention, your service department. You can measure it through the effect it has on other things, but that is a very tricky process and needs a lot of data.If you have a manager that's very business-focused, and you're an academic head, then trying to prove that becomes a real battle. I see that getting worse if the right things aren't measured. With online, with all the extra data coming in, people could well take the easy solution and make those simple correlations.Ross: It's like the old management saying, "What gets measured gets managed." It's a lot easier to measure re-signs or conversions than to measure learning, which is still a bit of an abstract idea and very, very difficult to actually assess.Dave: That's actually a Peter Drucker quote, and he has an extension to it which most people don't say, which is, "...but make sure you measure the right things."Ross: Ah.[laughter]Ross: Oh wow, there we go. Moving on, let's talk a bit about teachers. I know this is something that you wanted to talk about. Schools in general often ask teachers to do a lot of work, and preparation, and marking classes in their own time, right?Dave: If a school is upfront with how they pitch the job to teachers, then I think it's fine. I think a lot of schools don't mention what their expectations are of work upfront.They might say, "The job is this many hours per week for this salary." Then when the teacher starts work, they find out, "Oh, there are also office hours you have to attend. There are extracurricular activities you also have to be present for. There are team building activities which are compulsory." The list goes on. I'm sure [chuckles] our listeners can add a lot more to that.Suddenly, what was thought to be a 40-hour a week job turns into 60 or 70, when, as you say, you add in preparation, marking, and even the horrible situation where teachers are buying supplies from their own pocket as well.Ross: It's almost like schools are taking advantage of the good nature of teachers, of wanting to do good things for their students.I remember my dad, growing up, in my childhood, I remember him. So often the living room floor would be strewn with these cut-out bits of old exam papers which he was copying and pasting to turn into new tests for students that they hadn't had before.Maybe, teaching is different from other professions. Whereas if you're in sales or something and you're putting in many extra hours, you're probably doing that, partially at least, in the expectation that you're going to get more money. Whereas teaching doesn't have that.It's almost that the more you care about the students, the more time you're putting in, but you're not necessarily going to get any financial reward for that.Dave: There's a saying in England, in the NHS, they say it runs on goodwill. They do take advantage of the empathy that staff have. I do think that is very similar in the teaching profession as well.Ross: I also wanted to ask you about the idea of more and more surveillance in classrooms. When both you and I started teaching, there was very little oversight. Maybe, your DoS would come in and observe you. I don't know, for me once a year if I was lucky. Maybe, it could last.[laughter]Dave: That explains a lot, Ross.Ross: It does, doesn't it? Now in offline teaching you often have cameras in classrooms. Even more interestingly, in online teaching, you have not just cameras -- because obviously everything is on camera.Everything that you do in every single class can be watched back both by parents and the people measuring the quality of classes, and more and more companies investing in AI to monitor teacher behavior.Generally in public life, at least, people have a real aversion to facial recognition, whatever authority's using technology to track their behavior, their movements, and everything. I've not really heard anyone talking about this with teaching.I'm not sure if I was a teacher now, full-time, especially an online teacher, and I knew that everything I said was being recorded and monitored with AI. I'm not sure how comfortable I would be with that.Dave: First of all, the first thing that popped into my head there is the idea of privacy and intention. Privacy concerns from the students, and I'm assuming they would all sign waivers so that their recordings could be used and reused for training purposes, and shown to other people. That's where the intention comes in.If all this data is used with ethically-sound principles in mind, I can't see too much of an issue with it. If you're using it to improve their learning, to personalize resources, materials, and lessons, so they're better able to learn, then that is the positive side.Ross: It'll be interesting to see how that changes as the technology moves on and we get to a point when technology knows every single word you've said in every single class to every single student. There's a record of that. There's even a record of every single facial expression that you might have made in every single class. I think all that's coming.Dave: The immediate problem with that, though, is assuming good intentions. You could still run into pitfalls.If you have, say, the ability for AI to recognize engagement through facial expression --Will it be leaning forward in the chair, smiling, eye contact with the camera, however you judge those metrics? That's equated with a good class because they're engaged and more likely to re-sign. That's a business metric rather than a learning metric.A teacher's rewarded for that, then you could go back to the idea of edutainment. The teacher is encouraged to be entertaining rather than help the student to learn. Interestingly, that data could also be used in aggregate to see what really works and what really doesn't in teaching.That is very exciting, but it has this dark side which I think we need to be very careful of. I've not really heard any discussions or anywhere else about the potential pitfalls of this. It's really nice that you're raising people's awareness now.Ross: You heard it here first, folks. [laughs]Ross: Thanks for coming on again, Dave. Do you want to give the blog a quick plug?Dave: Sure. If you want to read more about these topics, then please visit www.barefootteflteacher.com.Ross: Great. Dave, thanks again for coming on.Dave: You're very welcome.

“Hark, my beloved knocks! ‘Let me in, my own, My darling, my faultless dove! For my head is drenched with dew, My locks with the damp of night.’” The fifth chapter of the biblical Song of Songs tells the story of two lovers who long for each other, but see their reunion thwarted by lethargy and indifference. The great commentators of the Jewish tradition have long seen the Song of Solomon as an extended metaphor for the relationship between God and the People of Israel. The Almighty knocks at the door of His chosen nation, but will Israel answer His call? That is the question Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik posed to a rapt audience at Yeshiva University on Israel’s Independence Day in 1956. Delivered in the tense days leading up to the Suez Crisis, Soloveitchik’s speech, titled “Kol Dodi Dofek,” “Hark, My Beloved Knocks,” uses the Song of Songs to place before American Jews a hortatory call: through the creation of the State of Israel, God knocked at the door of the Jewish people. Will the Jews of America open the door and stand beside the reborn Jewish state in its hour of need? In this podcast, Tikvah’s Jonathan Silver is joined by Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Dr. Jacob J. Schacter for a discussion of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s speech, later published as a short book entitled Fate and Destiny. Rabbi Schacter describes the dramatic historical background of Soloveitchik’s address and guides us through the “six knocks” that demonstrate God’s involvement in the creation of the State of Israel. He also discusses Rabbi Soloveitchik’s attitude toward suffering, messianism, and secular Zionism in a conversation as relevant today as when it was first delivered over half a century ago. Musical selections in this podcast are drawn from the Quintet for Clarinet and Strings, op. 31a, composed by Paul Ben-Haim and performed by the ARC Ensemble as well as “Shining Through the Rain” by Big Score Audio. If you enjoy this podcast and want learn more from Rabbi Schacter about the life and thought of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, we hope you will enroll in Rabbi Schacter’s online course, “Majesty and Humility: The Life, Legacy, and Thought of Joseph B. Soloveitchik.” Visit Courses.TikvahFund.org to sign up.

In The Last Rabbi: Joseph Soloveitchik and Talmudic Tradition (Indiana University Press, 2016), William Kolbrener, professor of English at Bar Ilan University in Israel, explores the life and thought of Joseph Soloveitchik, the scion of the Brisk rabbinic dynasty, from both literary and psychoanalytic perspectives. The result is both a compelling critique of extant receptions of Soloveitchik’s thought and a nuanced exploration of the sources and struggles at the root of the Rav’s towering intellectual and halakhic achievements. The book will be of interest to students of rabbinic hermeneutics, modern Jewish thought, psychoanalysis, and the Western philosophical tradition — all intellectual realms in which Soloveitchik was well versed. David Gottlieb is a PhD Candidate in the History of Judaism at the University of Chicago Divinity School. His research focuses on interpretations of the Binding of Isaac and the formation of Jewish cultural memory. He can be reached at davidg1@uchicago.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Last Rabbi: Joseph Soloveitchik and Talmudic Tradition (Indiana University Press, 2016), William Kolbrener, professor of English at Bar Ilan University in Israel, explores the life and thought of Joseph Soloveitchik, the scion of the Brisk rabbinic dynasty, from both literary and psychoanalytic perspectives. The result is both a compelling critique of extant receptions of Soloveitchik’s thought and a nuanced exploration of the sources and struggles at the root of the Rav’s towering intellectual and halakhic achievements. The book will be of interest to students of rabbinic hermeneutics, modern Jewish thought, psychoanalysis, and the Western philosophical tradition — all intellectual realms in which Soloveitchik was well versed. David Gottlieb is a PhD Candidate in the History of Judaism at the University of Chicago Divinity School. His research focuses on interpretations of the Binding of Isaac and the formation of Jewish cultural memory. He can be reached at davidg1@uchicago.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Last Rabbi: Joseph Soloveitchik and Talmudic Tradition (Indiana University Press, 2016), William Kolbrener, professor of English at Bar Ilan University in Israel, explores the life and thought of Joseph Soloveitchik, the scion of the Brisk rabbinic dynasty, from both literary and psychoanalytic perspectives. The result is both a compelling critique of extant receptions of Soloveitchik’s thought and a nuanced exploration of the sources and struggles at the root of the Rav’s towering intellectual and halakhic achievements. The book will be of interest to students of rabbinic hermeneutics, modern Jewish thought, psychoanalysis, and the Western philosophical tradition — all intellectual realms in which Soloveitchik was well versed. David Gottlieb is a PhD Candidate in the History of Judaism at the University of Chicago Divinity School. His research focuses on interpretations of the Binding of Isaac and the formation of Jewish cultural memory. He can be reached at davidg1@uchicago.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Last Rabbi: Joseph Soloveitchik and Talmudic Tradition (Indiana University Press, 2016), William Kolbrener, professor of English at Bar Ilan University in Israel, explores the life and thought of Joseph Soloveitchik, the scion of the Brisk rabbinic dynasty, from both literary and psychoanalytic perspectives. The result is both a compelling critique of extant receptions of Soloveitchik’s thought and a nuanced exploration of the sources and struggles at the root of the Rav’s towering intellectual and halakhic achievements. The book will be of interest to students of rabbinic hermeneutics, modern Jewish thought, psychoanalysis, and the Western philosophical tradition — all intellectual realms in which Soloveitchik was well versed. David Gottlieb is a PhD Candidate in the History of Judaism at the University of Chicago Divinity School. His research focuses on interpretations of the Binding of Isaac and the formation of Jewish cultural memory. He can be reached at davidg1@uchicago.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Last Rabbi: Joseph Soloveitchik and Talmudic Tradition (Indiana University Press, 2016), William Kolbrener, professor of English at Bar Ilan University in Israel, explores the life and thought of Joseph Soloveitchik, the scion of the Brisk rabbinic dynasty, from both literary and psychoanalytic perspectives. The result is both a compelling critique of extant receptions of Soloveitchik’s thought and a nuanced exploration of the sources and struggles at the root of the Rav’s towering intellectual and halakhic achievements. The book will be of interest to students of rabbinic hermeneutics, modern Jewish thought, psychoanalysis, and the Western philosophical tradition — all intellectual realms in which Soloveitchik was well versed. David Gottlieb is a PhD Candidate in the History of Judaism at the University of Chicago Divinity School. His research focuses on interpretations of the Binding of Isaac and the formation of Jewish cultural memory. He can be reached at davidg1@uchicago.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In The Last Rabbi: Joseph Soloveitchik and Talmudic Tradition (Indiana University Press, 2016), William Kolbrener, professor of English at Bar Ilan University in Israel, explores the life and thought of Joseph Soloveitchik, the scion of the Brisk rabbinic dynasty, from both literary and psychoanalytic perspectives. The result is both a compelling critique of extant receptions of Soloveitchik’s thought and a nuanced exploration of the sources and struggles at the root of the Rav’s towering intellectual and halakhic achievements. The book will be of interest to students of rabbinic hermeneutics, modern Jewish thought, psychoanalysis, and the Western philosophical tradition — all intellectual realms in which Soloveitchik was well versed. David Gottlieb is a PhD Candidate in the History of Judaism at the University of Chicago Divinity School. His research focuses on interpretations of the Binding of Isaac and the formation of Jewish cultural memory. He can be reached at davidg1@uchicago.edu. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Part 2b of a 3 part series, in which Rabbi Knopf explores, analyzes, and debates various approaches to understanding God in modern Jewish thought. This session: Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik and contemporary Orthodox theology.

Part 2a of a 3 part series, in which Rabbi Knopf explores, analyzes, and debates various approaches to understanding God in modern Jewish thought. This session: Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik and contemporary Orthodox theology.

“We’ve been studying about one of the foremost thinkers of the 20th century, Rav Joseph Soloveitchik. He has distinguished himself in two distinct areas, in halachic/law formulation, Analysis, and the way he approaches any sugya/passage in Talmud is one as…Read more ›

On the Thought of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik zt"l, by Rabbi Reuven Ziegler. Rabbi Ziegler, VBM Editor in Chief, recently published a book "Majesty and Humility, The Thought of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik." A panel discussion was held at YU, with Rabbi Michael Rosensweig, Rabbi Jacob J. Schachter, Dr. David Shatz, and Rabbi Ziegler. The first half of the panel can be heard at http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/772057/Rabbi_Dr_Jacob_J_Schacter/Panel_on_%E2%80%98Majesty_and_Humility:_The_Thought_of_Rabbi_Joseph_B_Soloveitchik%E2%80%99_by_Rabbi_Reuven_Ziegler