Ammiel Hirsch: ‘What Did We Do Wrong?’ Peoplehood and the Reform Movement

David Bashevkin:
Hi, friends, and welcome to 18Forty. If you like my intros, then you’re in for a treat, because I am recording a second intro that is just being appended to the episode that you’re about to listen to. Because this intro is being recorded post October 7th, and the intro that I previously recorded, was actually pre October 7th. And I believe that given how much the world has changed, given how much the Jewish people has changed, I just wanted to make it clear that this episode and the introduction to the episode, was actually recorded before everything turned upside down. It happens to be that it’s only become more timely and the discussion has become even more important. And my discussion today with Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, who’s one of the leading figures of the Reform movement and one of the most outspoken defenders of Israel, who has been emphasizing the importance of our connection to Zionism in Israel to the Reform movement, but really to all of the Jewish people in extraordinarily eloquent ways.

And I really just wanted to add two things. First and foremost, I wanted to thank Joel and Lynn Mael for sponsoring this series. It means a great deal to me. They’re sponsoring in memory of Joel’s parents, Estelle and Nysen Mael, Esther bas Zvi and Nissan ben Yaakov Zvi. I’ve mentioned this before, but the Mael family is, aside from being an extraordinary family who embraced orthodoxy in America when so many others were abandoning Jewish observance and their own Jewish identity. And it is truly a remarkable family that I know well. But really, on a very personal level, just to say one word, the first person who ever gave me, so to speak, a microphone, not a literal microphone, but gave me an opportunity to share Torah and ideas, and really gave me the confidence to continue going, is Joel Mael who invited me to give Asher, a Shabbos morning class, after the 7:30 Minyan in the Young Israel of Lawrence-Cedarhurst, over 10 years ago.

And that opportunity on a very personal level, and my own connection to that Minyan and the Hevre and the people who go to that Minyan, is something that on the deepest most personal level has animated everything that I have been doing until now. It really gave me the inspiration, in many ways, to build the life that I have before me now and I’m so grateful to them. And this series, which is really an exploration of denominations in America, is in so many ways a testament to the Mael family who has developed and cultivated a Jewish family on these shores in really remarkable ways, in a time when so many in the United States of America, including many in my own family, found that really difficult or were unable to do that. And there was just so much to learn from the families who are able to preserve a very strong sense of Jewish identity, going back from the early 1900s to where we are now. And there is so much to learn from that, so I’m so grateful for their sponsorship and friendship. Thank you so much, Joel and Lynn.

Secondly, I just want to share a word about my conversation with Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch. I want to emphasize again, especially for people within the Orthodox community, but I think this is true of people of all denominations. It is very rare that we hear honest conversation between clergy that other people can listen to, that other people can explore and examine. I have been fascinated by Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch for many, many years, ever since he wrote the book One People, Two Worlds. I became even more fascinated with him, as you’ll hear in my old intro, for his very staunch defense and almost posing the Reform movement’s connection to Israel as an existential moment for the movement itself. And since October 7th, he has been a very articulate spokesman for American Judaism, because most American Jews are Reform Jews, about the importance of Israel. And I think more than anything, what are we trying to do with this conversation? I’m certainly not, and I know Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch is not, I’m not trying to get anyone to switch denominations. I’m not trying to get anyone to question, to become Orthodox or to become Reform.

I am trying to provide a candid, honest conversation to help people better understand what Judaism has been through, what the Jewish people has been through. We have spent so much time focusing on the pressure from our enemies, we have spent so much time focusing on the changing landscape of what it means to be Jewish these past several months. And the theme throughout, is that being Jewish is not just about fighting our enemies and joining together to ensure the safety of the Jewish people. It is about all of that, but at the heart of it needs to be an exploration of what Judaism actually is and means, how it is practiced, how it is understood by others to get the full understanding of what animates the Jewish people and what animates what we have been preserving all these millennia, Yiddishkeit, Judaism. And that is why I think this conversation is so important. And I want to tell our listeners that I actually followed up with Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch for a second conversation that is post October 7th, that we will hopefully be releasing as well. So please stay tuned for that.

And in the meantime, here is our absolutely eye-opening conversation with Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch. But first, the intro that I recorded then, which if anything, has only become more relevant. Hello and welcome to the 18Forty Podcast where each month we explore different topic, balancing modern sensibilities with traditional sensitivities to give you new approaches to timeless Jewish ideas. I’m your host, David Bashevkin, and this month we’re exploring Jewish denominations. This podcast is part of a larger exploration of those big juicy Jewish ideas, so be sure to check out 18forty.org, that’s 18 F-O-R-T-Y.org where you can also find videos, articles, recommended readings, and weekly emails. When I was in 11th grade, I think my mother even brought home the book, there was a book that came out that caused a great deal of controversy in the Jewish community. The book is called One People, Two Worlds: A Reform Rabbi and an Orthodox Rabbi Explore the Issues That Divide Them.

It is a conversation between Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, who is a Reform Rabbi, and Rabbi Yosef Reinman, who is an Orthodox Rabbi who lives in Lakewood, talking about the different issues about the Jewish community. And I was probably too young to read the book, honestly. I read it, I didn’t thought being an Orthodox Jew, but I did find it eye-opening in the way that they discussed issues, the way they conceive of truth in this world, the way that they discussed issues related to Torah, the way they issues related particularly to Zionism. I think that was the one issue where I actually felt a little bit more connected to what Ammiel Hirsch, our guest today, was saying. But it did cause a great deal of controversy because there are limitations in what you can actually have a conversation about, ideologically. There are always concerns that people are, I don’t know, proselytizing. I mean, not in the literal sense, but are trying to sway people from one denomination or another.

That’s obviously not our intent with this series, but really to provide a window to understand how the different denominations that kind of create the contours of American Jewish life came to be, and hopefully give us better language to look at people who have upbringings, affiliations different than our own. So we don’t look at our fellow Jews as, so to speak, God forbid, enemies, but people who we have extraordinarily real ideological differences with. But still be able to have some room or some language to hold onto those differences, while still remaining committed to the notion of Am Yisrael and Knesset Israel, the larger collective body of the Jewish people. The reason why the book caused the controversy, which honestly is not that outlandish, is that they felt it was inappropriate. Many rabbis, not all rabbis, but many rabbis, particularly orthodox rabbis, felt it was inappropriate to have a debate like this. Rabbi Soloveitchik was very hesitant about joining together in these joint committees. Rabbi Soloveitchik was not alive when this book came out, but he always would caution these kind of interdenominational dialogue.

Very often we end up compromising on our own ideology and our own commitments on our own experiences. I was very careful that the places where we should be joining together are specifically for social issues and social causes. And I kind of agree, I understand why there is a very real hesitance to have ideological conversations because very often it does lead to some compromise. I see that often with myself, particularly on 18Forty. I think the mistake that I make most often on 18Forty is when I talk to somebody who I don’t agree with, but in an effort to have a conversation you don’t voice every time, you don’t speak up every, “I totally disagree with it, I think you’re wrong. I think that’s terrible.” Very often you could hear about, “So fascinating, so wonderful. Oh, that’s amazing.” And one of the criticisms that I’ve gotten in 18Forty, and I think rightfully so, I’m not critiquing the criticism, I think it’s a well-placed criticism, is that in the course of conversation, you can end up either sympathizing too much with a side you shouldn’t be sympathizing with, compromising on your own ideological values.

And I think that’s something that we should always keep in mind, particularly on a series like this. We’re not looking for people to let go of their own commitments of their own ideology. That is definitely not what we’re doing. And the reason why this book caused quite a stir is because after it came out, they were going to go on tour together all across America, visiting a lot of communities that probably never heard a rabbi, like Rabbi Yosef Reinman, who is one of the most brilliant writers, talmidei chachamim, a true scholar of Torah, lives in Lakewood, publishes books, Seforim, on very serious matters. I think he wrote a sefer on Ribbis, I don’t have all of them. He’s also published under a pen name, some really fantastic books. I don’t know if the pen name’s a secret, I don’t think it is. Avner Gold, I believe he’s the person behind Avner Gold, a great series of books.

I think the best one, an absolute classic, if you are looking for the best introduction to the Sabbatai Zevi controversy, one of the books that he published under a pen name, is called The Impostor, and it is sold by ArtScroll. It is not an actual history, but really gives you a sense of what happened and is based on the historical facts. He’s a prolific writer and a very deep thinker. And after the book came out, they were going to go on tour together. I know a lot of the details and so may do many of our listeners, because my cousin… And I’m using air quotes, because we’re not exactly cousins. But she’s a part of the same family, we’re related to the same people, so I always call her a cousin, she’s definitely family. Altie Karper, who’s the head of Schocken Press, Schocken Publishers, which is the one who published the book, and she was on during I think our first Books, Books, Books series, where she talked a little bit about the background of what happened with the book.

She’s somebody who was very close to Rav Dovid Feinstein, who was very close to Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks. And she was really the publisher behind the book and she was very aware, she was actually in touch with Rav Dovid Feinstein when this all happened, that’s a story that she told previously on the podcast. And there were people who objected, and I’m not even objecting to the objection, I kind of understand both ends of this debate. There’s something very beautiful about two rabbis with very real ideological differences going on tour together, speaking together and having people who never would’ve heard a rabbi like Rabbi Yosef Reinman speak to them. And on the flip side, there’s always a concern of conferring a validity or according some measure of legitimacy to a rabbi, who you feel, that that form of Judaism is not really the right approach. And that’s very often a central part of, particularly on 18Forty all the time, what makes conversation so difficult, allowing us to explore ideas but doing it in a way that is consistently constructive.

That even if we hear an idea that we may disagree with, but not according a legitimacy when that is inappropriate, that’s something that we’ve always struggled with. It’s really part of the reason why I really admired the book, I really saw both sides, they speak respectfully throughout. But their book tour got canceled and it made the press and the press got involved, and it’s kind of a good news, bad news situation. You have a lot of people saying this was inappropriate, that’s the bad news. The good news is, anytime a ban is associated with books, it usually backfires and helps sales. I don’t know that I ever would’ve read this book if it had not made headlines. I was in 11th or 12th grade and I read it with great interest. I don’t know that I would recommend it to somebody younger, because I think a lot of the arguments and a lot of the discussions could have maybe been phrased better. Particularly in the discussion on Zionism, I’ll be perfectly honest with you. I didn’t really resonate with the so to speak orthodox presentation of Zionism in the book.

But I did find the book eye-opening, respectful, scholarly, deep, enriching. And a lot of people moved away from the book, a lot of rabbis after this declaration of they shouldn’t go on tour together, removed their approbation. There was actually one rabbi, and I want to call them out, because it’s really remarkable and as somebody who’s really courageous in that way, and that is Rav David Cohen, who was a rabbi in Brooklyn in Gvul Yaavetz. And his approbation, what’s known as a Haskamah, appears in the back of the book, and it’s actually quite beautiful. I want to read it to you now. He writes, “I have read One People, Two Worlds with interest. I was impressed by the sincerity of the discussions and by the respect shown by each disputant to his fellow. This lucid and brilliant exposition of Judaism should be utilized as a basic text. I pray that the collision of the two worlds leaves intact the oneness of our people.” And what a beautiful prayer that is. Again, “I pray that the collision of the two worlds leaves intact the oneness of our people.”

And that is one of the reasons why I am so excited to introduce our guest today, Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch. He is a Reform rabbi and the head of the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue. He’s very active within the Reform movement, but he’s also somewhat of an iconoclast. He spent his high school years in Israel, he served in the IDF. And recently, my dear friend, Armin Rosen, who is a staff writer at Tablet Magazine, wrote an absolutely eye-opening profile of Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, called The Believer, you could find it on tabletmag.com. And the article subtitles Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch’s unapologetic Zionism, as the key to Reform Judaism’s survival and flourishing while others see it as a betrayal of the movement’s universalist aims. And Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch to his absolute credit, is so outspoken and is worried that the issue of Israel and really what Israel represents for the Jewish people, which is the very notion of Jewish people itself, may tear worldwide Jewry apart, and he has come forward.

And in this endeavor, I think it is worth thinking about how we can all partner, no matter what your denomination is, with him in this endeavor. Because Reform Jewry at the end of the day represents the largest swath of American Jews, and this is a very real issue. We are losing Jews to the very notion of that particularist notion, that we are part of a people, we are part of Am Yisrael. And what Israel represents in that notion for some American Jews, can be very upsetting. And he has really stood at the forefront of ensuring that peoplehood and our connection as Am Yisrael, remains intact. And that is a fight that I think everyone should stand by and pick up arms, I hate to use violent imagery. Let me think of different imagery. I don’t like violent imagery. There’s no reason to use that.

But in this initiative, in uplifting and ensuring the centered notion that the notion of Jewish people, it is centered in the hearts and minds of the Jewish people, is an initiative that all of us should be joining arms in, not arms like a weapon, but joining arms in and saying, “This is very important.” I want to share with you before we actually hear from him, there was a major conference that was held by the Reform movement, it was called Recharging Reform Judaism. It was a conference that was actually held in the synagogue in which Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch is a Rabbi. And he got up and he spoke, and spoke about this particular issue. And honestly, I found it so important for the future of American Judaism, for the future Am Yisrael. I want to share before we listen to the interview, because so much of the interview is unpacking what he said. I want to share with you a recording of what he said at this Recharging Reform Judaism conference, that was held in May of 2023. Let’s listen in.

Ammiel Hirsch:
I fear that we are losing the soul of the Reform movement. To turn against Israel, to join our ideological opponents and political enemies, encasticating Zionism, is a sign of Jewish illness, an atrophying of our intellectual and emotional commitment to our people, given the growing hostility to Israel and our circles, liberal and progressive spaces and mindful of the increasing disdain for Jewish particularism. It’s not enough for us to proclaim our Zionist bona fides every now and again, often expressed defensively with so many qualifications, stipulations and modifications, that our enthusiasm for Zionism is buried under an avalanche of provisos. It’s not enough for us to issue occasional press releases or Tweets that we are a Zionist movement committed to the age-old religious value of the covenant of the Jewish people. We are the leaders, we must lead, we must be proactive, and sooner or later we will have to attend to the growing fissures in the Reform movement itself.

We cannot pretend that they do not exist for the sake of a false sense of unity. Otherwise, the rifts that emerged between the anti-peoplehood, anti-Zionist Reform Jews of the first half of the 20th century, and the Zionists who are committed to Jewish particularism, will reopen in our movement with devastating consequences for 21st century Reform synagogues. If the North American Reform movement, by word or by deed, by action or silence becomes in fact, or even in perception, an anti-Zionist, anti-particularist movement that cares only or mostly about universal concerns, unanchored in and unmoored from the centrality of Jewish peoplehood. If this happens, most American Jews will abandon us, as they would have in the 20th century had we not come to our senses.

David Bashevkin:
He’s clearly impassioned, he’s clearly moved by this and I think this is an issue that transcends any denomination. If you pay attention to what is happening, very often among young Jews. If you read the article by Armin Rosen, either The Believer, and he wrote a second article called Descent in the Reform Ranks, Judaism’s largest denomination sees growing divisions around Israel, political alignment, Jewish peoplehood, and the very future of the movement. Both of these are worth reading regardless of your affiliation, because this is a concern, not of a movement, not of a denomination. This is a concern that gets to the very heart of Am Yisrael itself, are we a people? Are we still one people even if we live, so to speak, in two different worlds?

So to unpack what he was saying, why he was saying and why this is such an important issue in the Jewish future, it is my absolute pleasure to introduce our guest today, Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch. It is a privilege to introduce somebody whose works I have known since I am a high school student, when he first published the book One People, Two Worlds. He’s since published the second book called The Lilac Tree: A Rabbi’s Reflections on Love, Courage, and History. It is my pleasure to introduce Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch.

Ammiel Hirsch:
Thank you, Dovid. It’s really good to be here. You make me feel a little bit ancient by saying that you were a high school student when we wrote that first book. I still see myself as a high school student myself actually, but nonetheless, I appreciate very much.

David Bashevkin:
Yes, and 20 years ago, which we’ll talk about the book in a little bit, but don’t let my hair fool you. My hair is already in post-retirement, but I’m a little bit younger than my hair would suggest. But I want to begin with a address that you gave, and you can give me the context of the address. Our listeners have already heard it because I found the audio to be so moving, where you are talking to Reform Rabbinic colleagues within the Reform movement, and you make an impassioned plea for the importance of peoplehood. And in your words, you caution a disdain for particularism, we have to make sure that we do not fall into that disdain, and we are able to embrace that notion of peoplehood even with all of its contemporary challenges. I want to begin by talking about that presentation. Can you tell me where were you, who were you speaking towards and what exactly was the concern that animated you so very much?

Ammiel Hirsch:
Well, those are very complicated, the answers to that are long.

David Bashevkin:
Yeah.

Ammiel Hirsch:
I’ll try and give as brief as we can. For several years I’ve been increasingly worried about American Jewry in general, but in particular about the movement that I represent, the Reform movement. Which in turn, represents essentially the liberal component of American Jewry, which is the overwhelming majority of American Jews.

David Bashevkin:
Yes.

Ammiel Hirsch:
And I’ve been worried especially about what I perceive to be the drifting from not only the state of Israel and the people of Israel, but from the underlying concept that requires Jews to be bound together to these principles. And that is the concept of what the tradition calls Klau Israel, what we might call the centrality of Jewish peoplehood. As an ideology, I felt all along that at the core of Judaism, is the first words that God speaks to Abraham, the first Jew in the Book of Genesis, “I have selected you, I will make of you a great nation, I will bless you and all the peoples of the world should bless themselves through you.”

And to me, that sets in motion the concept of, “I will make of you a great nation” at the core of Jewish civilization, is the concept of Jewish peoplehood, Am Yisrael. And the purpose of the existence of our people is to be a blessing, it’s to constitute a blessing for all humanity. And of course, all of Jewish, everything that follows, everything in the Bible and everything in Talmudic literature, everything, literally everything until the modern era, everything that follows rests on this assumption of the Jewish people in covenant with God. And that was one of the distinctive messages of Judaism at the revelation at Sinai, right? The whole people experienced revelation.

David Bashevkin:
Yes.

Ammiel Hirsch:
As opposed to other religions, where a figure experienced revelation.

David Bashevkin:
Exactly, that’s the distinction. The founding idea, and I fully agree with you, is this selection, this Bechirah, this choosing of the Jewish people and our mission to the larger world.

Ammiel Hirsch:
Yeah, and so even what we now term the prophetic values of Judaism, every single Hebrew prophet in the Tanakh, was of the people, by the people and for the people. They propounded what we now interpret as universal messages of justice and righteousness and peace and economic justice, but they were anchored in the concept of Jewish peoplehood. Those were the presumptions of our tradition from the very beginning until modern times. And it is what gives Judaism its distinctiveness and its distinctive contribution to the world too, in that we believe in a specific type of universalism, a universalism that is grounded and rooted in the covenant of the Jewish people. To lose either component, and we have Jews who either deny or through their behavior, minimize one or the other component, to lose the concept of Jewish universalism, our obligation to be a blessing to humanity. I mean, if you remember, I know you remember, but just to remind your listeners the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

David Bashevkin:
Sure.

Ammiel Hirsch:
And God supposedly speaks to himself and says, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I’m about to do? I selected Abraham to do what is right and just.” That’s the point of the selection of the Jewish people. So to lose that element of universalism, what we call it in liberal circles, tikkun olam, as sort of shorthand for this concept of Jewish universalism. To lose that, as some critics of liberal Judaism suggest, is not really part of Jewish tradition, is to diminish the glory and the grandeur and the comprehensiveness of Judaism.

The same is true on the side of Jewish particularism. To lose that, to make Judaism all tikkun olam, and by which we mean, justice requires us to do universal values. But we give no passing thought to Jewish peoplehood and strengthening not only the concept of Jewish peoplehood, but bringing justice and bringing compassion and bringing relief to fellow Jews, is also to compromise Judaism. And one without the other actually creates a different form of religion. It’s not Judaism, it’s compromised Judaism. So I was especially worried about losing that component of Jewish particularism in the Reform movement. And if you have one more minute, there are good historical reasons for us-

David Bashevkin:
Please tell me, that’s what I want to get into. Because when you’re talking to me right now, what you’ve said, I’m sure to many who have grown up within the Orthodox community, which is in comparison more insular and maybe the struggle is focusing on the universal values and what we can contribute to the larger world. But a lot of what you said in the covenant, would be said, “Oh, that’s so uncontroversial. Why would Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch get so worked up over pushing this issue forward?” So what I really want to hear is what drove you to be so impassioned at this moment? And maybe just tell me basically who exactly were you speaking to, what was this gathering about? Because I think that’s an important part of it, and I think you were so impassioned and so moving honestly in the way that you spoke about it. So take me to the actual moment and then maybe we’ll unpack some of the history

Ammiel Hirsch:
Just a moment, and then we’ll circle back at your pleasure.

David Bashevkin:
Sure.

Ammiel Hirsch:
The Reform movement in North America started its history as an anti-peoplehood understanding of Judaism. There were reasons for it, there were philosophical reasons for it. It was a terrible error and a misread of history, something that the Reform movement negated itself 50 years later. But it dawned on me that that element in the Reform movement is always present. It’s this temptation to either deny Jewish peoplehood, which was our position for the first 50 years or so of our existence here in North America, or in practice to so denigrate or so ignore our obligations towards fellow Jews in preference to our obligations to the world at large. That tendency is always there in the Reform movement, and there are good reasons for it because we live in a non-Jewish environment, unlike in Israel.

David Bashevkin:
Sure.

Ammiel Hirsch:
And so given that that element is always in Jewish liberalism, a deep concern for the condition of the human, our fellowship with fellow human beings, not only Jewish.

David Bashevkin:
The universal component.

Ammiel Hirsch:
The universal component, which as I said, is also an integral component of Judaism. But given our history and given Diaspora, Jews don’t live in a Jewish state where everything is concentrated to the peoplehood of Israel, to the nation. The tendency to either deny or ignore this concept of Jewish particularism, is always there. And that dawned on me really after I wrote the book with Rabbi Reinman, only in the last 10 years or so, where I view Israel as a barometer of a certain kind for this commitment to Jewish peoplehood. Now, it’s one thing to be critical of this or that government, that’s a very Jewish thing,

David Bashevkin:
Yes, that transcends all denominations. We’re all critical.

Ammiel Hirsch:
Right, not only is it a legitimate, we welcome it. It’s a sign of vitality and excitement, and that’s what we’re supposed to do. But I became increasingly concerned in particular, about liberal Jews, whose criticism struck me as not primarily about the policy of this or that Israeli government, but about the very idea of a Jewish state. And the effect of their criticism, either it was so vicious, so unfair, so ignorant of the kinds of travails that our people are going through in times of war, or came right out with an anti-Zionist posture that I felt that we were at risk of going back to the future, of going back to our origins. Which I said, that tendency of anti-peoplehood is always present within liberal Judaism in the Diaspora. That is a preference for universalism at the expense of Jewish particularism.

And so given that I didn’t see enough from my perspective, I didn’t see enough response to this growing rift between American Jewry and Israel, and what I considered to be a distancing of the central concept of the covenant of the Jewish people. I felt that, we as a movement, needed to push back on this, both within the movement itself, these trends within the movement itself, but we also represent the vast majority of American Jews who are not Orthodox. And I felt that we were at a very acute historical moment, and that if we did not take the reins and push back and state with clarity what we believe, then we would lose our movement, we would lose our future rabbis in terms of the values that we are committed to now, and eventually therefore, we’d lose American Jewry.
Because American Jews, our community cannot sustain its own vitality and viability, severed ideologically from the concept of Jewish peoplehood and in practice severed from the state of Israel where the majority of the world’s Jews already live, and that will continue to grow in the years to come. So that created in my mind, a sense of urgency. And I felt also, based on not only my intuition, but also empirical data that certain organizations have researched, that the majority of American Jews, including liberal Jews, believe what I believe. But the younger you go, the more precarious the situation is. For all these reasons, I felt that, and since it wasn’t really happening any other place, I felt that we should take the reins, we should call all people who felt like we do to come together.

We created a group that didn’t have a formal standing anywhere, but where it was comprised of very, very prominent rabbis and very prominent lay leaders of the Reform movement. And we devised a conference, we thought that 30, 50 rabbis and maybe 10 or 20 senior lay leaders of synagogues and of our movement would attend. We thought that would be a really, really good start. And we were overwhelmed, there were over 300, there were about 330 senior leaders of the Reform movement who attended a two-day conference, we hosted it in our synagogue here in Manhattan. And of that, there were about 230 to 250 Reform rabbis from all over the country, all demographics and all generational, spanning the generations, congregational rabbis and Hillel rabbis and academic rabbis, and dozens of very important and very senior lay leaders. And I gave the keynote address, which was the opening remarks, and that’s the speech that you heard.

David Bashevkin:
It is an incredible speech. I shared it, not because I thought it was a speech to Reform Jews or to Reform rabbis. I think it’s something that we need to keep in mind, because the notion of peoplehood can be lost. We’ve seen it been lost among people, and you really did a fantastic job, I think, of centering that. I’m curious at the event, did you get any pushback, did people think that you were speaking too much in hyperbole, or anytime somebody comes forward and tries to recentralize something? And allow me to pause and just really state that I empathize with the struggle that you were addressing, because I think on the flip side in the Orthodox world, and I think anytime you come from a more insular community, the part that’s the struggle can oftentimes be the universal component.

Which is when you’re very particularistic in the issues related to racism, the way that you about non-Jews or other people who may not have the same background as you, those universal humanistic ties can sometimes erode, and I appreciate it. I don’t look at this struggle as this is unique to the Reform movement, wherever you are in that barometer, in the larger Goldilocks between universalism and particularism, you’re going to have a struggle one way or the other. But I’m curious, at this particular event, were there any voices who pushed back at you and said, “Come on now, this is too much.”? Or simply that you are wrong, we should go back to that classical Reform and maybe we are too tethered to peoplehood, what does that even mean anymore?

Ammiel Hirsch:
First of all, our movement like American Jewry is very diverse, and we have people who represent practically every view under the sun. The people who came to this conference, tended to be of the same mind in terms of the urgency, the perceived urgency of attending to these issues now. We talked about other matters too, we had three basic pillars in the conference. One of them was Israel and Zionism and Jewish peoplehood. The other was the balance between Jewish particularism and Jewish universalism. And that constitutes Judaism, the uniqueness of Judaism is the exquisite balance that we’ve created over three millennia.

David Bashevkin:
Yes.

Ammiel Hirsch:
Let’s not lose it, nobody should lose it, neither in the Orthodox community or in the non-Orthodox community. And the third issue was, we spent a lot of time talking about the future of Judaism as a spirituality. What are Jews going to believe and how can we sustain Jewish continuity in the 21st century? What is the new vocabulary we need to adapt? So we talked about a lot of things, but on the issues of Jewish particularism and Jewish universalism, and the state of Israel, I didn’t have anybody in our conference who said to me, “No, we should go back to the classical Reform tradition.” To the contrary, my impression was, people liked it, they gave me a standing ovation and so on. But that doesn’t mean all that much because one, they were polite about it. And I know from my regular work here in the synagogue-

David Bashevkin:
Yeah, you gave a sermon.

Ammiel Hirsch:
… people don’t necessarily tell you what they really think, right?

David Bashevkin:
Yeah.

Ammiel Hirsch:
So that doesn’t mean on its face all that much. But what was more important was what came out of the conference, was a huge surge of energy that is spreading nationally. People have gone back to their locales, their neighborhoods, they’re implementing programs, some of which we’ve developed since the conference itself. We received the support of major foundations in North America to train, and we’re launching it literally next month, 13 Reform rabbis ordained within the last 15 years, into an intensive one-year fellowship program on Israel Zionism and Jewish peoplehood, the centerpiece of which is about eight days in Israel. So all of this new energy is being applied here, and the idea is to one, slow down the slide of the distancing from the concept of Jewish peoplehood and the reality of distancing from the state of Israel and fellow Jews for that matter, including Orthodox Jews.

David Bashevkin:
Sure.

Ammiel Hirsch:
That’s part of our issue too in the United States, we have obligations to each other, or Orthodox Jews have obligations to Jews who are not Orthodox and vice versa.

David Bashevkin:
Absolutely.

Ammiel Hirsch:
So we wanted to stop the slide, reverse it, and ultimately restore where we want to be, which is the balance between universalism and particularism. And we wanted to clarify again, contrary to some voices that are increasing in volume in our movement, and throughout American Jewry, this movement, the Reform movement, is strongly Zionist. We’ve articulated that over and over and over again. It’s one of the core principles of modern Reform Judaism, and nobody should have any illusions that we’re going to change that at any time soon. And so that created another urgency, because our perception is that the younger Reform rabbis are not as committed to that concept by and large, if we can generalize, as the previous generation. That was the objective, that’s what came out of the conference. And I think from that perspective, it was extraordinarily successful, but still.

David Bashevkin:
There’s a lot of work to be done.

Ammiel Hirsch:
It’s only the beginning, of course.

David Bashevkin:
And God should give all of us strength because at least in regards to that effort, I really feel like we all stand together in bolstering and centering our collective connection to Am Yisrael. You made reference a few times, and I was wondering if you could maybe explain almost historically for our listeners, tell me a little bit about the shift from the initial classical Reform and its relation to Jewish peoplehood and why there was a correction 50 years later, and who championed that correction.

Ammiel Hirsch:
In the late 19th century, most Reform Jews, we now refer to that period as classical Reform Judaism. And there was a very famous document that was passed in Pittsburgh, it was called the Pittsburgh Platform, and it established the basic tenants of what was then 19th century liberal Judaism. And at its heart was the declaration that we no longer consider ourselves a people, but a religious community and therefore expect neither a return to Zion or a restoration of the sacrificial systems and so on. And that was not only an expression of belief in America as a certain guarantor of the steady march of progress that was set off by European enlightenment, it was a negation of all of Jewish history.

In fact, one of the famous and most eloquent Reform rabbis who ever lived in this country, Abba Hillel Silver, this was some decades later, accused the still prevailing anti-Zionist in our movement, of practicing a form of Christianized religion. Because his accusation was, the last group of Jews that negated, as a matter of ideology, Jewish peoplehood, were the followers of Paul. But it was an expression of absolute commitment in the enlightenment and enlightenment values to solve the Jewish problem. The Jewish problem being anti-Semitism and Jews being marginalized and not absorbed and not incorporated in society at large. And here we had a country whose founding ethos was, we embrace everybody who embraces the American idea. This country will never, and it never did practice state-sponsored anti-Semitism like European countries.

David Bashevkin:
Sure, with one exception, but yeah. There was one incident with General Grant, I think was the only time there was-

Ammiel Hirsch:
Yeah, and which he later regretted in his–

David Bashevkin:
Yeah, we can put that aside. I just know there’s going to be one listener who’s like, “What about that incident?”-

Ammiel Hirsch:
Okay, good.

David Bashevkin:
… in the sent letters, so I snuck that in there. You could look that up, there’s a book by Jonathan Sarna about it. But continue, I’m sorry I cut you off.

Ammiel Hirsch:
That’s right, we don’t want any letters now coming from anybody.

David Bashevkin:
Yeah.

Ammiel Hirsch:
But by and large, this country has been loyal.

David Bashevkin:
Yes.

Ammiel Hirsch:
And George Washington wrote a very famous letter to the Jewish community where he said, “All this country asks for is that you be loyal citizens and it will embrace people of all faiths and religion.”

David Bashevkin:
If anything, the struggle of America was the embrace. Meaning, now that we have this universal embrace, what now with our particularism?

Ammiel Hirsch:
Right.

David Bashevkin:
Which is still a complicated question for the wide majority of American Jews.

Ammiel Hirsch:
That’s correct.

David Bashevkin:
The gift of freedom.

Ammiel Hirsch:
But the power of what you just said, really only dawned on me personally, just in the last 10 years or so. Because I felt that we had left that period of Reform history in history, and it would never return because it was completely discredited. They had a slogan which they used repeatedly and often, especially in polemical debate against people who pushed back against this abandonment of the concept of Jewish peoplehood, which were very few in the first couple of decades in our movement.

David Bashevkin:
Who were the key people who pushed back and then tell me the slogan.

Ammiel Hirsch:
The slogan that encapsulated the center of the Pittsburgh platform, the negation of Jewish peoplehood was, “America is our Zion, and Charleston is our Jerusalem.” There was a big Jewish community in Charleston.

David Bashevkin:
Sure.

Ammiel Hirsch:
And it showed you, on the one hand, the sheer overwhelming romantic patriotism and gratitude that these Jewish leaders felt in America, it was not all negative, there was a lot of very positive. I mean, that’s kind of the irony here of all this, because those classical Reform rabbis and leaders, they weren’t anti-nationalists, they were nationalists of every stripe, they were the strongest American nationalists. The only nationalism they didn’t like was Jewish nationalism. And so the Pittsburgh platform really, in retrospect, was a hugely significant historical document. Because it was the first attempt to try and establish what vision for the Jewish community, for the Jewish people and for Judaism, what is the vision of American Jewry in the United States? And it expressed this overwhelming optimism in the steady march of progress, set off by the emancipation, by the principles of European enlightenment.

But not only was it a complete misread of Judaism, it was a complete misread of history. It was an unwarranted faith in the steady progress of human civilization. And that America and European enlightenment represented the pinnacle of progress, so much so that it would constitute the solution to the Jewish problem. All one had to do within decades, all one had to do is open the paper or look out the window or listen to the radio, and you would know that the enlightenment was not the solution to the Jewish problem. And in fact, within 30 some odd years, it was the pinnacle of European enlightenment. Germany itself, which arguably was the highest form of the enlightenment and the pinnacle of human civilization that decimated Judaism. And so that whole philosophy was entirely completely discredited, this unwarranted optimism in the steady progress of man.

David Bashevkin:
Who do you think deserves the credit within the Reform movement for first recognizing the mistake of the abandonment of Jewish peoplehood, as articulated in the Pittsburgh platform? Who do you think led the charge 50 years later? You keep saying 50 years, who were the key figures or people who really restored that at the heart of the movement?

Ammiel Hirsch:
I think the most prominent early voice was the rabbi that established this synagogue that I am one of his successors, Rabbi Stephen Wise. Who already, by the second world Zionist Congress in Basel, attended and pronounced that he was a Zionist and he believed in Jewish peoplehood so much so that he set up a competing seminary called the Jewish Institute of Religion, because he was just so vociferously against the positions of the Hebrew Union College. Which was the central, and still is the central Reform Rabbinical seminary in North America. Because it too was firmly anti-peoplehood and anti-Zionist, so much so that they forbade the teaching of modern Hebrew, because they considered it an insidious way of bringing Zionism. There were some Zionist faculty members even early on at the HUC, and they had huge fights there because even through the teaching of modern Hebrew, the leadership of the HUC felt that this was an insidious way to bring in Zionism and the concept of Jewish people.

So first and foremost, it was the generation of Stephen Wise. And then as I mentioned, Abba Hillel Silver, there was a very prominent rabbi in Cleveland called Barnett Brickner. And so this small group at first, were really the heroes that began to push back against this concept ideologically. Then when the Zionist movement began to gather steam, they became America’s most prominent Zionists. It was Abba Hillel Silver who spoke at the UN on behalf of Israel. Think of that, with all of the criticism that I’ve voiced about the origins of our movement, the two spokespeople for American Jewry, on the question of Zionism, in the years before the creation of the state was Stephen Wise, who was the leader of American Jewry generally, and was its most prominent Zionist spokesperson in tens and twenties and thirties. And Abba Hillel Silver, who basically assumed that mantle from Stephen Wise and represented American Jewry at the United Nations debates on statehood. So I want to be fair, tough but fair, it was also Reform rabbis who constituted the most passionate Zionists in American Jewry as well.

David Bashevkin:
And gave generously in those years. I mean, the money that was being contributed from America, a lot of those were not from Orthodox homes, which had barely had rootings in the United States. But when they were doing appeals for war bonds, et cetera, that was on the backs of your everyday non-Orthodox American Jews, who ensured that the state of Israel would have the financing to even emerge and blossom. I think people oftentimes forget, there’s no one movement that can attribute the success of the larger people. And I do think that is quite moving, that those two leaders came up and spoke specifically at the United Nations.

Ammiel Hirsch:
Then the generation of the mid-20th century, the Hebrew Union College decided to establish a campus in Jerusalem where Reform rabbis would spend their first year. Every Reform rabbi would have to spend their first year in Jerusalem. What brought me to Israel is, my father became the head of the World Reform Movement and moved the international headquarters from New York to Jerusalem. That was a key decision of our movement in the 20th century, because it shifted the center of the Reform movement from North America to Israel. Now, it was still small and we’re still much too small in Israel, but we immediately then joined the World Zionist organization and the Jewish Agency.

It’s hard to imagine now the Reform movement of the 21st century being what it is today, without that key decision to move the headquarters of the world movement to Jerusalem. And so that generation was a heroic generation, and they really put the meat on the bones of the restoration of Jewish peoplehood and Zionism in the Reform movement. And now our task is to continue to build on that, and certainly not to let those that work weaken because of modern circumstances and younger generations who might not feel as passionate and committed. We have an obligation to try and instill this passion and this commitment in the future generations of American Reform leaders as well.

David Bashevkin:
I wholeheartedly agree with that. Peoplehood transcends any denomination, and we need to recognize the contributions of every single denomination in the continuance of our people. And I know that even once the battle changed 50 years later, there were always stray rabbis here and there who tried to go back to that classical doctrine of a religion, kind of absent to the notion of Jewish peoplehood. I’ve long been fascinated by the rabbi of the 1960s, Rabbi Elmer Berger. He was, to me, the Reform equivalent of Neturei Karta. Now on each side, because when you head to the extremes, that can often happen where your ideology, you sacrifice peoplehood on the altar of an extreme ideology. And it’s not unique to Reform. I think a lot of your writings have opened my own eyes to the fact that there are these kind of parallel struggles on the fringes.
I do want to talk about the book, that it was so long ago. I have a delicate question that I wanted to ask you. You don’t have to get into it or answer it, and I need to phrase it very delicately because I’m not trying to recreate some of the drama or divisiveness, God forbid, that I know you’ve experienced and that the Jewish people in general have experienced. But I have a delicate question I want to pose you that relates to Jewish peoplehood. One of the biggest struggles that we have as it relates to Israel, and it’s also honestly a struggle in America, is the overwhelming looming question of who is a Jew?

And there was an embrace within the Reform movement and also some other Orthodox movements, to count patrilineal dissent. And my question is, I don’t want to debate who’s right, that’s not what I’m here to do. And I’m not trying to convince you one way or the other. I almost want to hear from your eyes, what do you hope, how do you hope that Jews within the Orthodox community, who our interpretation of Halakha, does not allow for patrilineal dissent, how do you as a Reform rabbi hope that those within the Orthodox community would look towards those who only have patrilineal dissent?

Ammiel Hirsch:
We have a lot of experience about that. We have a lot of congregants who, for one reason or another, move to fellow Orthodox synagogues even here in the city. And there are solutions for the patrilineal issue from an Orthodox perspective, which I can go into in some detail if you’re interested. But I would just say this about patrilineality, the concept is not accepted by some Reform communities outside of North America, but in North America, it’s a fact. It’s just a fact, it’s not going away. Some of the best Jews, really, some of our best Jews, not only best Reform Jews, some of the best, most committed, most religious, the deepest believers of American Jewry are children of patrilineal dissent. And we had big debates about this when it was established back, close to the fourth quarter of the 20th century. But nobody is contemplating reversing that decision. So we all have to learn how to live with it.

David Bashevkin:
Yeah.

Ammiel Hirsch:
And I say to you, to the extent that my voice is somewhat more palatable to Orthodox Jews than say, I don’t know, some other Reform rabbi that gets them upset about everything. I am saying to our Orthodox friends and colleagues, it’s a fact. And some of these Jews, many of them are amazing. They contribute to Chabad, they contribute to Orthodox institutions. Think about that, I’m sure you have some listeners who themselves receive-

David Bashevkin:
Undoubtedly.

Ammiel Hirsch:
… much or most of their funding from non-Orthodox Jews, and some of those Jews are patrilineal Jews. We all have a mutual and common interest in embracing as many Jews as we possibly can. I recognize the problem of Halacha, and I also recognize that we did this unilaterally, although it wasn’t without discussion with the Orthodox community. But nonetheless, we are where we are now, and we all have an interest in embracing the broadest possible numbers, the biggest possible numbers of Jews. I mean, after all, it’s not like there are so many hundreds of millions of us. We’re a tiny people, we’re 0.01% of the human population.

We don’t want to, it’s contrary to Judaism, nor can we afford to alienate so many fellow Jews, who identify as Jews. There is a Halachic problem, by the way, the solution to this problem has been discussed and has been offered by us. And it’s broken down every single time, not because of us, it’s broken down because of the Halachic Jews, the Orthodox Jews. And the solution nationally, and in particular, when it came to patrilineal Jews who wanted to be recognized by the state of Israel, the solution was to create some kind of common bait Dean, which would meet Halachic requirements, which would allow for representatives of all the movements to participate in a conversion process.

David Bashevkin:
Samuel Friedman has an eye-opening chapter on this in his book, Jew vs. Jew. It was attempted in Denver, Colorado. It actually made the New York Times, I think when it fell apart, that’s usually when things make headlines, not when things are formed, but when things fall apart. No, but I very much do appreciate your answer. It’s more than just palatable, I hear in your voice there is a deep Ahavas Yisroel that does not require translation. And I think what sometimes bothers me, is when Orthodox Jews are stereotyped. And we each have our stereotype, but when we’re sometimes stereotyped as being gatekeepers on this issue. And I don’t like that term because every movement has their own standard. It’s a question of the gate itself, and every movement has some gate.

And that’s the part that I see sometimes, and it’s mostly on online discourse when it’s just people yelling at each other on Twitter. And it does kind of hurt me when I see orthodoxy presented or discussed in non-Orthodox circles, as being gatekeepers on this issue. When in my mind, in my understanding of history, we’re all kind of figuring out the standard. And this is obviously a very sensitive and delicate question, and I guess that’s the term that always saddens me when I hear that. And I wish there was a way, and I think it’s people like you who talk about the importance of Am Yisrael, and that mutual recognition and importance of our collective interests, that help avoid it as an us-versus-them question.

Ammiel Hirsch:
I do believe there is a way. Look, I’ve dealt with this with respect to congregants here in my own congregation. We’ve had congregants who either converted through Reform auspices, which is also not recognized by almost all Orthodox rabbis, wherever they live, or our patrilineal Jews. And for some reason or another, either they fell in love with somebody who was a member of an Orthodox synagogue here, or they wanted to join, they became more observant and they wanted to join an Orthodox community. I’m in constant contact with Orthodox colleagues, and we call them, I tell them what the story is, what the situation is, and by and large, if they’re prepared to accept these Jews, they undergo a process of conversion, it’s an Orthodox Halachic conversion. And that’s the solution, and that’s a good solution. But there’s often a Halachic way, if there’s a Halachic will.

David Bashevkin:
I appreciate that. I want to turn to your book, it’s been 20 years. You have two books, but I really want to focus on One People, Two Worlds because it’s so important. Again, you have a book called The Lilac Tree: A Rabbi’s Reflections on Love, Courage, and History, which is so beautiful, you wrote it during Covid. It’s been 20 years since you published the book that really made waves throughout the Jewish community, One People, Two Worlds. You co-wrote it with Rabbi Yosef Reinman, who lives in Lakewood. And my first question, it’s been 20 years since the book was published, do you think that communication and dialogue that you had, even, dare I say the friendship between you and Rabbi Reinman, have things gotten better or worse for the American Jewish community?

Ammiel Hirsch:
I haven’t perceived them getting better. There are efforts and examples of dialogue between the movements all the time, every day. I’m an officer on the New York Board of Rabbis, and we have hundreds of rabbis from all the movements who participate, who participate in leadership, fellow officers. We see each other all the time. From time to time we study together. So that happens, but I don’t see any improvement either on a local or on a national level, and I would venture to say that that book, One People, Two Worlds. Here too, this was an example. Rabbi Reinman is a very close friend of mine, I think we’re lifelong friends.

David Bashevkin:
Are you still in touch?

Ammiel Hirsch:
All the time. I saw him right before the holidays. And I write to him, he writes to me from time, he sends me his Seforim.

David Bashevkin:
He’s a very special person.

Ammiel Hirsch:
Yes, and I recommend them, by the way. Look them up, they’ll stand the test of time, a hundred years from now they’ll still be studying his Seforim. But I can say here too, it’s what I said before, about we’re pluralists. The entire non-Orthodox part of American Jewry, which is about 85% to 90% of American Jews, we’re pluralists. We do not have any problem, neither by our emotional or intellectual disposition, or by the obligations we perceive that Judaism imposes on us, to have dialogue. That comes from the Orthodox side, from the Halachic side. And so, if you recall the aftermath of the book.

David Bashevkin:
I very much recall.

Ammiel Hirsch:
There was a psak halacha, I kind of anticipated it. I anticipated it more than Rabbi Reinman, I think.

David Bashevkin:
You did, you saw this coming a little bit?

Ammiel Hirsch:
Definitely, because I was dealing daily with certain aspects of the Orthodox and in particular the Haredi community, some in the United States, but mostly in Israel. And so I knew the general mindset and approach to Halachic matters from the Haredi community especially. And they’re the ones empowered in Israel, plus there was a public dimension to this as well. It wasn’t two people sitting down in a room and studying Daf Gemara. And so I was not surprised. In fact, I was surprised that we actually had the book published.

I said to him when we started, “Look, I’m delighted to do this. I believe it in philosophically, and it’s interesting to me and I have so much to learn from you. But you do realize that this book will never be published?” He said, “No, I’ve got it all handled and taken care of.” And okay, fine, I wanted to do it anyway. But the restriction on his participation didn’t come from the pluralist side, it didn’t come from me, it didn’t come from any of us, it came from the Orthodox side. This book, if somebody wants to engage in the sentiment and the atmosphere and the intellectual competition that is articulated and embodied in this book, this is the book to get, because there ain’t going to be another book.

David Bashevkin:
Yeah.

Ammiel Hirsch:
We wouldn’t be able to publish a book like this now. So if you ask, have things improved over the last 20 years from that perspective? Of course not.

David Bashevkin:
It is a remarkable book. And I do want to mention that there are not just Orthodox rabbis, but extraordinarily prominent Orthodox rabbis, specifically Rav Dovid Cohen, who lives in Brooklyn, has an approbation that is on the back cover of the book. And I know that the publisher, my dear cousin and former 18Forty guest, Altie Karper, was the one who kind of brought it together. And she gave us some background when she was on, and listeners can check out that episode. I’m curious from your standpoint, Rabbi Reinman went through something very personal to hear his name kind of in headlines and in newspaper articles, which is not something anybody wants. Even though it probably did ultimately good thing for the sale of a book, if you ever want to get your book bought, the best thing to do is to get it banned. I’m still hoping somebody’s going to ban my books though. I’m sure somebody’s around the corner.

But I’m curious for you, how did you make sure that this experience did not erode your faith in Jewish peoplehood? With all of your commitments, with all the Jews who you represent, and you see that a book like this can cause a stir, how do you make sure that you don’t descend into cynicism and start looking at Orthodox Jews, through kind of very negative eyes? I remember what you put me through, I remember what this felt like. How did you make sure that you did not become a cynical person, a cynical Jew, following the experiences of this book? Unless you did.

Ammiel Hirsch:
I am not a cynical person. I take ideas seriously, and I don’t get offended either, I didn’t take it personally. I expected this reaction in the Orthodox community. My surprise was that the book was published in the first place. So that when it did materialize, first of all, I didn’t take it personally, some of the rationalizations of why the book tour shouldn’t continue and the book shouldn’t be purchased, it was very colorful language. Kind of like, if I’m paraphrasing, but something like light cannot coexist with darkness and falsity cannot coexist with truth. And I even asked Rabbi Reinman, “I assume that they mean darkness to me and not to you, right?”

But I didn’t take it personally, and that’s the way it is. To the extent that this book perhaps made a modest effort. Rabbi Reinman very strongly wanted to reach Jews who he felt otherwise would not be accessible to him. They wouldn’t pick up anything that he wrote if he didn’t convey it in this format through me. I thought that was a completely reasonable assumption. And he felt that Judaism is such a beautiful set of principles and belief and faith, that Jews who are not Orthodox should also have the opportunity to learn from a great master of Halacha, like Rabbi Reinman. I thought that was a beautiful motivation.

David Bashevkin:
Noble.

Ammiel Hirsch:
And I embraced it. And if in fact he persuaded some people who would otherwise have not been exposed to his views, that’s a net gain for the Jewish people. So I don’t take any of this personally, but I will tell you this, I don’t know if you know this, but already back then, even back then, when we got the book reports, we got the sale numbers divided by zip codes. They were organized by zip codes, because the book publishers wanted to know where these books were selling better and where they weren’t selling so much. The zip codes where this book was most popular, were Orthodox zip codes.

David Bashevkin:
I know that for a fact.

Ammiel Hirsch:
And then we started to get reports from booksellers, Orthodox booksellers, who told us that they would sell these books, but the customers would walk out with the books in brown paper bags.

David Bashevkin:
Like they’re buying a dirty magazine, that’s very funny.

Ammiel Hirsch:
So look, we in public life, we have kind of ideological stakes we need to defend and movements that we need to represent, but the reality is most Jews are tolerant, they want to learn. We sold a lot of books, but I wish every Jew would’ve bought this book. Not because, I have a day job, it’s not a question of profit for me. But we thought we were doing something interesting. And to the extent that there were thousands of Orthodox Jews who picked this book up and Rabbi Reinman’s logic perhaps worked in reverse, maybe they were exposed to a thought or two from me, that they otherwise wouldn’t have heard or read, that meant something to them. And so to that extent, if we made a modest contribution to Jewish life, it was a mitzvah, it was a good deed.

David Bashevkin:
Absolutely. And looking back 20 years later, you mentioned that the book gave somebody like Rabbi Reinman access to a community that they wouldn’t have access to otherwise. The same could absolutely be said for you, where people who would’ve never have walked into, or would never walk into your synagogue, were suddenly engaging with your ideas. And I wonder, 20 years later, if you had a message to that audience who isn’t normally engaging with your thought and with your ideas? And assuming we’re not proselytizing to get people to join our movement as if it is a game, but what is the message that you would want somebody to hear who wouldn’t otherwise be exposed to your thought and ideas?

Ammiel Hirsch:
We are an Am Olam, an ancient people that has historic contributions to the world and to modern life. And we are a small people, we need each other. We need each other ideologically, because at the core of Judaism is the concept that we are all covenanted, one with the other. And all Jews are responsible one for the other, therefore. So we’re bound to each other ideologically, religiously and communally, and we have to work hard to tolerate our differences and to be as embracing as possible. As you said, everybody has red lines where if you go beyond the red lines, then you’re not by definition part of the group. But those lines should be as flexible as possible, as broad as possible, and we have to work hard to embrace each other even when we know that we disagree. This is especially acute, for example, now in these very days-

David Bashevkin:
1000%.

Ammiel Hirsch:
… with what’s going on around the Jewish world, but the catalyst is the debate in Israel. And if it was only debates, it would be one thing. There’s really a lot of sinah, there’s a lot of baseless sinat chinam now in Israel. And especially Jewish leaders, we have an obligation to model a different form of Jewish behavior.

David Bashevkin:
I cannot thank you enough. It is really a privilege and a pleasure to speak with you after all this time. I always end my interviews with more rapid fire questions. We mentioned both of your books, if there is a book that you would recommend to introduce somebody to kind of the larger history and to connect to this historical point that you are making about the Jewish people, what is a book that you would recommend to really help somebody appreciate the greatness and the majesty of Jewish peoplehood?

Ammiel Hirsch:
Well, particularly for people who are not learned, don’t make a daily practice of studying, I would recommend Joseph Telushkin’s book, Jewish Values. He actually wrote two books. One, an overview of Jewish values, and second, a daily small chapters of what you can be thinking about daily. So I think that’s probably where I would start for many, many Jews.

David Bashevkin:
That’s a great answer. My next question, there are only three, if somebody gave you a great deal of money and allowed you to take a sabbatical with no responsibilities whatsoever, for as long as you needed to go back to school and get a PhD, what do you think the subject and title of your PhD would be about?

Ammiel Hirsch:
I would love your PhD, I would love to study with you. I often fantasize about this and this is not a rapid response, I’m sorry about that. But one of the challenges of the congregational rabbinate is we just don’t have enough time to study. And that’s really a huge challenge, because if nothing comes in, nothing can come out. We know this, Jewish study is a lifelong process, and no matter how much I try to set aside time, I never feel I have enough time to study. So I often fantasize about taking a sabbatical, I never actually got around to taking a sabbatical. Every year our leadership tells me, “Go, take the sabbatical.” And it’s just my personality, for some reason I haven’t been able to do it. But I often fantasize about just stopping and maybe sitting in the eighth row of some philosophy class or some Halacha class and just absorbing from the greatest teachers that the Jewish world has to offer. That is what I would do for six months, nonstop.

David Bashevkin:
I love that answer, I’m sure many of our listeners can identify with that as well. My final question is, I’m always curious about people’s sleep patterns. What time do you go to sleep at night and what time do you wake up in the morning?

Ammiel Hirsch:
I wake up very early in the morning. My mornings are the best times for me, so I’m up usually by 3:45, 4:00, 4:15, 4:30 at the latest.

David Bashevkin:
You’re like my dad, holy cow.

Ammiel Hirsch:
So you can’t burn the candles at both ends, usually I’m in bed by 9:30 and usually I’m asleep by 10:00.

David Bashevkin:
Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, I cannot thank you enough for your time, for your wisdom, and most of all for really being a defender and one of our great articulate voices about the importance of Am Yisrael and Ahavas Israel. Thank you so much for joining me today.

Ammiel Hirsch:
It’s been a pleasure, thank you for having me.

David Bashevkin:
I want to make one postscript because it’s a question that has come up that people have presented and posed to me. We have a very diverse set of listeners. We have listeners who are Hasidic or Yeshivish or Orthodox, who are non-Orthodox, who are unaffiliated or have no affiliation whatsoever. And a question that comes up from some of our listeners is, why do I call non-Orthodox Rabbi, Rabbi? That is something that I’ve been doing from the very beginning. I actually asked the question, it’s always been my practice, but I wanted to make sure that that was in fact correct. Some people may be offended by the very question, I hope you are not. I certainly wouldn’t have asked the question if I thought it was offensive in any way. There are very real ideological divides, and it shouldn’t come as any surprise that I don’t daven in non-Orthodox synagogues.

I don’t harbor any animus to non-Orthodox Jews or even non-Orthodox rabbis. But my practice and the way that I conceive of communal prayer is not something that I do in a non-Orthodox synagogue. And we sometimes get emails, letters, or people will come up to me, I one time had a phone call about this and I did want to surface it. It’s not such a clear-cut question. But the concern of course is, is that you are according legitimacy as a purveyor of Judaism to a non-Orthodox Rabbi. And if you are Orthodox, that is not an expression of Judaism that you agree with. And I understand that, I have very real ideological differences with movements outside of orthodoxy. So why in fact do I call non-Orthodox Rabbi’s, Rabbi? I can respect them, I can be nice, I can talk to them, but why do I always accord the title Rabbi?

There’s a lot of literature on this and you can read it, there are people who have written on this. My dear friend, Gil Student, has an article called, Who Can Be Called Rabbi? Which he published on his website called torahmusings.com, where he has some approach. He doesn’t come out with a very hard and fast conclusion. He basically weighs out both sides. But it’s something that I felt was appropriate to surface given the diversity, which I’m so proud and grateful of on 18Forty, the diversity of our listenership. And I hope I don’t alienate anybody by surfacing the question, and I certainly hope I don’t alienate anybody by providing my own answer on why I do that. So number one, I asked somebody, somebody who is extraordinarily reputable. I didn’t ask him permission, so I’m not going to say his name.

And he said, “You must, you have to.” That was obviously an Orthodox rabbi. To me, I don’t call them Rebbe, I don’t call them Rav, those are titles that are relational, and those are the titles that I use for a personal Rebbe or Rav of mine. Somebody who I go to, to really figure out how I should practice my own life and how Halacha and Yiddishkeit informs my own life. I do usually call such people with the title Rav or Rebbe. I don’t think I would call somebody Rav or Rebbe from somebody with an affiliation or somebody with ideological views that I disagree with. And it’s okay to have very real ideological disagreements. The reason why I call somebody Rabbi, is I believe in the United States of America and really the world, it is a professional title. And if somebody has gone through a school, whether or not I agree with the tenets of their rabbinical training, they have a professional title, which I think it would be disrespectful, deeply disrespectful, not to call them that.

I personally don’t think you are proving anybody a point. I don’t hide the fact that I’m Orthodox, I don’t hide the fact that I have very real ideological differences with other movements outside of orthodoxy. I just said I would not pray in a non-Orthodox synagogue. I don’t think that’s something that anybody needs to apologize for, especially with something as private, as intimate, as real as communal prayer. And there were definite very real battles waged over what synagogues should look like, what constitutes a synagogue. So in that respect, there are very real differences. But I also believe that part of the decency, at least for me, and I’m not telling anybody what to do, but given that this is public, I want to just express why if anybody has questions. I personally, my personal practice is, I believe it is a professional title that accords a respect of somebody who is doing work, particularly Jewish work and helping fellow Jews. And the title of Rabbi, in my opinion, would be extraordinarily disrespectful to withhold and it is something that they very much deserve, they worked for.

And I know in the response of Rav Moshe Feinstein, when he is talking about non-Orthodox rabbis, he would not consider them colleagues. But normally when he’s talking to a colleague, he used the term Rav. And when he is talking about a non-Orthodox rabbi, he uses the term rabbi, Reish Aleph Beziud. He spells them out in his response literature, Igris Moshe. And I believe he’s trying to make a very clear distinction, not all rabbis are created equal, they have very different training in different schools. And that is the approach that I have taken in my own practice. I want to conclude with something that I mentioned in passing, but it’s one of the most fascinating incidents in Jewish history that I may have mentioned once in passing before, but is worth thinking about. When we think about the stakes of the battle that Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch has really position himself to ensure that people do not lose their grasp on the notion of Jewish peoplehood.

For some Jews that may seem outlandish. “What are you talking about? I grew up in the five towns, I grew up in Teaneck. I’m a Jew through and through.” But we have to realize that American Jewry is very wide and there are people who are losing their grasp on this very concept. And I mentioned in passing in the interview, there was a rabbi named Elmer Berger, who was a Reform rabbi and actually tried to bring back the classical notion of Reform Jewry that we spoke about in our conversation, namely to erode the very notion of Jewish peoplehood. In his view, Judaism is a religion and it is not a people. We are not bound by that collective Knesset Yisrael. It is a religious practice that we all practice the same thing, but we are not a unified people. And what he set his eyes on more than anything else was Zionism.

He very much found it anathema to his view that we should have any connection to Israel. I’m not connected, I’m not one person. I’m no less connected to Israel in this Elmer Berger’s view, than I am to any other country. He felt and was quite active, he advocated both politically and communally and organizationally against this very notion that we are a people, and the step that came after that animated his anti-Zionist views. There are a lot of reasons why somebody can be an anti-Zionist, but what animated his particular anti-Zionism was not necessarily a critique of the government. It was not necessarily concerns related to eschatology and how the end is going to come, like we’ve seen with other, let’s say, a Hasidic stance. The Satmarov felt that we shouldn’t hasten the end, we shouldn’t hasten the redemption. But those brands of anti-Zionism, particularly the Satmarov, his love of the Jewish people, I believe was unimpeachable, did not erode his notion of Jewish peoplehood.

Yet this Elmer Berger, the fact that he did not believe in Jewish peoplehood, is what led him to be a very rabid anti-Zionist. And you can read a little bit about his anti-Zionism. There was a book written about him called Rabbi Outcast: Elmer Berger and American Jewish Anti-Zionism. Why am I recommending this, why am I even talking about him? Is because I think this problem, as Ammiel Hirsch mentioned in our interview, is rearing its head once again today. There are a lot of young Jews who feel very disenfranchised, not just from Israel, but from the very notion that we are bound together as a people in a covenant. And that is a very dangerous thing. And I think each of us have work to do in this area. We can each stay with our affiliations and our denominations, but we need to know what the stakes are.

I mean, Elmer Berger literally sent a letter to the State Department where he asked a member of the State Department named Philip Talbot, who was the assistant Secretary of State of the United States Department of State. And he asked him, and he said, “We need to erode. I want you to know that we don’t have this concept of Jewish peoplehood.” And he came out against any connection that the American people should have with the state of Israel. And a very interesting footnote to this story, there was actually a very young law student who actually responded in a 47-page paper, who responded to these concerns and wanted to make sure that the notion, the concept of Jewish peoplehood, can remain intact. And that young emerging lawyers actually, Abraham H. Foxman, Abe Foxman from the ADL when he was very young, wrote a paper called The Jewish People Concept in International Law. It is 47 pages, it’s on a typewriter, I have it in front of me right now.

But what he was ensuring was the fact that there can be a concept of a Jewish people in international law. And I think anybody who dismisses and says, “You’re making noise, it’s not a concern. Don’t be worried about it. What’s going to happen?” need to look back to this incident. This is not classical Reformed Jewry at the end of the 19th century, This is taking place in the 1960s and even onward, and you see it is rearing its head today. And I think this point that Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch is making about the centrality of Am Yisrael, there is work that each of us can do in this area to ensure that the next generation of Jews knows that the heart of our Jewish identity is not just combating anti-Semitism, but at the heart of our Jewish identity is a covenant with Hakadosh Baruch Hu, a covenant with God, that we are a people living with the values of Torah, and that we have something unique and that each successive generation should see themselves as a part of the unfolding history of Knesset Yisrael and Am Yisrael, the endurance story of the Jewish people.

So thank you so much for listening, and thank you once again to my dearest friends, Joel and Lin Mael for sponsoring this entire series in memory of Joel’s parents Estelle and Nysen Mael. People who I know dedicated their lives to ensuring the perpetuation of Yiddishkeit at a time when not so many families knew how to center that in their lives. Again, the entire series, leilu nishmas Esther bas Zvi, Nissan ben Yaakov Zvi, thank you so much for your friendship and partnership. This episode, so many of our episodes was edited by our dearest friend, Denah Emerson. It wouldn’t be a Jewish podcast without a little bit of Jewish guilt. So if you enjoyed this episode or any of our episodes, please subscribe, rate, review, tell your friends about it.

You can also donate at 18forty.org/donate. It really helps us reach new listeners and continue putting out great content. You can also leave us a voicemail with feedback or questions, and that number is 516-519-3308. If you’d like to learn more about this topic or some of the other great ones we’ve covered in the past, be sure to check out 18forty.org. That’s the number 1-8, followed by the word forty, F-O-R-T-Y.org. 18forty.org, where you can also find videos, articles, recommended readings, and weekly emails. Thank you so much for listening and stay curious my friends.