Finding Our Why
At a time when being Jewish often involves a fight, Finding our Why with Ittay Flesher and Courtney Winter-Peters explores what drives us to be Jewish, asking not what we are fighting against but what we are advocating for.
Join them to discover the drivers that makes us dig in and embrace the joy of being Jewish.
Listener feedback is welcome at:
findingourwhy@thejewishindependent.com.au
Finding Our Why
Both Sides Now
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Why is our religion so centred on arguments? Is this a weakness or a strength?
In what way do arguments help us find meaning in troubled times? What does it mean to “argue well”?
The book discussed is Beyond Dispute: Rediscovering the Jewish art of constructive disagreement by Daniel Taub
Full conversation between Rabbi Sharon Brous and Rabbi David Ingber on the Jonah Platt podcast on the subject of “To criticise publicly or privately.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CvgpxlqnUo
Feedback on this episode is welcome at findingourwhy@thejewishindependent.com.au
Music: This episode features a live performance of Both Sides Now by Elizabeth Riordan, recorded at the Malvern Town Hall in February 2025.
Welcome to Finding Our Why, a podcast by the Jewish Independent. I'm Itai Flesher joining you from Jerusalem.
SPEAKER_05And I'm Courtney Winter Peters, joining you from the Gold Coast.
SPEAKER_02We both grew up in the Melbourne Jewish community, spending many long summer days arguing with friends and family about everything from footy to politics and whether it's okay to eat vegetarian food in a non-cocial restaurant as long as you just ordered fish and wore a baseball cap instead of a kippah.
SPEAKER_05But our journeys took us in very different directions.
SPEAKER_02Yet we found ourselves asking the same question.
SPEAKER_05At a time when so many conversations in the Jewish world focused on anti-Semitism, security and survival, we found ourselves looking for deeper meaning and grounding.
SPEAKER_02For the rituals, stories, values, and traditions that have sustained Jewish life for generations.
SPEAKER_05Not just what we're fighting against, but what we're living for.
SPEAKER_02Welcome to Finding a Way.
SPEAKER_05I can't believe this is episode eight on our journey. So thank you all for being a part of our discussions about festivals and rituals and travel and everything in between. We also really appreciate all the feedback we've been receiving from all over the world. It's really nice to hear from you. But there's one specific little bit of feedback that we've received, and I want to ask you about it, Itai. It's about whether you and I agree too much or whether we should be arguing a little bit more. And it's something I know that you and I have discussed a little bit behind the scenes, you know, does it make for a more exciting podcast if we're fighting it out? I guess is that like I'm going to pronounce this wrong, but shard and frode, that joy of seeing people not suffer, but in uncomfortable situations, I'd say. So it's a really interesting starting point for our discussion today. You know, do we need to disagree for these conversations to be interesting? Or is it okay for us to explore something like joy and ritual from a place where we just fundamentally agree? There is something compelling about listening to two people disagree, that's for sure. But we all know that there's that joke for Jewish people, you know, two Jews, three opinions, or twelve, depending on your family. And behind every joke like that, there's something quite serious. Judaism does seem to place an enormous value on questioning and challenging and disagreement. So today I'm looking forward to exploring why argue. Why, Ty, do you think that Judaism has such a strong culture of disagreement?
SPEAKER_02It's an interesting question. I was actually just reading a book on that by Daniel Torb called Beyond Dispute: Rediscovering the Art of Constructive Disagreement. And the book starts at a moment that was probably the greatest crisis for the Jewish people, which was the destruction of the Second Temple, because until that point, all of Judaism revolved around temple sacrifices in Jerusalem, worshiping God in a certain way in only one place. And once that didn't exist, there was a question of like many other ancient religions that ceased to exist when their holy places were destroyed, would Judaism continue to exist? And at the time there were sort of multiple Jewish groups saying that we are the authentic Jews. So the first was a group called the Sadducees. And for them, they read the Torah literally, they didn't have an oral law, they were all high priests, so you couldn't sort of join the Sadducees, you had to be born into it or marry into it. And they controlled the Sanhedrin. And in Hebrew they're called Sadukim, which literally means we are right. They even had like celebrations on the days that they won arguments against the other Jewish sects. Like they were really into being right. Do we know people like that still today?
SPEAKER_05Do I have to comment? Yes.
SPEAKER_02Yes, we do know people that are still carrying the essence of the Tadukim. The next group was the Essenes. They hated the Sadducees. They called themselves literally the Sons of Light, and they believed in an apocalyptic war against the Sons of Darkness, which obviously they would win. We would know nothing about them had they not written extensively about their life in what is now called the Dead Sea Scroll. So that's how we know they exist. And then the third group, and this is the group that actually survived that we are today, which is the Pharisees or the Pushim. And they had this radical idea called argument for the sake of heaven. And they wrote down all of these arguments that they had in a book called Firstly the Mishnah, and then later the Talmud. It was written by Yehuda Nasi in the year 200. And uh the Talmud is arguably the most illogical and confusing book ever written. The book has no beginning, middle, and end. Every page has multiple authors with multiple opinions from multiple generations, written in different fonts. It's like clips of different arguments going together that if you saw on Instagram would fry your brain. It's a very, very long book. It's highly unedited, meaning that there's a lot of things in there that are just total sidetracks and seem totally irrelevant. And there's a question of like, why did this denomination of Judaism that sort of collect arguments and include a lot of voices that contradict each other, why did that uh survive and not the Judaism of the Pharisees and the Sadducees? And what Daniel Torbes suggests in the book, which I think is a really beautiful idea, which is directly related to arguments, is that people often think that religions are more resilient when they just have one voice and there's one way to act, and there's one way to believe, and there's no arguments, and that's how it should work. And Judaism actually so duff go the opposite. Our new religion that we have to rebirth now after the destruction of the temple is going to be more resilient if the denomination that wins is the one that preserves multiple arguments and multiple opinions. And that's what happened, and that's why Judaism looks the way it does today.
SPEAKER_05It's a really inspiring way of thinking. And maybe you can put that book reference in our show notes if people are interested in reading it. And I guess it's saying we'll be we'll be stronger if we can accept others' opinions and arguments. And I know that the first time, well, the first time that I can remember looking at the Talmud, and let's just say that this is the second episode that we're talking about how wonderful the Talmud is.
SPEAKER_02And I not yes, we didn't teach the children well, do some precautions. Which also asked how does Judaism survive after the destruction of the Second Temple? So clearly that crisis was a very productive crisis for the Jewish people. Yeah.
SPEAKER_05It just it actually makes me stop and think. Like you're talking about a crisis for the Jewish people and conflicting ideas and conflicting views. And when we started this podcast, it was in response to the yelling and the shouting. Yeah. It was meant to be this grounding moment. So are you referring to like a current crisis amongst us?
SPEAKER_02There's definitely many crises facing the Jewish people around anti-Semitism, around Zionism, Israel, the place of Jews in the world, which again is not so much what I wanted to talk about. But I think the question that we wanted to raise in this podcast is being a religion that values having multiple views and arguments, is that a strength or a weakness? Clearly, the rabbis thought in the time of the Second Temple that it was a strength to preserve this. I think there's also something beautiful about the Pharisees. And even today, being a rabbi, being a rabbi is not something you're born into or something that you become because your father or mother was a rabbi. It's something that anyone can do. It's not a hereditary position like a priest. It's a democratic institution. And what makes a good rabbi is a rabbi that's the most learned and that that's most able to connect to their community and that gives the most impactful sermons and gives their community a sense of purpose in their Jewish identity. And that's not to do with race or class or skin color. That is just your ability to be a leader. I think had the Sadducees or the Yassenes won, that's not what a rabbi would be today. So I think the idea that truth isn't just sort of dictated from a divine. There's a famous text uh about what makes an oven kosher. I won't go into it, but where the rabbis even disagree with God, and then God says at the end of the story, my children have defeated me. So even the notion of like through argument and debate, you can even best God is such a radical idea for its time. And I think it's still a radical idea today that truth comes from human debate. But as you said, a lot of people sort of shun human debate and it makes them feel very uncomfortable.
SPEAKER_05That definitely resonates. Just going back to like, I remember the first time I saw a page of the Talmud and being really blown away. It's almost just like a raw argument, just on a page. And I'm someone, I guess even through this podcast, you know, when I'm speaking publicly, like, yes, I would say my style of argument and my friends and people that know me well, and anyone listening to this would be nodding their heads right now, saying, Oh yeah, she goes for it. She's not one to back down from an argument. So I remember being quite overwhelmed, blown away by it being there on paper and saying, This is okay. Because growing up, I also used to have this sense of like, oh, if you had a question about Judaism, you could just walk around until you found the right rabbi that would answer it the way that you wanted to. And is that okay? Is that the way it should be done? But seeing it as this like acceptable form of communication, it's a really interesting part of Judaism. And I guess going back to the joke we shared at the beginning, that sense of argument, like it comes from somewhere. It's not just a joke that we share. As I was saying, like I'm someone that probably jumps into an argument. It's like a sense of justice that I have. I get really ramped up and I want to be right and I want to win it, and I want to be heard. Then I went off and studied law. What better way to embrace that argumentative side? But what I've learned over time, and eventually through my Lord degree and through practicing, is that an argument's a little bit more strategic than that. An argument is thought through and a little bit more patient, and you don't want to reveal too much. And the other thing that I guess I've learnt about myself lately is particularly here, having moved away from Melbourne. Now I'm in Queensland and I'm not around people that I know or feel comfortable with, and I want to like, I want them to get to know me before they see that argumentative side. I find myself stopping myself and not walking into an argument like I might once have, but maybe that's an Australian thing. In Australia, we're like lower your voice, find the common ground, don't make people uncomfortable. I'm much more aware of that now. And I'm interested to know what your experience is like in Jerusalem. What's your argument style? Do you lean into it or walk away? And what's that your experience like in Jerusalem?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I mean, I think arguments in Melbourne and Jerusalem are uh entirely different beasts. As you said, in Melbourne, I felt that there was a lot more tone policing. The point of the argument was to find synthesis, to not raise your voice, to be respectful, to hear all opinions in the room, kind of very postmodern in a sense. And uh in Jerusalem, the arguments I have, there's no tone policing, there's no limits on what you can say, what you can bring up. Things get a lot more personal much quicker here as well. There's less sort of hypothetical or theoretical arguments, it's more about lived experience that is very raw. And I think Australia, because it's not a place at war and it's a place that's comfortable, there's an ability to have arguments about complex issues that are not, I guess they're less life and death, and so they don't have maybe the intensity they have here. And again, I know you as a lawyer, you obviously have to facilitate arguments and have them yourself in court in front of judges. And I know there's some people that really shy away from that, and there's some people that really lean into it. But what we wanted to do, I guess, at this point for our listeners is give you an opportunity to hear an argument. And uh I searched Jewish arguments on YouTube and I found a YouTube video. This is literally the heading of the YouTube video, and it says, This is the most uncomfortable and important Jewish conversation right now. The words most and important were in all caps. So I thought, okay, well, this could be interesting. And so I listened to it, as did you, Courtney, and it's an hour conversation between Rabbi Sharon Browse from Icar in Los Angeles and Rabbi David Ingba from Kelat Romero in New York. They're both very prominent rabbis of egalitarian congregations in the United States. And they're on a podcast hosted by Jonah Platt, and we thought it could be interesting to have our listeners hear this argument that they have, because it's an argument I think Jews are having in many other places, and afterwards we're going to dissect it a little bit. The clip we're going to play goes for about three minutes, and it's a section of an hour-long conversation where they disagree over a question that is incredibly fraught. And the question is: when should rabbis criticize other Jews or criticize the Israeli government from the pulpit? And the argument for is that this is an important thing to do to improve Judaism. The arguing the argument against is that these conversations should just stay in the community, or maybe they're not the most relevant thing to talk about right now.
SPEAKER_01So I'm curious, Rabbi Browse, someone might not like us if I say this, but this might fuel the fire of real meaningful hatred against us if this plays an outsized role in our messaging.
SPEAKER_03Aaron Powell I take great care when I speak about all of these matters. The last thing I want to do, God forbid, is hurt somebody through my words, which create a permission structure for people to hold a view that will end up causing harm to any human being. And I'm particularly cognizant of my brother and his family, who've spent the last month in a safe room the size of a bathroom. And I believe that there is a grave danger to our Jewish people if we do not speak about it as well. And so I'm constantly trying to navigate how to say the moral analysis that I believe our community desperately needs and also how to do no harm, how to minimize the possibility or the likelihood of doing harm. And one could equally argue that not speaking out as a Jewish leader against reckless and violent Jewish behavior is even more dangerous for Jews than speaking out about it in a measured, careful, moral, and Torah-centered way.
SPEAKER_00It's just interesting the choices that we make as leaders. Like, why focus on one part of the Israeli conflict or the Israeli responsibility to be acting in a Torahitic way and reduce it to religious extremism or settler violence as opposed to just saying it's a much bigger problem, which has to do with the occupation, which has to do with historical relationship between the Palestinians and the Israelis and Arabs and so on? So I think that for us to choose our battles is always a tell. We should be advocating for rabbis from their platforms to be talking about much bigger issues than the shame that we feel that a couple of our brothers and sisters are acting in ways that are shameful to us. There's a world that's acting shamefully to us. There's a world that's acting shamefully towards American Jews and Jews in the Netherlands and Jews in London and Israelis, right? And the world is morally confused. The fact that it can even be confused about Iran and what Iran represents is itself a complete and total breakdown of moral, a moral atrophy of the highest order. Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01Both of you are right in that Rabbi Browse, you are committed to your morals and your beliefs in a way that I think is extremely admirable. And there is a game that's being played, and Rabbi Ingber, I think, is rightfully suggesting that everyone else is playing it. And if we aren't aware of that and engaging with that, we're gonna be the ones getting played and are getting played. It's tricky, I I because I I completely see where both of you are coming from.
SPEAKER_02So hearing that conversation, I guess, between those two rabbis, which was part of a very long discussion which had two parts, and we're hearing the second part there was recorded four months ago, there's a few things that I feel when I hear that. The first is just to address the specific issue. I definitely agree with Rabbi Sharon Brouse that rabbis do have a moral obligation to speak out against settler violence or in fact anything being done in Israel that goes against their values. I think just to say because we are being criticized, we shouldn't criticize ourselves. I don't think that promotes a healthy form of Judaism. But I think on the broader issue, I can imagine some people listening to that would feel uncomfortable about maybe one point or another or the way they were said. I'm sure even if you were listening to this now in your car, maybe your shoulders pricked up when you heard Sharon or David, depending on which side you're on. And I'm wondering for you, how did you feel when you first heard that debate between those two rabbis? Putting the argument aside, just the experience of because it got quite heated in certain parts. How did it feel to hear that argument?
SPEAKER_05It wasn't just the sound. I actually watched it as well. So you could see their faces in real time. Because sometimes you kind of get a minute to catch yourself before you talk, but you could see their faces as well, like you could see the tensions in their bodies at points, and you can even hear there's like some interrupting. We're here to talk about the actual the art of arguing and the Jewish art of arguing. So I hear what you said about settler violence, and I agree with you. But to actually see two rabbis arguing, particularly at this moment in time for the Jewish world, I would say, I found it really powerful. I found it really interesting, and I found myself Rabbi Sharon Brass is a rabbi that I've listened to before, and I really resonate with her. But there were moments in it where I was like, Well, I'm going back and forth between who I want to hear from. But I guess because my instinct right now is let's just stop fighting. Let's just stop fighting, let's not let anyone see us fight. But then to have two rabbis up there, I was like, ooh, okay, let's do this. How did you feel?
SPEAKER_02Like personally, I agree with Sharon a lot more than David, but I thought David at some point made some very good points. And I think he represents, I guess, his side of the argument very well, and she represents her side of the argument very well. So they're both good representatives for what is a very polarizing conversation. I also watched it on YouTube as well as listening to it. But to me, the most interesting character is actually their facilitator. Because a lot of times when there's arguments, there isn't always a facilitator. But when you're on a podcast, there is. And I found it fascinating. Because I know that Jonah has views on these issues too, but he was very much trying to play the peacemaker. Like, and even in the clip that we just played now at the end, he said, well, there's some truth in what Sharon said, there's some truth in what David said, and we have to find the middle line. But there isn't a middle line. Like either rabbis are criticizing settler violence from the pulpit or they're not. You can't do both at the same time. Because David wants the rabbis to be talking about other issues, about anti-Semitism and about Iran and about the changes happening in certain political discourse where people who can call out racism against other groups are not calling it out against Jews. That's what he wants rabbis to be focused on. And so there isn't a middle ground between those two viewpoints. But I'm curious to know your thoughts on the role of the facilitator there.
SPEAKER_05Just before I get to your facilitator, I just want to go to that point that you said you can't do both at the same time. But isn't that like the whole beauty of Judaism and arguing and finding the right rabbi? That we as participants, as Jewish people, they were two rabbis, on example, and maybe we resonated with one because that's who we know and who we like and who we've engaged with before. But is that not the beauty of the diversity of Judaism? That you can find your space, whether you and I agree with everything that everyone else is saying, but as an individual, we can find that space.
SPEAKER_02Look, it's definitely wonderful that there's more than one rabbi in Judaism and that people have choices. But one rabbi who chooses to give a sermon, let's say on the High Holy Days, which is, I guess, the grand final of sermons. And if they choose to give a sermon on a contested political issue or on LGBT rights or On the inclusion of women or something critical of Israel. And I know this happened in a certain synagogue in Melbourne where a rabbi chose to speak about those issues, and it wasn't necessarily well received by everyone. And then another rabbi came in who didn't speak about those specific issues or spoke about them in a way that was maybe more appealing to others than the first rabbi. So I think rabbis always have a choice of whether they will follow or where they will lead. Some rabbis kind of look at what's the consensus within their community, and then they give sermons that reflect that consensus. And some rabbis take opinions that are not shared by their community and say, I'm going to push my community outside of its comfort zone by bringing in this argument that a lot of people may not have heard or may not agree with. And that can be risky. It can be risky for their jobs, it can be risky for the cohesion of the community. But as leaders, they feel like, well, this is an issue I need to bring to the table. A really skilled rabbi, I guess, can do both at the same time.
SPEAKER_05So, Itai, you just asked me about the role of a facilitator in arguments. It's a luxury, right? It's really nice when there's a facilitator there and can calm the situation. And I know that there are definitely times when I've been the facilitator, and there are definitely times when I've been the arguer. It's a nice to have, but it's not always an option. So actually, what I want to ask you, because we know that arguments can get really heated, and you spoke about principles in Judaism that teach us that it's okay to argue, but are there principles that teach us how to listen and to hear and to learn, particularly when there's not a facilitator there?
SPEAKER_02I mean, there are many, many principles in Judaism about machloket, this notion of how to disagree. In fact, there's actually a beautiful principle in the Talmud that whenever you share an opinion, even if it's an opinion you disagree with, you have to acknowledge who said it and the rabbi of who said it. So Rabbi Joshua said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, and then you say your viewpoint. It's sort of like, I guess, when you speak in parliament, you have to call your opposition side honorable member or the member for something. And you don't really think they're honorable, but that framing is hoped to shape the conversation that will be, I guess, less aggressive. And I think the people that I have most respect for in this world are people that have a very strong ideological view, but can also admit when they're wrong. And that's something you see very rarely in politics because the art of politics is never being wrong, or I misspoke or I was misquoted or something like that. But I think in terms of rabbis or social leaders, you know, I don't like people who sit on the fence. Like I want people to have a strong view about what they see in the world, but I also want them to be able to change their mind and say I was wrong, or maybe I shouldn't have worked in coalition with that group or that group because that was a mistake. And that gives you a lot more respect for the person because that shows that they're human and it shows that they're growing. And I think that's what that's what a good argument will do. It will be a process that changes you, not leaves you the same as when you entered the argument.
SPEAKER_05I think that's a really beautiful notion. And I think reflecting on my own argument style, the biggest challenge for me is always can I still be curious when I think someone's wrong? Or when I just so strongly disagree with what they're saying and what I have learned over the years through doing specific training on arguing. Yes, there was how to present an argument in a legal case, but also I did training about how to speak about anti-Semitism. And what I learned is, and what I was doing in a range of conversations is kind of yelling the end point, yelling my belief. Like this is what you should be thinking, and if you don't, then you're wrong. But the art to the argument is well, firstly, there's the taking a breath. I think that's really important to be present and to take a breath because I know that I get really heated and I go from like zero to a hundred very quickly. What I've learned about how to have a productive argument is that's taking a breath and really trying to understand the person and why they've arrived at that view. What is it about their history? Like, is there a reason they think like that? And this is really hard. I can speak about this now because I'm not in a heightened situation. But I think there's a real part to argument. And I think, yes, it's a really beautiful picture to say, oh, you can sit around the Shabbat table and everyone can sit and argue. But if there's not a mediator, like how do you bring it down? And how do you learn from each other? And how do you be okay with having different views but continuing on?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, I know we said we disagree, but I'm very much going to agree with what you said there.
SPEAKER_05Fight me, Ty, come on.
SPEAKER_02No, no, no. I'm I'm so on the same page with you because, like, 10 years ago, when I met someone who I disagreed with on religion, politics, sexuality, gender, abortion, Gaza, like all of those issues, and and they said something I disagree, I would think racist, homophobe, how can you think that, whatever? And now where I live in Jerusalem, and full disclosure, my political social views, uh, not the majority here. Almost everyone I meet has a different way of seeing the world than I do. And rather than arguing with them, especially if I'm in their living room or I'm in a dialogue, I go to a lot of dialogues with people I disagree with and I interview people as a journalist. I now find it fascinating to meet someone I disagree with, especially if they're pole opposites from me. And what I do is I say, what happened in your life to make you have that view? And there's always a story. And if they tell the story really well and I'm really being honest with myself, then I'll say at the end of the conversation, if all those things that happened in that guy's life happened in my life, I would have the same political view as them. Even if it's a view that I despise, I can understand that if I had that life experience, that's probably who I'd be voting for today. And that's where I'd be sitting right now. And there's something really powerful in that, in that it doesn't make me agree with their view more, but it does make me have empathy for how they got to having that view, and it makes me think that they're not insane. Because I think I was in argument mode and I heard views that are not mine, I just thought, those people are mad. And now I see, well, they just had different life experiences to me, and it doesn't make them right, it just makes it normal that they see the world the way they do because of those life experiences.
SPEAKER_04Clouds got in my way. I've looked at clouds from both sides now, from up and down, and still somehow it's clouds' illusions. I recall, I really don't recall. I've looked to love, love with it.
SPEAKER_02So that beautiful song we just heard now is Both Sides Now, performed by Beth Riordan. It was actually recorded at my book launch for The Holy and the Broken in Melbourne back in January 25. And it's one of my favorite songs, and it's a song about arguments, I guess. It's a song that was written in 1968 by Joni Mitchell when she was just 23. And the song builds on three objects in her life. The first is clouds, the second is love, and the third is life. And in each section, Joni starts with this imaginative youthful perspective of initially I saw clouds as ice cream castles, and uh, as a fairground ride. And then as she matures in life, she sees uh clouds are also something that can block the sun, and love can also be something that causes heartbreak. And by I guess experience both a dream and a reality, she sees both sides and then she finds her why and uh comes to this paradox at the end of the song, which is that the more you experience life, the less you know it. And the reason I think that's such a beautiful song about perspective and arguments is uh because I often feel like a really good argument or a debate is one that leaves you less certain and more confused. And uh, we don't have them very often in life. I remember when I was a bit younger, I used to love this podcast called Intelligence Squared, where they had three very intelligent Australians, or it was but also in the UK, and they would debate sort of the hot political issue of the day. And they bought such thoughtful people that even though I came in knewing exactly what I thought on the issue and which side I wanted to win, literally every speaker shifted me. I was going left, right, left, right because they were making me feel uncomfortable and they bought in facts and evidence and spoke in a way that really challenged a certain bias or preconceived notion I had about a certain political conflict or a social issue. And I kind of miss that in our world. I miss the beauty of people that can see both sides now, and I don't mean that in a post-truth world because clearly there is a side that is right that it is wrong, but that can see things from multiple perspectives. I think life is so much richer when that is possible. And so I guess I wanted to ask you, Courtney, like in terms of what brings you joy from arguments. Do you prefer an argument that leaves you uncomfortable, or do you like arguments that end with resolution?
SPEAKER_05I like to win an argument.
SPEAKER_02Appreciate the honesty.
SPEAKER_05Yeah, I think what's really interesting listening to you though, and I've used the word optimistic already, but I just think there's something about the world we're living in where there's so much fear that it's really hard to engage in argument. I do feel really enriched when I can engage in like deep conversations. You know, my husband and I joke about this a lot when we're meeting people. He is really good at like the small talk. I am terrible at the small talk. But if you like want to go deep and you want to talk about God and meaning and Judaism, like whatever it is, I'm ready. I'm that person, and I do love to engage at that level and hear different perspectives, but I'm finding that more and more people have just defenses up, and it's hard to engage myself, but also get people to engage in that way.
SPEAKER_02I think there's probably a lot of couples that one does small talk and one does the heavier conversations, and I know people that are very intelligent and really struggle with the how are you, how are you feeling small talk bit, and they just want to jump into tell me about your deepest fears and your hopes for the future and that sort of thing that is considered like impolite to raise in small talk, and I guess that's why life is beautiful because there's different people with different voices, and maybe all find meaning in it in the different ways we choose to live. I'm very confused about the world. I I'm close to 50. I've done certain things in my life for most of my life, mainly to do with education and peace building and journalism. And let's say 50 is a halfway mark. I don't know if I'm lucky to live to 100.
SPEAKER_05120, that's the aim.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, 120, like Moshe Rabinel. So as you approach 50, some people just buy a yacht or a Ferrari, but I can afford either of those because I worked in education. So I think a lot about what do I want my life to look like in the future. And it's not a process that I can work out on my own, it's a process that I have to have many, many conversations and arguments with people who chose different paths to me and see how they came to the decisions that they do. It's a very long process, and perhaps I should just go to a therapist. That seems to be what most people do these days.
SPEAKER_05This is our therapy.
SPEAKER_02This is our therapy. I'm just recording my therapy to share it with the world. Yeah, but I think without arguments and without human interaction and without being surrounded by people that disagree with me, I wouldn't know who I am. And I feel like the more I encounter different views, it both strengthens my identity, but also gives me opportunities to go in different directions that I may not have gone before. So we've looked on this podcast about many ways you can find meaning or find your why through travel, through rituals, through songs, through music, through prayers, through God. But I think arguments for me is definitely up there in the top three of how I make sense of this world and how I find my why. Is it the same for you?
SPEAKER_05Yeah, very similar. I think what you said about arguing can also kind of remind us of our own beliefs. Like when I hear other people who I disagree with and I can see how I'm reacting, and it either makes me go off and think, oh, is that what I meant? Or oh, I better be more prepared for that next time. But also it's a reminder that there's an art to arguing, and arguing doesn't have to be conflict, it can be healthy debate, and I think there's a really nice contrast in that. And I hope to get back to a world where we can engage in more healthy debate because it does challenge us, and I think what I was saying about the art of debate is we can learn more about each other, and debate doesn't have to be about winning or losing, it can be yes, I'm more sure of my own beliefs, but there are people who think in a different way, and it's a really optimistic way forward to finding my way.
SPEAKER_02Thank you to all of our listeners, thank you to Nick for the beautiful editing that you do, and Donnie Janks for the intro music and to TJI for believing in this project. Feedback is always welcome through our email at finding our why at the Jewishindependent.com.au, or you can DM either Courtney or I on the various social media platforms that we're on. If you enjoyed this podcast and you want to hear arguments about the future of the Jewish people in the country where I live, there's an excellent podcast called Politica, hosted by Sharon Offenberger and Uvald Regev, where they talk about the arguments that Israelis are having in the Knesset right now about who their next government will be because the Israeli elections are just around the corner on October 27th. So check that out. And otherwise, wishing everyone a lovely week and farewell. Bye.