What do you think?
Rate this book
One People, Two Worlds: A Reform Rabbi and an Orthodox Rabbi Explore the Issues That Divide Them
For Jews and An honest, intelligent, no-holds-barred discussion of virtually every “hot button” issue on which Reform and Orthodox Jews differ.
After being introduced by a mutual friend in the winter of 2000, Reform Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch and Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Reinman embarked on an unprecedented eighteen-month email correspondence on the fundamental principles of Jewish faith and practice. What resulted is this among the discussions the existence of a Supreme Being, the origins and authenticity of the Bible and the Oral Law, the role of women, assimilation, the value of secular culture, and Israel.
Sometimes they agree; more often than not they disagree—and quite sharply, too. But the important thing is that, as they keep talking to each other, they discover that they actually like each other, and, above all, they respect each other. Their journey from mutual suspicion to mutual regard is an extraordinary one; from it, both Jews and non-Jews of all backgrounds can learn a great deal about the practice of Judaism today and about the continuity of the Jewish people into the future.
After being introduced by a mutual friend in the winter of 2000, Reform Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch and Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Reinman embarked on an unprecedented eighteen-month email correspondence on the fundamental principles of Jewish faith and practice. What resulted is this among the discussions the existence of a Supreme Being, the origins and authenticity of the Bible and the Oral Law, the role of women, assimilation, the value of secular culture, and Israel.
Sometimes they agree; more often than not they disagree—and quite sharply, too. But the important thing is that, as they keep talking to each other, they discover that they actually like each other, and, above all, they respect each other. Their journey from mutual suspicion to mutual regard is an extraordinary one; from it, both Jews and non-Jews of all backgrounds can learn a great deal about the practice of Judaism today and about the continuity of the Jewish people into the future.
336 pages, Paperback
First published August 20, 2002
18 people are currently reading
233 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
May 26, 2012
I went into this book expecting a balanced debate between the Reform rabbi and the Orthodox rabbi, with the Reform rabbi defending elements of my own liberal Judaism. I ended the book with far more empathy towards the Orthodox rabbi and more than a little embarrassment about the Reform rabbi.
Throughout the book, Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Reinman describes an Orthodox Judaism that is more loving and less strident or closed to the world than we often hear our Reform rabbis tell us from the bimah. He did stick to his guns about central Orthodox teachings about Jewish law and the status of non-Orthodox Jews, which was absolutely as it should have been. He was extraordinarily graceful throughout his writings to Reform Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch.
In response, Rabbi Hirsch wrote one bitchy, obnoxious, goading email after another to Rabbi Reinman, denigrating and criticizing Orthodoxy directly--all of which Rabbi Reinman never once does regarding liberal Judaism. Rabbi Hirsch's parts of the book read like he's writing to his expected liberal Jewish reader, not to Rabbi Reinman, and it got very trying to have to put up with by the end of the book.
I'm a liberal Jew but I'm a Jew first and foremost, and I believe we have a lot to learn from each other's different approaches to Judaism. (For example, I'm a big fan on ritual, non-ethical mitzot.) I find jingoistic Orthodox-bashing from Reform rabbis needless and tiresome. Especially when we (Reform Jews) spend so much time complaining about being treated the exact, same way by the Orthodox.
I was considering rabbinical school when I read this book. (I still am.) I ended the book concerned that I didn't want to end up a Reform rabbi like Hirsch, and having doubts about choosing a rabbinical program in my own denomination.
How's that for a reaction to a book?
Throughout the book, Orthodox Rabbi Yosef Reinman describes an Orthodox Judaism that is more loving and less strident or closed to the world than we often hear our Reform rabbis tell us from the bimah. He did stick to his guns about central Orthodox teachings about Jewish law and the status of non-Orthodox Jews, which was absolutely as it should have been. He was extraordinarily graceful throughout his writings to Reform Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch.
In response, Rabbi Hirsch wrote one bitchy, obnoxious, goading email after another to Rabbi Reinman, denigrating and criticizing Orthodoxy directly--all of which Rabbi Reinman never once does regarding liberal Judaism. Rabbi Hirsch's parts of the book read like he's writing to his expected liberal Jewish reader, not to Rabbi Reinman, and it got very trying to have to put up with by the end of the book.
I'm a liberal Jew but I'm a Jew first and foremost, and I believe we have a lot to learn from each other's different approaches to Judaism. (For example, I'm a big fan on ritual, non-ethical mitzot.) I find jingoistic Orthodox-bashing from Reform rabbis needless and tiresome. Especially when we (Reform Jews) spend so much time complaining about being treated the exact, same way by the Orthodox.
I was considering rabbinical school when I read this book. (I still am.) I ended the book concerned that I didn't want to end up a Reform rabbi like Hirsch, and having doubts about choosing a rabbinical program in my own denomination.
How's that for a reaction to a book?
September 2, 2016
A very educational book! While I expected equal discussion from each rabbi, the Orthodox--or Classical--rabbi stole the show. His explanations were erudite, passionate, and backed up by Torah and Talmud. The Reform rabbi, while equally passionate and erudite, often fell back into some of the criticisms that liberal Jews have towards their more observant brethren. Both men had their assumptions about the other but, by the end of the book, many of these had been overcome. Certainly not all of them--I don't believe the Reform rabbi will become a Baal Teshuva, nor will the Orthodox rabbi start marrying gay couples.
May 16, 2023
Book Review
"One People, Two Worlds"
5/5 stars
"Books like this make me know that the sparkling Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence is not just a myth."
*******
This is a series of letters between two rabbis--one Reform and a former tank commander in the IDF and one an Orthodox Talmudist --from January of 2000 to October of 2001 that were so good that they could be stapled together to make a book. (I would have to say that the word ratio between the two is probably about three to one, in favor of the Orthodox rabbi. But the content of the reform Rabbi is more pithy and non-desperate.)
Part I- introduction and commentary on Reform versus Orthodox Judaism
Part II- (Mostly) discussion of the feminist aspects of Judaism..
Part III- Discussion of biblical criticism and the J/E/P/D hypothesis. Also, Darwinism, free will, Zionism.
Good index. Embedded references.
*******
Who am I?
First: I moved to this out-of-town US community about 10 years ago, and converted about 7 years ago.
Second: I spent my earlier years after conversion living around a bunch of knuckle-dragging Haredim (and I moved on because of mistreatment-- the same way a lot of black people do.)
But, quite frankly, I've heard everything in this book already. (At least twice.)
Sample familiar arguments:
1. (p.133) In just a couple of generations, Reform people are going to go extinct and Haredim are going to take over the world. (You can find this argument since the 1970s. But, Orthodox people manage to stay about 10% of all Jews because of a high attrition rate.)
Reform are still with us, as they have been for two centuries. And they are much larger in number than Orthodox people.
2. (p.90) The secular world is just a den of iniquity and it just can't be people actually living their lives in a matter of fact way. (85% of secular men are unfaithful to their wives, according to the Orthodox Rabbi. Who knew?)
3. (p.27) If somebody reads A Source in English, then it's not good enough. It has to be read in Hebrew. And then if it is read in Hebrew, it has to be an "unfamiliar, unpunctuated, unvowelized page of Talmud and Aramaic." And so on, ad infinitum. (This is in spite of the fact that it has been my experience that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Haredim do not go word-by-word in their Chumash. (If you don't believe me, ask somebody what is a "meteg" or what is the difference between "infinitive absolute" and "infinitive construct.") That is the trick that this talmudist says when it becomes apparent that the reform Rabbi has in fact read some talmud and that he cannot be fobbed off with these "go check and see if it's raining around those corner" type answers.
If this argument goes on long enough, it will turn into: "You don't know the argument because you did not gather it by poking a pin into one side of the paper and finding the relevant argument on the obverse of the page."
4. Lots of No True Scotsman fallacies. So, if I point out that sexual abuse rates among Black Hats are at least two times higher than what they are among the rest of the Orthodox world, then those particular Boy Butt Pirates are "just not Orthodox."
5. Lots of confusion about time and change. Moshe Rabbeinu never wore a shtreimel, but nothing has EVER changed since the destruction of the Second Temple by Orthodox lights. Ritual authority changed from a hereditary priesthood to communal rabbis, who earned their positions by merit (p.239). (Ironically, the Samaritans still hold to this idea, and there are about 600 of them left in the world, and none of them are recognized as Jews and have not been for about 25 centuries.)
6. There seems to be a lot of mentioning of Jews for J****. (In every case, this was for the Orthodox Rabbi to make a point, specifically about delineating what is and is not Judaism.) And that's strange, because the bad news is that there are no Jews - - genetic or otherwise - - in that Southern Baptist movement for white hicks.)
7. Typical Haredi mind-blindness.
a. No problem to accept subsidies from the Israeli state, but then also no problem to not recognize it or not recognize the Israeli flag.
b. (p.174) "In the traditional model of Jewish Family life, the man has primary responsibility for the livelihood and the woman for household and children." I'm sorry, but not a few times have I seen Kollel Bums who have 5 to 10 children and have never filled out a job application. Not. One. Time. But, their wives get up and go to work. In fact, I have seen entire kollels where the men laze about and all of their wives work.
c. (p.192) Misinterpretation of American slavery to make a point--and it would be a nice argument if it was not based on empirically false assumptions. No, slaves were not abducted. (The climate of Africa is so harsh that white people of that time would die before they even made it 50 miles inland.)
Slaves were bought from other tribes.
d. If a lady is described as a "jug full of excrement whose opening is full of blood, yet men chase after her" [Shabbat 152a] (p.200), no matter how much context you provide, the sentence does say what it says. And this is a running theme throughout the text when the Orthodox Rabbi writes: Context, context, context. Apparently NOTHING can mean what it plainly says. (Too many examples to even get into here.)
8. Lots of reductio ad Hitlerium here. The Reform Rabbi says that people who think they are in possession of The Absolute Truth come up with things such as The Final Solution. The Orthodox Rabbi says that if enough time passes, people can question the historicity of the Torah the same way people could question the historicity of the Holocaust
9. Disagreement about changes in the law. If Haredim do it, then it's ok. If Reform do it, then it's heresy. (As an example of the first case: conversion /geirut used to be something that was one and done up until yesterday; now, people who are converts exist always and everywhere in a provisional state. As an example of the second, pork used to not be okay. Now it is.)
10. Baba Metzia 59b:5 ("my children have defeated me") shows up in here AGAIN and AGAIN. If there are three Reform against ine Orthodox, why does the principle of "majority rules" not work? It works everywhere it doesn't work?
*******
-Great quotes
(p.170): "They know everything. Unfortunately, they don't know anything else."
(p.275): "Any person who would have been sent to the gas chambers by °°°°°°- - a person with a Jewish grandparent - - has an open invitation to breathe the free air of the Jewish state. This is the ultimate victory over °°°°°°."
-For any Everyday Pulpit Rabbi, there is lots and lots of material here for drasha'ot.
What is the practical significance here?
EXAMPLE 1: In the case of the Reform Rabbi, he would accept evolution as true, but should the discussion turn into an evolutionary reason for the obvious difference in IQ/intelligence between Jews and blacks, then that would be a forbidden issue..... For the Orthodox Rabbi, he would assume that all human beings were made in the image of Gd (and of course that Charles Darwin / Richard Dawkins were completely false). But, I'm pretty sure if it came time to introduce his daughter to a black guy, then that would be a forbidden issue. For that matter, if it even came time for reciting responsive amen's in behind the black guy who was davening for the amud.... Then that would be another issue entirely.
What is a black guy to do? (I haven't figured it out yet.)
EXAMPLE 2: My experience with the law (halacha) has been that it can be reinterpreted enough times to be anything at all. So, it is something about 36 times that is repeated to not harass/opressed the convert. (For the record, that is 12 times more than the repetition of not boiling a kid in its mother's milk.) There are only a small minority of people who act as if they believe that. So now what?
EXAMPLE 3: If you have a group of 100 guys, and 75 of them act as if they don't believe that Gd is watching them and 25 do, then you come up with a Gd value of about 0.25. How is that substantially different to Reform people who treat the Bible as "divinely inspired"? The first set, if they acted like they really believed in Gd would imagine that he actually wrote the 5 books of Moses. The second set says that He "kind of" wrote them.
Verdict: Some interesting arguments, but the book is 22 years old. Not worth more than $5.
"One People, Two Worlds"
5/5 stars
"Books like this make me know that the sparkling Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence is not just a myth."
*******
This is a series of letters between two rabbis--one Reform and a former tank commander in the IDF and one an Orthodox Talmudist --from January of 2000 to October of 2001 that were so good that they could be stapled together to make a book. (I would have to say that the word ratio between the two is probably about three to one, in favor of the Orthodox rabbi. But the content of the reform Rabbi is more pithy and non-desperate.)
Part I- introduction and commentary on Reform versus Orthodox Judaism
Part II- (Mostly) discussion of the feminist aspects of Judaism..
Part III- Discussion of biblical criticism and the J/E/P/D hypothesis. Also, Darwinism, free will, Zionism.
Good index. Embedded references.
*******
Who am I?
First: I moved to this out-of-town US community about 10 years ago, and converted about 7 years ago.
Second: I spent my earlier years after conversion living around a bunch of knuckle-dragging Haredim (and I moved on because of mistreatment-- the same way a lot of black people do.)
But, quite frankly, I've heard everything in this book already. (At least twice.)
Sample familiar arguments:
1. (p.133) In just a couple of generations, Reform people are going to go extinct and Haredim are going to take over the world. (You can find this argument since the 1970s. But, Orthodox people manage to stay about 10% of all Jews because of a high attrition rate.)
Reform are still with us, as they have been for two centuries. And they are much larger in number than Orthodox people.
2. (p.90) The secular world is just a den of iniquity and it just can't be people actually living their lives in a matter of fact way. (85% of secular men are unfaithful to their wives, according to the Orthodox Rabbi. Who knew?)
3. (p.27) If somebody reads A Source in English, then it's not good enough. It has to be read in Hebrew. And then if it is read in Hebrew, it has to be an "unfamiliar, unpunctuated, unvowelized page of Talmud and Aramaic." And so on, ad infinitum. (This is in spite of the fact that it has been my experience that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Haredim do not go word-by-word in their Chumash. (If you don't believe me, ask somebody what is a "meteg" or what is the difference between "infinitive absolute" and "infinitive construct.") That is the trick that this talmudist says when it becomes apparent that the reform Rabbi has in fact read some talmud and that he cannot be fobbed off with these "go check and see if it's raining around those corner" type answers.
If this argument goes on long enough, it will turn into: "You don't know the argument because you did not gather it by poking a pin into one side of the paper and finding the relevant argument on the obverse of the page."
4. Lots of No True Scotsman fallacies. So, if I point out that sexual abuse rates among Black Hats are at least two times higher than what they are among the rest of the Orthodox world, then those particular Boy Butt Pirates are "just not Orthodox."
5. Lots of confusion about time and change. Moshe Rabbeinu never wore a shtreimel, but nothing has EVER changed since the destruction of the Second Temple by Orthodox lights. Ritual authority changed from a hereditary priesthood to communal rabbis, who earned their positions by merit (p.239). (Ironically, the Samaritans still hold to this idea, and there are about 600 of them left in the world, and none of them are recognized as Jews and have not been for about 25 centuries.)
6. There seems to be a lot of mentioning of Jews for J****. (In every case, this was for the Orthodox Rabbi to make a point, specifically about delineating what is and is not Judaism.) And that's strange, because the bad news is that there are no Jews - - genetic or otherwise - - in that Southern Baptist movement for white hicks.)
7. Typical Haredi mind-blindness.
a. No problem to accept subsidies from the Israeli state, but then also no problem to not recognize it or not recognize the Israeli flag.
b. (p.174) "In the traditional model of Jewish Family life, the man has primary responsibility for the livelihood and the woman for household and children." I'm sorry, but not a few times have I seen Kollel Bums who have 5 to 10 children and have never filled out a job application. Not. One. Time. But, their wives get up and go to work. In fact, I have seen entire kollels where the men laze about and all of their wives work.
c. (p.192) Misinterpretation of American slavery to make a point--and it would be a nice argument if it was not based on empirically false assumptions. No, slaves were not abducted. (The climate of Africa is so harsh that white people of that time would die before they even made it 50 miles inland.)
Slaves were bought from other tribes.
d. If a lady is described as a "jug full of excrement whose opening is full of blood, yet men chase after her" [Shabbat 152a] (p.200), no matter how much context you provide, the sentence does say what it says. And this is a running theme throughout the text when the Orthodox Rabbi writes: Context, context, context. Apparently NOTHING can mean what it plainly says. (Too many examples to even get into here.)
8. Lots of reductio ad Hitlerium here. The Reform Rabbi says that people who think they are in possession of The Absolute Truth come up with things such as The Final Solution. The Orthodox Rabbi says that if enough time passes, people can question the historicity of the Torah the same way people could question the historicity of the Holocaust
9. Disagreement about changes in the law. If Haredim do it, then it's ok. If Reform do it, then it's heresy. (As an example of the first case: conversion /geirut used to be something that was one and done up until yesterday; now, people who are converts exist always and everywhere in a provisional state. As an example of the second, pork used to not be okay. Now it is.)
10. Baba Metzia 59b:5 ("my children have defeated me") shows up in here AGAIN and AGAIN. If there are three Reform against ine Orthodox, why does the principle of "majority rules" not work? It works everywhere it doesn't work?
*******
-Great quotes
(p.170): "They know everything. Unfortunately, they don't know anything else."
(p.275): "Any person who would have been sent to the gas chambers by °°°°°°- - a person with a Jewish grandparent - - has an open invitation to breathe the free air of the Jewish state. This is the ultimate victory over °°°°°°."
-For any Everyday Pulpit Rabbi, there is lots and lots of material here for drasha'ot.
What is the practical significance here?
EXAMPLE 1: In the case of the Reform Rabbi, he would accept evolution as true, but should the discussion turn into an evolutionary reason for the obvious difference in IQ/intelligence between Jews and blacks, then that would be a forbidden issue..... For the Orthodox Rabbi, he would assume that all human beings were made in the image of Gd (and of course that Charles Darwin / Richard Dawkins were completely false). But, I'm pretty sure if it came time to introduce his daughter to a black guy, then that would be a forbidden issue. For that matter, if it even came time for reciting responsive amen's in behind the black guy who was davening for the amud.... Then that would be another issue entirely.
What is a black guy to do? (I haven't figured it out yet.)
EXAMPLE 2: My experience with the law (halacha) has been that it can be reinterpreted enough times to be anything at all. So, it is something about 36 times that is repeated to not harass/opressed the convert. (For the record, that is 12 times more than the repetition of not boiling a kid in its mother's milk.) There are only a small minority of people who act as if they believe that. So now what?
EXAMPLE 3: If you have a group of 100 guys, and 75 of them act as if they don't believe that Gd is watching them and 25 do, then you come up with a Gd value of about 0.25. How is that substantially different to Reform people who treat the Bible as "divinely inspired"? The first set, if they acted like they really believed in Gd would imagine that he actually wrote the 5 books of Moses. The second set says that He "kind of" wrote them.
Verdict: Some interesting arguments, but the book is 22 years old. Not worth more than $5.
April 27, 2025
I'm not quite a quarter in, and it's interesting, and yet also disappointing in others. So far it seems Reinman come across as clearer and having a stronger position, but I find myself in Hirsch's position, feeling dismayed and saddened by the treatment of LGBTQ issues, which date the book. Reinman might argue that the Torah doesn't change, and yet clearly at least in some segments of the Orthodox world it has changed somewhat. The fact that there are two orthodox organizations in New York City, or the fact that YU has now come to a compromise with having a LGbTQ organization on their campus shows this.
LGBTQ issues are a good lense as well to see the two author's differences as well as their similarities. Hirsch said then that he would not officiate at a same sex marriage. I find myself wondering if that's still the case twenty-five years later.
Update:
I wish they stuck to a format where one author writes and then the other. that would have made it easier to follow.
Overall I'm struck by how ideas are presented in a binary way which neglects the nuances of Judaism. Both authors come across too busy trying to win their argument that they miss any opportunity to have meaningful discourse. I guess it was bound to happen.
Over all Reinman had the better arguments but when it came to women's roles his was much weaker. He ignores the blatant reality of kollel wives who are often well educated in different disciplines and somehow aren't able to learn the Talmud.
it's like we have two options: Reform which I grew up with and found to be lacking in the substance I needed when I turned to Judaism for answers and Orthodox which has the answers and yet some of those answers I find disappointing.
Thankfully I have more options besides Reform and Yeshivish.
LGBTQ issues are a good lense as well to see the two author's differences as well as their similarities. Hirsch said then that he would not officiate at a same sex marriage. I find myself wondering if that's still the case twenty-five years later.
Update:
I wish they stuck to a format where one author writes and then the other. that would have made it easier to follow.
Overall I'm struck by how ideas are presented in a binary way which neglects the nuances of Judaism. Both authors come across too busy trying to win their argument that they miss any opportunity to have meaningful discourse. I guess it was bound to happen.
Over all Reinman had the better arguments but when it came to women's roles his was much weaker. He ignores the blatant reality of kollel wives who are often well educated in different disciplines and somehow aren't able to learn the Talmud.
it's like we have two options: Reform which I grew up with and found to be lacking in the substance I needed when I turned to Judaism for answers and Orthodox which has the answers and yet some of those answers I find disappointing.
Thankfully I have more options besides Reform and Yeshivish.
October 5, 2025
This book does not work for a number of reasons.
1) Rabbi Reinman, the representative of Orthodoxy, is clearly out of his depth and goes over the line a number of times.
2) Rabbi Hirsch's Zionism and zeal for Israel is outdated and misguided.
3) The tenor of both authors is weirdly awkward and insulting.
4) Events that took place after One People: Two Worlds was published undermine its message. I will get to this at the end.
There is a lot of good here though. As noted in the afterword by Rabbi Hirsch, the ideas in the book are not new, but the form is new. Rarely are competing Jewish ideas laid out in a point-counter-point format like this. The reader can read one argument and immediately hear the retort.
The bad:
First, I am surprised by reviewers who praise Reinman's writing here, going so far as to say that his arguments were as persuasive as Hirsch's. Reinman's prose, style, and appeal to emotion is stronger for sure, but he is so clearly out of depth in some portions of the exchange that it felt insulting.
For instance, at one point Reinman goes on an extremely long tirade attempting to disprove evolution. It is full of early-internet creationist crap that he clearly first read about moments before writing. His inexperience in the topic shows real hubris.
Also, throughout the book he veers too far off the deep end to be taken seriously. In a single email he compares homosexuality to bestiality, and suggests that conversion therapy is real science. Read for yourself:
and
Hirsch is not exactly the most persuasive writer, but Reinman's arguments are almost unreadable.
Second, the last section of the exchange focuses on Israel. Hirsch, who was in charge of the Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA) at the time, writes at length at why supporting Israel is imperative to Judaism. One harrowing quote is:
This is pretty jarring, especially now. I'm not sure if Hirsch is saying this is how things are or how they ought to be, but it doesn't sit right. According to his thoughts in this book, the ongoing genocide in Gaza is not only an action of the Jewish people, but a reflection of Jewish values.
Hirsch, who I found at least decent throughout the exchange falls apart in the last section. For me, at least. If you see the situation differently, that's fine. It's worth noting that he hasn't changed his mind over the years, and is currently one of the foremost Pro-Israel clergy left in the Reform movement.
Third, the vibe between the two Rabbis is really strange. Throughout the correspondence, they exchange insulting jabs and mischaracterize each other constantly. It is honestly strange how often they both denigrate themselves by using sarcastic and childish language over the course of the argument. I think both of them are equally abrasive.
Lastly: After the Afterword
The Afterword is actually quite beautiful. Reinman's response was sent only six days after 9/11 and Hirsch replied a couple weeks later. They both wrote positive things about each other and praise the other for reaching across the divide. I was left feeling actually hopeful after a brutally awkward read.
Which is sad, considering what happened after this book was published.
After only two events on a three week scheduled book tour, Reinman pulled out after extensive criticism. The Orthodox Council of Torah Sages ordered that Reinman stop the tour, feeling that the collaboration would further legitimatize Reform Judaism and its clergy. (Link: https://jweekly.com/2003/02/21/reform...)
Obviously, liberal Jewish pundits and Hirsch himself jumped at the opportunity to criticize the Orthodox for this move. Which is really fair, considering how blatant the censorship was. The most disheartening thing to come out of this was a post Reinman made to his website after the fallout, where he defends the Council's decision. Reinman laments that:
He rejects the book itself, saying
Lastly, he writes about a notable episode at one of the events:
Reinman's words here are harsh, and laughably hypocritical. In the afterword, soaked in grief over the thousands killed on September 11th, he wrote:
So much for hope, sensitivity, or yearning. Reinman, who spends most of the book telling Jews they need to reconnect to their tradition and dive into texts like the Talmud, changes his mind. There is a caveat, that Jews can only try to reconnect to tradition through the institutions he supports.
This drama after the book casts a shadow over the entire project. Again, I think the value here is the form of the argument, rather than the arguments themselves. The ego of these two men really get in the way of what this project could have been. Despite this, this book is so unique, daring, and scandalous that I would actually recommend it to anyone. Just with some caveats.
1) Rabbi Reinman, the representative of Orthodoxy, is clearly out of his depth and goes over the line a number of times.
2) Rabbi Hirsch's Zionism and zeal for Israel is outdated and misguided.
3) The tenor of both authors is weirdly awkward and insulting.
4) Events that took place after One People: Two Worlds was published undermine its message. I will get to this at the end.
There is a lot of good here though. As noted in the afterword by Rabbi Hirsch, the ideas in the book are not new, but the form is new. Rarely are competing Jewish ideas laid out in a point-counter-point format like this. The reader can read one argument and immediately hear the retort.
The bad:
First, I am surprised by reviewers who praise Reinman's writing here, going so far as to say that his arguments were as persuasive as Hirsch's. Reinman's prose, style, and appeal to emotion is stronger for sure, but he is so clearly out of depth in some portions of the exchange that it felt insulting.
For instance, at one point Reinman goes on an extremely long tirade attempting to disprove evolution. It is full of early-internet creationist crap that he clearly first read about moments before writing. His inexperience in the topic shows real hubris.
Also, throughout the book he veers too far off the deep end to be taken seriously. In a single email he compares homosexuality to bestiality, and suggests that conversion therapy is real science. Read for yourself:
"I assume that you accept homosexuality, and I understand you. I really do. From your point of view, why shouldn’t you? But let us follow that line of reasoning and see where it leads us. What about bestiality? Do you find that acceptable? Perhaps you do. But what about incest? Do you condone incest? I don’t think so." (Kindle loc 785)
and
"Homosexuality results from a combination of internal and external factors. Both may often be subject to change and modification. Contemporary society, however, conspires to prevent any adjustment in sexual orientation. Positive messages about alternative lifestyles saturate modern literature and the visual arts. At the same time, science has been forced to abandon research into psychological techniques that might be effective in returning the homosexual to the heterosexual fold. In effect, by refusing to acknowledge homosexuality as a problem, society is forcing homosexuals to remain as they are, without the benefit of psychological or spiritual counseling. According to the Torah, this is wrong." (Kindle loc 798)
Hirsch is not exactly the most persuasive writer, but Reinman's arguments are almost unreadable.
Second, the last section of the exchange focuses on Israel. Hirsch, who was in charge of the Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA) at the time, writes at length at why supporting Israel is imperative to Judaism. One harrowing quote is:
"Therefore, whatever Israel does, it does in the name of the Jewish people. Israel’s actions, by definition, are the actions of the Jewish people. Its values are Jewish values. Its accomplishments are Jewish accomplishments. Its flaws are Jewish flaws. This is how most Jews see it. This is how most of the world sees it." (Kindle loc: 4,849)
This is pretty jarring, especially now. I'm not sure if Hirsch is saying this is how things are or how they ought to be, but it doesn't sit right. According to his thoughts in this book, the ongoing genocide in Gaza is not only an action of the Jewish people, but a reflection of Jewish values.
Hirsch, who I found at least decent throughout the exchange falls apart in the last section. For me, at least. If you see the situation differently, that's fine. It's worth noting that he hasn't changed his mind over the years, and is currently one of the foremost Pro-Israel clergy left in the Reform movement.
Third, the vibe between the two Rabbis is really strange. Throughout the correspondence, they exchange insulting jabs and mischaracterize each other constantly. It is honestly strange how often they both denigrate themselves by using sarcastic and childish language over the course of the argument. I think both of them are equally abrasive.
Lastly: After the Afterword
The Afterword is actually quite beautiful. Reinman's response was sent only six days after 9/11 and Hirsch replied a couple weeks later. They both wrote positive things about each other and praise the other for reaching across the divide. I was left feeling actually hopeful after a brutally awkward read.
Which is sad, considering what happened after this book was published.
After only two events on a three week scheduled book tour, Reinman pulled out after extensive criticism. The Orthodox Council of Torah Sages ordered that Reinman stop the tour, feeling that the collaboration would further legitimatize Reform Judaism and its clergy. (Link: https://jweekly.com/2003/02/21/reform...)
Obviously, liberal Jewish pundits and Hirsch himself jumped at the opportunity to criticize the Orthodox for this move. Which is really fair, considering how blatant the censorship was. The most disheartening thing to come out of this was a post Reinman made to his website after the fallout, where he defends the Council's decision. Reinman laments that:
"The media completely ignored my explicit distinctions and depicted the exchange as a breakthrough, a breach in the Orthodox wall of rejection, which it was never meant to be. Most did not even bother to read the book. They just looked at the cover and, to my horror, painted me as the Rosa Parks of interdenominational dialogue."
He rejects the book itself, saying
"In retrospect, the premise of the book was a mistake, but what is done is done. The book has taken on a life of its own, and I hope and pray that it does only good and no harm."
Lastly, he writes about a notable episode at one of the events:
"As Ammi mentioned, when we were at the 92nd Street Y, the moderator asked me, "If someone has a choice between watching 'The Sopranos' and learning Talmud with a Reform rabbi, what would you advise him to do?" Things had been going so well, and now this bomb. I tried to wiggle out, but the moderator pinned me down. What could I do? So I took a deep breath and said, "He should watch 'The Sopranos.' "There was an audible gasp from the audience. I was mortified.
"Afterward, Richard Curtis, my wise friend and agent, told me, "Don't worry. People will respect your intellectual honesty. And besides, many people will go home wondering, 'What is so bad about learning Talmud with a Reform rabbi? Why would he say something like that?'"
"Why, indeed." (Link: https://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/dontj...)
Reinman's words here are harsh, and laughably hypocritical. In the afterword, soaked in grief over the thousands killed on September 11th, he wrote:
"I have gained a new sensitivity to my secular brothers and sisters. Now more than ever, I understand that so many of them yearn for some kind of religious expression of their Jewishness that will connect them with their ancestors and their illustrious history. [...] It was moving to discover a powerful Jewish heartbeat despite the widely reported apathy. It gave me a feeling of hope."
So much for hope, sensitivity, or yearning. Reinman, who spends most of the book telling Jews they need to reconnect to their tradition and dive into texts like the Talmud, changes his mind. There is a caveat, that Jews can only try to reconnect to tradition through the institutions he supports.
This drama after the book casts a shadow over the entire project. Again, I think the value here is the form of the argument, rather than the arguments themselves. The ego of these two men really get in the way of what this project could have been. Despite this, this book is so unique, daring, and scandalous that I would actually recommend it to anyone. Just with some caveats.
March 9, 2014
Great concept, and very enlightening. It's a book that reminds us that even the most emotional debate can be had in a civil way if by mensches like these two Rabbis. A very worthwhile read.
November 18, 2018
I first read this book 10 years ago and really loved it. I thought that Rabbi Reinman made concrete direct points and that Rabbi Hirsch responded with, what seemed to me, fluffy responses that did not really address the issue raised.
10 years later after rereading it I have a slightly different take on it. I still think Rabbi Reinman did a fantastic job and it’s a book worth reading, not for the debate itself, but rather for the content. To understand how Torah Judaism actually works. Over the years I have encountered many of Rabbi Hirsch’s questions or challenges from Jews from all walks of life. Basically I see it as an awesome FAQ on Torah Judaism.
In terms of the focus on a debate between an Orthodox Rabbi and a Reform Rabbi, I am no longer a fan of this type of dialog. Neither of them is in any type of position for a genuine inquiry and discussion. Each is defending their flagship belief system and can not give any ground. Additionally, their mindsets are coming from such different places, that logic and conversation will not change their minds.
My conclusion is that this is a great FAQ on Torah Judaism and a FAQ on Reform Judaism. Honestly, I find Reconstructionist Judaism much more consistent and logical than I do Reform Judaism. While I, of course, do not agree with Reconstructionist Judaism, at least I can understand and follow their line of thinking. Not so with Reform, I can’t find a consistency to it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not coincidence that on the day I finished reading this book (for the second time) about 18 years after it was published, Gal Beckerman, a non-orthodox Jew, wrote this cover story for the New York Times Book Review.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/bo...
Much of this article, coming from a Non-Orthodox perspective, mirrors Rabbi Reinman’s concerns for the longevity and essence of Judaism when its core is removed.
Here is an excerpt from the article:
“One hundred and thirty-three years later, this statement still expresses how a vast majority of American Jews think about what it means to be a Jew in this country. To be a Jew is to join the A.C.L.U., to travel to the border and act as a pro bono lawyer for immigrants, to join in the Women’s March. It’s the part of American Jewish identity that points with pride to the fact that Barack Obama won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008 and beams at Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s status as a liberal rock star.
The sociologist Jack Wertheimer dismisses this as “Golden Rule” Judaism in THE NEW AMERICAN JUDAISM: How Jews Practice Their Religion Today (Princeton University, $29.95), lamenting that as a form of religious practice — even with a faith that stresses deeds over beliefs — it represents a slide toward the empty and platitudinous: “A rich, complex and at times contradictory religious system has been reduced to a set of vague slogans — ‘Justice, justice, shall you pursue,’ ‘Made in God’s image,’ ‘Love the stranger’ and ‘Repair the world.’”
Wertheimer is harsh on this form of Judaism, seeing it as an easy, self-congratulatory way to slap a seal of tradition onto pre-existing liberalism. He’s wrong to discount it as meaningless. Some of the most vibrant activity around synagogues every weekend has to do with food banking or raising funds for Syrian refugees. But I do share his assessment that as religious practice, this is pretty thin. It’s not hard to imagine a day when American Jews stop thinking about their commitment to social justice as Jewishly inflected and see it instead as just that, a commitment to social justice. What then of the more thickly religious practices, the world of ritual and spirituality?
……The affliction the sociologist Herbert Gans calls “terminal ethnic identity” is a condition of white ethnic groups like Jews and the Irish, who by the third generation of their family’s existence in America would, as Gans predicted in a 1979 paper, view their heritage as “more of a leisure-time activity” (like, say, watching “Seinfeld”). By the seventh, “their secular cultures will be only a dim memory.” A majority of American Jews in that 2013 Pew survey rated “humor” and “intellectual curiosity” much higher than community and religious practice as indicators of Jewishness. This would put them on the path to terminal. At this rate, American Jews are two or three generations away from being as Jewish as “Irish” people whose Irishness consists of drinking green beer on St. Patrick’s Day.”
It’s worth reading the whole article. It strongly bolsters Rabbi Reinman’s contentions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are some of my favorite excerpts from Rabbi Reinman:
Rabbi Reinman: You asked me how Orthodox Jews can be engaged in the search for truth if we believe we already have it in the Torah.
Absolute truth is certainly revealed in the divine Torah, but we cannot simply open to, let’s say, page 134 and check it out. We have to study and think over and over again until we can discern the transcendent truths of existence within the pages of the Torah. It is the work of a lifetime, many lifetimes, but it is the quest that gives life meaning and value. It is the secret of the spiritual fulfillment…that Orthodoxy does indeed deliver.
In closing, I want to restate the questions I am posing to you.
Is there absolute truth?
Are we searching for it, and can it be found?
What validity do you give to the Torah?
What is its authority?
Do you believe in it, and if so, why? – Pgs. 14-15
Rabbi Reinman: You chide me for craving certainty, but it seems to me that you crave uncertainty. The world may be an uncertain place, as you say, but some things should be certain. Your love for your family. Your loyalty to your people. Your relationship with your G-d.
Religion, by definition, is based on divine revelation. If the knowledge of G-d is not based on communication between G-d and mankind, then we have philosophy rather than religion. You cannot really have a relationship with G-d if He has never communicated with you.
You obviously agree that Judaism is predicated on some form of divine revelation. Otherwise, how do you know that the Jewish people have been “selected for a divine task”? I would like to hear about this divine revelation as you understand it. I would like to know how this belief can coexist with fundamental doubt. I would like to know, when you say, “I believe it,” on what you base this belief. Is it based on evidence, on reason, on acceptance of what your father and grandfather told you? I am very interested in hearing specifics. – Pg. 25
An Eye For An Eye [great piece where Rabbi Reinman explains the misconception about the Rabbis changing this law.] – Pg. 28
Rabbi Reinman: I want to begin by making four observations about your beliefs or lack thereof.
…Point number one, You have no idea about what G-d wants or thinks, for you write, “All societies I am aware of believe murder and theft to be wrong; it is quite another thing to suggest I know what G-d wants since He already revealed it to me (or my ancestors).”
…Point number two. You do not believe in the constancy of values but in constant change…
… Point number three. You have clearly demonstrated in all your postings that you believe Judaism must change to adapt to the requirements of a modern, pluralistic society…
… Point number four. You reinterpret the Torah all the time to fit your new perceptions, for you write, “What makes something a Jewish norm is not that it is written in the Torah. It becomes Jewish only after having been interpreted and reinterpreted by generation after generation of Jews and ultimately accepted by the contemporary generation.”
…I believe I have not misstated your position. In a nutshell, there are no rules. Or rather, the rules are what you say they are, as you see fit according to your contemporary perceptions.
This to me, is not a description of Judaism but of a well-meaning, secular liberalism. The fountainhead of your values is not the Torah but “society and modernity.” You look to society for guidance in establishing your values, and then you reinterpret the Torah to give a semblance of spirituality and tradition to what you have accepted as the currently operative norms and values.
Your Judaism does not guide you. It is a rubber stamp to endorse your latest liberal opinion.
G-d is not your Master. He is your slave. You drag Him along behind you and use His name to sanctify the flavor of the month that you choose to embrace. Is this religion? Is this Judaism?
- Pgs. 38-39
Rabbi Reinman’s analogy of Judaism to chess on page 44.
Rabbi Reinman talking about the Reform movements approach to homosexual marriage versus Rabbi Hirsch’s approach. – Pg. 60
Rabbi Reinman’s bell curve analogy for Orthodox and secular Jews. - Pgs. 64-65
Rabbi Reinman talking about the accuracy of Torah scrolls. – Pg. 119
Rabbi Reinman’s expansion of the Kuzari’s proof of the authenticity of the Torah and revelation. - Pgs. 124-131
Rabbi Reinman’s response to Biblical criticism and “Conclusive Proof” – Pgs. 183-191
Rabbi Reinman: You write, “I think we will agree that the Judaism we practice today is not at all the Judaism practiced in biblical times.” We will agree on nothing of the sort. We wear the same tallit and tefillin as we did then. We keep the same Shabbat and festivals with all their observances and laws. We follow the same dietary laws. We live by the same commandments, values, and principles. All that has changed is that rabbinic courts added precautionary laws as “a fence around the Torah.” But the Torah inside that fence has never changed nor will it ever change. It has survived all sorts of adversity throughout the ages. It will survive Reform as well. - Pg. 206
Rabbi Reinman’s exposition on the key feature of Talmudic scholarship – consistency. – Pg. 208
Rabbi Reinman: What exactly is autonomy? It is freedom from obligation. One does whatever mitzvah one wants to do if and when one feels like doing it. There is nothing that one is obligated to do. Autonomy is the exact opposite of a covenant, which creates obligations. It is like the difference between a casual affair and a marriage. Reform has tried to wriggle out of the sacred covenant of the Torah. They don’t want the burdens and strictures of marriage, but they are not against an occasional rendezvous when the mood is right. They want an amiable divorce. They want to remain friends. – Pg. 222
10 years later after rereading it I have a slightly different take on it. I still think Rabbi Reinman did a fantastic job and it’s a book worth reading, not for the debate itself, but rather for the content. To understand how Torah Judaism actually works. Over the years I have encountered many of Rabbi Hirsch’s questions or challenges from Jews from all walks of life. Basically I see it as an awesome FAQ on Torah Judaism.
In terms of the focus on a debate between an Orthodox Rabbi and a Reform Rabbi, I am no longer a fan of this type of dialog. Neither of them is in any type of position for a genuine inquiry and discussion. Each is defending their flagship belief system and can not give any ground. Additionally, their mindsets are coming from such different places, that logic and conversation will not change their minds.
My conclusion is that this is a great FAQ on Torah Judaism and a FAQ on Reform Judaism. Honestly, I find Reconstructionist Judaism much more consistent and logical than I do Reform Judaism. While I, of course, do not agree with Reconstructionist Judaism, at least I can understand and follow their line of thinking. Not so with Reform, I can’t find a consistency to it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not coincidence that on the day I finished reading this book (for the second time) about 18 years after it was published, Gal Beckerman, a non-orthodox Jew, wrote this cover story for the New York Times Book Review.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/bo...
Much of this article, coming from a Non-Orthodox perspective, mirrors Rabbi Reinman’s concerns for the longevity and essence of Judaism when its core is removed.
Here is an excerpt from the article:
“One hundred and thirty-three years later, this statement still expresses how a vast majority of American Jews think about what it means to be a Jew in this country. To be a Jew is to join the A.C.L.U., to travel to the border and act as a pro bono lawyer for immigrants, to join in the Women’s March. It’s the part of American Jewish identity that points with pride to the fact that Barack Obama won 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008 and beams at Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s status as a liberal rock star.
The sociologist Jack Wertheimer dismisses this as “Golden Rule” Judaism in THE NEW AMERICAN JUDAISM: How Jews Practice Their Religion Today (Princeton University, $29.95), lamenting that as a form of religious practice — even with a faith that stresses deeds over beliefs — it represents a slide toward the empty and platitudinous: “A rich, complex and at times contradictory religious system has been reduced to a set of vague slogans — ‘Justice, justice, shall you pursue,’ ‘Made in God’s image,’ ‘Love the stranger’ and ‘Repair the world.’”
Wertheimer is harsh on this form of Judaism, seeing it as an easy, self-congratulatory way to slap a seal of tradition onto pre-existing liberalism. He’s wrong to discount it as meaningless. Some of the most vibrant activity around synagogues every weekend has to do with food banking or raising funds for Syrian refugees. But I do share his assessment that as religious practice, this is pretty thin. It’s not hard to imagine a day when American Jews stop thinking about their commitment to social justice as Jewishly inflected and see it instead as just that, a commitment to social justice. What then of the more thickly religious practices, the world of ritual and spirituality?
……The affliction the sociologist Herbert Gans calls “terminal ethnic identity” is a condition of white ethnic groups like Jews and the Irish, who by the third generation of their family’s existence in America would, as Gans predicted in a 1979 paper, view their heritage as “more of a leisure-time activity” (like, say, watching “Seinfeld”). By the seventh, “their secular cultures will be only a dim memory.” A majority of American Jews in that 2013 Pew survey rated “humor” and “intellectual curiosity” much higher than community and religious practice as indicators of Jewishness. This would put them on the path to terminal. At this rate, American Jews are two or three generations away from being as Jewish as “Irish” people whose Irishness consists of drinking green beer on St. Patrick’s Day.”
It’s worth reading the whole article. It strongly bolsters Rabbi Reinman’s contentions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are some of my favorite excerpts from Rabbi Reinman:
Rabbi Reinman: You asked me how Orthodox Jews can be engaged in the search for truth if we believe we already have it in the Torah.
Absolute truth is certainly revealed in the divine Torah, but we cannot simply open to, let’s say, page 134 and check it out. We have to study and think over and over again until we can discern the transcendent truths of existence within the pages of the Torah. It is the work of a lifetime, many lifetimes, but it is the quest that gives life meaning and value. It is the secret of the spiritual fulfillment…that Orthodoxy does indeed deliver.
In closing, I want to restate the questions I am posing to you.
Is there absolute truth?
Are we searching for it, and can it be found?
What validity do you give to the Torah?
What is its authority?
Do you believe in it, and if so, why? – Pgs. 14-15
Rabbi Reinman: You chide me for craving certainty, but it seems to me that you crave uncertainty. The world may be an uncertain place, as you say, but some things should be certain. Your love for your family. Your loyalty to your people. Your relationship with your G-d.
Religion, by definition, is based on divine revelation. If the knowledge of G-d is not based on communication between G-d and mankind, then we have philosophy rather than religion. You cannot really have a relationship with G-d if He has never communicated with you.
You obviously agree that Judaism is predicated on some form of divine revelation. Otherwise, how do you know that the Jewish people have been “selected for a divine task”? I would like to hear about this divine revelation as you understand it. I would like to know how this belief can coexist with fundamental doubt. I would like to know, when you say, “I believe it,” on what you base this belief. Is it based on evidence, on reason, on acceptance of what your father and grandfather told you? I am very interested in hearing specifics. – Pg. 25
An Eye For An Eye [great piece where Rabbi Reinman explains the misconception about the Rabbis changing this law.] – Pg. 28
Rabbi Reinman: I want to begin by making four observations about your beliefs or lack thereof.
…Point number one, You have no idea about what G-d wants or thinks, for you write, “All societies I am aware of believe murder and theft to be wrong; it is quite another thing to suggest I know what G-d wants since He already revealed it to me (or my ancestors).”
…Point number two. You do not believe in the constancy of values but in constant change…
… Point number three. You have clearly demonstrated in all your postings that you believe Judaism must change to adapt to the requirements of a modern, pluralistic society…
… Point number four. You reinterpret the Torah all the time to fit your new perceptions, for you write, “What makes something a Jewish norm is not that it is written in the Torah. It becomes Jewish only after having been interpreted and reinterpreted by generation after generation of Jews and ultimately accepted by the contemporary generation.”
…I believe I have not misstated your position. In a nutshell, there are no rules. Or rather, the rules are what you say they are, as you see fit according to your contemporary perceptions.
This to me, is not a description of Judaism but of a well-meaning, secular liberalism. The fountainhead of your values is not the Torah but “society and modernity.” You look to society for guidance in establishing your values, and then you reinterpret the Torah to give a semblance of spirituality and tradition to what you have accepted as the currently operative norms and values.
Your Judaism does not guide you. It is a rubber stamp to endorse your latest liberal opinion.
G-d is not your Master. He is your slave. You drag Him along behind you and use His name to sanctify the flavor of the month that you choose to embrace. Is this religion? Is this Judaism?
- Pgs. 38-39
Rabbi Reinman’s analogy of Judaism to chess on page 44.
Rabbi Reinman talking about the Reform movements approach to homosexual marriage versus Rabbi Hirsch’s approach. – Pg. 60
Rabbi Reinman’s bell curve analogy for Orthodox and secular Jews. - Pgs. 64-65
Rabbi Reinman talking about the accuracy of Torah scrolls. – Pg. 119
Rabbi Reinman’s expansion of the Kuzari’s proof of the authenticity of the Torah and revelation. - Pgs. 124-131
Rabbi Reinman’s response to Biblical criticism and “Conclusive Proof” – Pgs. 183-191
Rabbi Reinman: You write, “I think we will agree that the Judaism we practice today is not at all the Judaism practiced in biblical times.” We will agree on nothing of the sort. We wear the same tallit and tefillin as we did then. We keep the same Shabbat and festivals with all their observances and laws. We follow the same dietary laws. We live by the same commandments, values, and principles. All that has changed is that rabbinic courts added precautionary laws as “a fence around the Torah.” But the Torah inside that fence has never changed nor will it ever change. It has survived all sorts of adversity throughout the ages. It will survive Reform as well. - Pg. 206
Rabbi Reinman’s exposition on the key feature of Talmudic scholarship – consistency. – Pg. 208
Rabbi Reinman: What exactly is autonomy? It is freedom from obligation. One does whatever mitzvah one wants to do if and when one feels like doing it. There is nothing that one is obligated to do. Autonomy is the exact opposite of a covenant, which creates obligations. It is like the difference between a casual affair and a marriage. Reform has tried to wriggle out of the sacred covenant of the Torah. They don’t want the burdens and strictures of marriage, but they are not against an occasional rendezvous when the mood is right. They want an amiable divorce. They want to remain friends. – Pg. 222
January 1, 2021
Chanukah gave me the time to finish the book "One People, Two Worlds"
One of the most enjoyable reads for sometime. A unique project of dialogue via an exchange of emails over a 20 month period between a Haredi Rabbi from Lakewood and a Reform Rabbi from New York.
I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with both (can't help myself), and confirming why personally I cannot be a member of either.
I was left inspired, not so much by the argument back and forth, as you can imagine they finished the book continuing to disagree on almost everything, but the warmth of the way they disagreed.
In an era of religious polarisation this book gives genuine relief and raises the hope that dialogue across chasmic divides is not only possible, but cannot generate respect and friendship.
Highly recommend this book and wish it were also available to the Hebrew reader.
One of the most enjoyable reads for sometime. A unique project of dialogue via an exchange of emails over a 20 month period between a Haredi Rabbi from Lakewood and a Reform Rabbi from New York.
I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with both (can't help myself), and confirming why personally I cannot be a member of either.
I was left inspired, not so much by the argument back and forth, as you can imagine they finished the book continuing to disagree on almost everything, but the warmth of the way they disagreed.
In an era of religious polarisation this book gives genuine relief and raises the hope that dialogue across chasmic divides is not only possible, but cannot generate respect and friendship.
Highly recommend this book and wish it were also available to the Hebrew reader.
September 14, 2022
Within the first 50 pages it became abundantly clear that this would be a circular book, with each email exchange featuring the same arguments as the email preceding it. Towards the end of the book it felt like the the Reform Rabbi lost steam, wasn't so interested in hashing out his differences with Rabbi Reinman.
When they finally discuss Israel, the Reform Rabbi provides paragraph after paragraph of platitudes about the State of Israel. Rather than really engaging in a thoughtful debate and conversation, the Reform Rabbi tries to win by virtue of his poetic writing. The Reform Rabbi--and the readership, for that matter--would have been better off had he actually engaged the substance of what Rabbi Reinman was saying.
When they finally discuss Israel, the Reform Rabbi provides paragraph after paragraph of platitudes about the State of Israel. Rather than really engaging in a thoughtful debate and conversation, the Reform Rabbi tries to win by virtue of his poetic writing. The Reform Rabbi--and the readership, for that matter--would have been better off had he actually engaged the substance of what Rabbi Reinman was saying.
March 20, 2022
I grew up entirely non observant and never understood the Reform movement. I guess I was always kind of a “non practicing orthodox jew” (now on the path to being practicing). I wanted to read this to understand the Reform movement better, and it confirmed all my worst suspicions. Was not expecting the dialogue on Israel/Zionism, which until recently I wasn’t even really cognizant of the full breadth of, despite spending years in Israel advocacy. Really amazing book and will be enlightening for any Jew.
May 18, 2025
A book documnting email exchanges between two religious clerics who disagreed on numerous viewspoints was intriguing from the beginning, but the true definition of intelligent friendship. Like many books on religion, this will take a lifetime to digest, and a note to any reader that if any words sound harsh, remember that even in 2000, emails are read and one-sided exchanges between the two, as you and I lack the actual context for how and what the tone was, but one can only infer that the two rabbis exchanged with a passion.
April 21, 2019
Both rabbis conduct their arguments in good faith, and I appreciate their efforts at honest, level communication. I definitely came away with some new things to muse about. That said, sometimes the arguments on both sides fell weak. There have been plenty of reviews here criticizing the Reform rabbi, but the Orthodox rabbi also often fell back on anecdotes heard through the grapevine and slippery slope arguments.
June 7, 2022
Meets expectations. I found myself continuously frustrated by both sides of this diologue, and can say I'm happy I read it. It was excellent that it did what it set out to do, in that this was a big step in opening up different sects of Jews communicating that were reluctant to in writ previously. Not particularly revolutionary in itself otherwise.
July 16, 2019
Giving this read 5 stars even though it’s a DNF for me. Read this with my fiancé and it sparked a lot of really good, deep conversation about our Judaism. Ultimately we only shelved it due to a lack of time and a lack of ability to read it without following up with a 2-hour discussion.
July 18, 2020
Super interesting concept for a book, and interesting to hear the two sides share their points of view on Judaism, but was ultimately a bit hard to get through when neither side really considers the other side’s arguments valid.
December 21, 2021
tough look for the reform jews, reinman is such a better orator / writer
October 3, 2012
I found the book to be an entertaining and interesting snapshot in time, depicting the gap between Orthodox and Reform versions of Judaism. It's already a bit dated, 10+ years after it was written, which actually added to its appeal for me.
R' Reinman somewhat dominates the discussion, and therefore the book, and he tends to be speaking to the reader as opposed to R' Hirsch, while Hirsch seems to be speaking directly to Reinman. I think a moderator with some editorial control could have made this book far better -- but for what it was, I still generally enjoyed it.
While Reading the book, I didn't get a sense that they had much use for each other -- all while they claim to be fond of one another -- so all I can assume is that their friendship is based on interaction outside of the book itself.
R' Reinman somewhat dominates the discussion, and therefore the book, and he tends to be speaking to the reader as opposed to R' Hirsch, while Hirsch seems to be speaking directly to Reinman. I think a moderator with some editorial control could have made this book far better -- but for what it was, I still generally enjoyed it.
While Reading the book, I didn't get a sense that they had much use for each other -- all while they claim to be fond of one another -- so all I can assume is that their friendship is based on interaction outside of the book itself.
May 23, 2012
I had some trouble getting through this book, but almost exactly half of it - that is, I found the Orthodox writer to be increasingly condescending, rhetorically slippery, sarcastic, and sanctimonious. I suppose he did get his perspective as an Orthodox Jew across, even with all that, so there's that. The Reform rabbi, on the other hand, was much more pleasant to read, and also much more consistent and particular in his arguments and ideas, and there's a certain satisfaction each time he rebukes his opposite.
April 11, 2007
Really well done. Easy to go with pre-conceived notions- but all both points of view frequently well done. Braod choice of issues- role of women, role of orthodox in reform, G-d written or G-d inspired text, gay rights-- and more. worth reading more than once
May 4, 2011
A somewhat awkward debate between an Orthodox rabbi and a Reform rabbi (both males). Some valid points are made with appropriate sources provided. I'm doing a lot of underlining in pencil and thinking. Fairly good read so far.
September 3, 2012
As a practicing Jew for my entire life, this book significantly altered the way I view some facets of Judaism. I often suggest this book to anyone I encounter who is undergoing any type of transitional process within his or her practicing/understanding of Judaism.
Read
September 23, 2010"One people, two worlds : an Orthodox rabbi and a Reform rabbi explore the issues that divide them by Ammiel Hirsch (2002)"
July 24, 2012
Pathetic, superficial and dogmatic discussion. I absolutely gain no valuable insights on the topics included. Some good points.
March 30, 2015
If you are interested in understanding the differences between Orthodox Jews and Reform Jews, this is the best book I found on the subject.
September 7, 2018
You know that feeling you get when watching a Western and the people are shooting at each other but not quite hitting one another? This is the feeling you get when reading the book. Is it bad aim? Is it that the other person has better cover? Divine intervention? Who knows? Who cares? Both parties seem to be debating not quite the same thing and/or using proofs that aren't quite valid to the other person.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews