Monday, October 18, 2021

Chickens and International Warfare

For most of us, it's pretty obvious that wars, of the kind that took place over most of history, are a Very Bad Thing. Killing people, enslaving them, stealing their resources, are all terrible crimes. Right?

But what about chickens?

Most people in the world eat chicken and eggs. And yet chickens are genetically developed and raised in such a way that they live the most appalling lives of suffering.

This is not a blog post about encouraging people to be vegetarian. (And I am not vegetarian.) It's about facing up to what our moral code actually is. We are perfectly ready to inflict harm upon certain types of "others" when it's for our own basic well-being. And I'm not saying that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, neither from a Torah nor a secular moral perspective. From a Torah perspective, there are definitely hierarchies which allow one group to take advantage of others - such as people taking advantage of animals. And from a secular perspective, the entire biological drive is based on trying to improve the lot of your own group, regardless of others.

A similar argument is developed in detail by the late distinguished political scientist Felix E. Oppenheim, in an article titled "National Interest, Rationality, and Morality." He points out that it only makes sense to talk about moral choices when there are different options realistically available. When there are no options available - such as when there is only one course of action that can ensure survival - morality is simply irrelevant. The international relations scholar Arnold Wolfson stated that "Moral advice not to submit to the necessities of survival... would be advice to commit national suicide" - but Oppenheim adds that it would suffer the more basic problem of not being rational. "Given that the national interest is the only valuational standard practically available to statesmen, acting accordingly is to be characterized as rational, but not as ethically right or wrong."
Of course, history is rife with examples of this being abused. False claims of "national security" have been used to justify all kinds of unjustifiable atrocities. But this doesn't mean that it is never correct to use this approach. The fact that people sometimes are lying when they claim "I killed him in self-defense" does not mean that it is not legitimate to kill in self-defense!

Rav Yaakov Ariel points out that the Gemara (Berachot 3b) rates engaging in military action to ensure national survival - even in terms of economic survival - as perfectly normative. This only sounds shocking to some of us today is because we don't understand what economic survival really means. It doesn't mean avoiding a market crash. It means avoiding starving to death.

The only reason why we condemn warfare is that we have the luxury to do so. And we have the luxury to do so because we live in an era where our basic needs for survival can be easily met, and never require us to fight others in order to attain them. As Yuval Harari brilliantly explains in Sapiens, one of the results of science and technology on society and the economy is that warfare dramatically declined. Most nations can easily provide for their own needs, and whatever problems they have wouldn't be solved by waging wars on others. In today's world, you're much more likely to improve your nation's economy by forging trade partnerships with your neighbors rather than by invading them. 

If we were in a situation where we and our countrymen were starving to death, and the only way to save us all would be to raid another country, you can bet your bottom dollar that we would all be in favor of that. There would be no objective standard by which to judge it as "right" or "wrong" - it would simply be the only rational course of action (just as the only rational course of action by the neighboring country would be to defend itself).

If you disagree, then I expect you to say that you don't eat chicken or eggs.

(UPDATE: From the initial reactions to this post, I see that a lot of people are making unwarranted assumptions. I urge everyone who thinks that they find something here disagreeable to read Oppenheim's article, published in Political Theory, at this link.)


If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

Sunday, October 17, 2021

Exceptional Charedim

The other night I went to the Kotel, to take my daughter on the occasion of her birthday. What we didn't know was that it happened to be the night of a hashba'ah, a swearing-in ceremony for IDF soldiers. I passed a wonderful charedi couple who were posing for photos with their son, and I couldn't resist taking a photo also.

It's a great picture, and it shows that there are charedim who have their sons enlist in the IDF and are proud of it. But at the same time, these are the exception that proves the rule. Nobody would be taking pictures of dati-leumi parents posing with their soldier son, because such a thing is perfectly ordinary. With charedim, on the other hand, there are only a tiny minority who send their sons to the army, and an even smaller number who actually proud of their sons for it (there is a category of Lone Soldiers who are charedi soldiers whose families have disowned them). 

Here's another example of an exceptional person. The BBC has an incredible story about a Chassidic rabbi from Brooklyn who has managed to rescue many dozens of people from Afghanistan. It shows that there are chassidim whose concern for others extends far beyond their community, to non-Jews in a different part of the world. At the same time, it is also true that such behavior is unusual.

In last week's post about Chassidim on a Plane, some people criticized it as being generic, prejudicial, unfounded, and even antisemitic. They are wrong.

I never claimed that all chassidim act this way on airplanes. Obviously, there are many who do not. At the same time, it also true that chassidim engage in such behavior to a much, much higher degree than do other Jews (for sociological reasons that are readily apparent). 

Making a generalization from a small number of cases to an entire group would be wrong. However, there's nothing wrong with making a general statement about a group which is true. Generally speaking, Americans are more overtly friendly than are Brits. There's a greater problem with the behavior of Israelis at hotels than with other nationalities. And there's a widespread problem with chassidic behavior on airplanes. That's just the plain truth.

Finally, to those who claim that I hate chassidim or charedim, I would like to point out the following. Due to my job at the Biblical Museum of Natural History, I interact with a broader range of chassidim and charedim than probably anyone else here. And the interactions are, without exception, entirely positive, and I love all of them.

I don't hate chassidim or charedim. I just recognize that there are very serious societal problems that need to be fixed.


If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

Friday, October 15, 2021

Who Disagrees?

I'm going to say something which I used to think was completely obvious. But I've recently realized that it's not obvious to everyone. And I've heard some people explicitly dispute it.

I'm going to say it about myself, but I think that it's true of pretty much everyone, even those who purport to disagree.

Here goes:

I care about my own children more than I care about my neighbor's children.

I care about my neighbor's children more than I care about the children of a stranger in a different city.

I care about the children of a stranger in a different city more than I care about the children of a stranger in a different country.

Obviously there are complexities to this, and different types of relationships and hierarchies, but my point is that there is a hierarchy. To this I will add that I personally am not ashamed of any of this in the slightest. It's biologically natural and it's legitimate. Though it turns out that some people would be very ashamed to admit to such a thing, and therefore say that they believe otherwise.


If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 



Wednesday, October 13, 2021

Chassidim on a Plane

A neighbor of mine posted the following account of what transpired during a plane flight:

I just flew to and from Israel... and I have never been more mortified to be Orthodox. The plane was trashed. The bathrooms wrecked. A flight attendant remarked that this route is always left this way, while after 15 hours to Japan, the plane is left spotless. Men crowded the aisles and blocked the passageways, forming a minyan even while being explicitly told that they could not do so A- because the seat belt sign was on and B- because of the pandemic. While attendants were buckled in because of turbulence, stopped food service because of turbulence, men were up and putting on tefillin even while flight attendants and the captain himself begged them to sit down and buckle up. They could not have cared less. It was as if they were deaf or above the rules or both. 

To describe myself as shocked is an understatement. It got to the point that I asked them who they were even praying to, who would possibly listen to their tefilot when they were causing us such humiliation and chillul Hashem. I don't know who to turn to to speak about this and I do not want to trash an entire community. But this was so so bad that if I myself was feeling such anger and animosity and close to posting videos I can't think that someone actually doing this who is not Orthodox is far off. In all seriousness, rabbis and Leadership needs to address this. If anyone has ideas as to who to turn to, please let me know.

Someone else I know who was on the flight also told me about it and sent me videos. She commented that it was crazy and doesn't make any sense at all. 

But in fact, it most certainly makes sense. 

There are three reasons why one would comply with safety regulations on planes. One is because those are the rules and rules should be followed. The second is to conform with social norms. And the third is because it's, y'know, important to actually be safe

None of these are particularly relevant to chassidim. (And even before seeing the photos and videos, it was obvious that chassidim were being described, although Lithuanian charedim are also to an extent guilty of this).

Rules are only followed when one sees oneself as being part of the system which institutes the rules. Charedim in general, and chasidim in particular, do not see themselves as being part of that system. To some extent, it's a cultural hangover from Europe when the government was the enemy. They don't see secular rules as having any authority. Rules are for goyim (or for the Modern Orthodox, which is practically the same thing).

Likewise, they see no need for conforming with social norms. You only conform with social norms if you are part of that society. Charedim, on the other hand, and especially chassidim, follow a general societal model of isolationism. They couldn't care less about what others say, because they consider themselves to be separate from, and above, everyone. Humans feel no need to conform to the social norms of dogs and cats, and chassidim feel no need to conform to the social norms of non-chassidim.

Finally, with regard to safety, the rules are likewise only for goyim. Safety rules are to do with physics and science and experts and professionalism, all of which are very far removed from the chassidish worldview. 

So, what can be done?

My immediate reaction was to say that the only thing that could work is a public expose. It's unpleasant, but that's the only thing that got the charedi world to start taking child abuse somewhat seriously, as Agudas Yisrael's Rabbi Chaim Zwiebel acknowledged

But on further reflection, I think that even that just wouldn't work here. I just don't think that the movers and shakers in the chassidic community care enough about what the secular press says, such as to start teaching an entirely different message to their communities about how to behave. Possibly pointing out that YAFFED gains support from public negative perceptions of chassidim might have some impact, but it's a long shot.

Unfortunately, I can't think of anything that would work (though I do think that all of us have a responsibility to publicly rebuke such behavior when we see it). What would conceivably give rise to a cheshbon hanefesh about taking rules and safety and being part of society seriously? Even 45 people being killed on Meron didn't do it!

But at the very least, perhaps publications such as Mishpacha can stop writing articles about how flare-ups with charedim on planes are entirely due to hostile flight crews. And Assemblyman Daniel Rosenthal can stop talking about "media caricatures" of the Orthodox community as uncaring for human life and heedless of regulations. 


If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you. 

Wednesday, October 6, 2021

When Asked to Justify a Condemnation

A few months ago, Hamas was firing thousands of rockets, yet Israel was under international condemnation from much of the world. A group of mostly Jewish academics of Jewish and Israel studies decided to effectively support Hamas by issuing a public condemnation of "the state violence that the Israeli government and its security forces have been carrying out in Gaza" (with a later tepid acknowledgement that the rockets from Hamas were unjustifiable and indiscriminate). 

This week, I noticed one of the signatories - Professor Shaul Magid, a former Orthodox rabbi with a long white beard - appearing on Facebook. (It was regarding a post about settler violence by Robby Berman, a person with the unusually nuanced view that Israel commits terrible injustices to Palestinians on a regular basis, but withdrawing from the West Bank right now would be a mistake, just like withdrawing from Gaza was a mistake.) I decided to take the opportunity to engage Professor Magid regarding Gaza. An extraordinary exchange ensued, which you can read at this link. The parallels to the 2004 Daas Torah condemnation of my books are striking!

Not What You Think

Can you guess what real-life scenario is being described here? The conversation is only very slightly paraphrased.

Background: A group of authorities signs a letter of condemnation regarding a certain approach. The accused, from their own community, has the backing of numerous diverse people on this particular approach (even from those who disagree with the accused on other matters), and who are stunned by this condemnation. One of them approaches one of the signatories, a rabbi with a long white beard, to explain his position:

Questioner: How could you sign such a letter?

Rabbi: Because the accused did a terrible, terrible thing!

Questioner: How do you know? Are you familiar with the facts of the case?

Rabbi: No, I don't quite know, I'm not an expert in these things. But I know people who are! And they also condemn it.

Questioner: Are you aware that there are plenty of experts who do not condemn it?

Rabbi: Well, I suppose there are, but I personally agree with those who did condemn it.

Questioner: But if you admit that you don't actually know what happened here, what right do you have to decide to agree with the condemnation? Here is the actual data and arguments, which show that the accused didn't do anything terrible at all. What he did was perfectly normative, even heroic.

Rabbi: Listen, I might not be able to actually explain why it was a terrible crime, but it's one of those situations in which I can say that I know it when I see it! 

Questioner: But I've provided actual arguments and evidence which show that there was no crime at all. And you haven't been able to come up with anything in response!

Rabbi: Goodbye. Have a nice day.

The questioner then approaches another bearded signatory, a purported expert in Judaism:

Questioner: Can you explain your basis for signing the condemnation? The accused did exactly what was appropriate!

Bearded signatory #2: You're ignoring the main issue, which is the fact that the accused started this whole situation in the first place.

Questioner: I don't agree at all - I think it was an existing situation which the accused was simply trying provide a solution for. But even if your claim is true, how would that justify condemning him for doing exactly what was appropriate at this point?

Bearded signatory #2: I never said that! You're mischaracterizing my argument!

Questioner: Okay, so can you tell me what your argument actually is?

Bearded signatory #2: No. It's not worth discussing it with you. Your views in other areas are so misguided that it's a waste of time. Stop harassing me.

Questioner: But you signed a very public letter of condemnation. You don't have to engage with everyone who argues with you about it, but surely you need to somewhere publicly justify why you signed.

Bearded signatory #2: I'll explain it privately to my disciples. I'm not interested in engaging with you or providing any public justification. Goodbye.

*   *   *

The above is a great description of what happened with the ban on my books, 16 years ago. But it's actually not what I'm describing at all. Instead, it's something very, very different and much more recent. The astonishing details - which make the analogies to the ban on my books all the more amazing - will be revealed in the next post.

If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you.

Sunday, October 3, 2021

Revisers of the Lost Ark

What is an ark? There's the Ark of the Covenant that Indiana Jones tried to raid, the Ark of the Law that is situated in every synagogue - and, of course, Noah's Ark. But what exactly is an ark?

Last year, I wrote a post about the challenge of building a scale model of Noah's Ark for the Biblical Museum of Natural History. (We haven't done it yet, though we did build a magnificent stylized Noah's Ark as a donor board in the entrance hall of the museum). But I think that, along with Hollywood director Darren Aronofsky, I may have made a mistake.

What shape was the Ark? Last year I wrote as follows: "Popular depictions of Noah's Ark present it as being a large boat. Boats have rounded hulls, to reduce drag as they move through the water. But the whole significance of Noah's Ark (in contrast to Gilgamesh and other such stories) is that Noah was not a sailor and the Ark was not a boat. It was not designed to move through the water, merely to float in it. It was an ark, a box, not a ship. In that respect, Darren Aronofsky's horrible 2014 film Noah with Russell Crowe was more accurate, depicting the Ark as a crate-like structure." 

I wrote this because the word teivah, which also appears in the Talmud in reference to the Ark of the Law (aron hakodesh), refers to a sort of cabinet/ chest/ box, not to any kind of waterborne form of transport. But do you see the mistake that I made?

The mistake was to equate the Talmudic usage of the word with the Biblical meaning. Words change their meaning over time. For example, the word olam in Tanach means "forever," and only later was it used to mean "world" or "universe."

In Tanach, the word teivah is not used in reference to the Ark of the Covenant - that is an aron. The word appears in precisely two contexts. One is Noah's Ark, and the other is the basket that Moshe was placed in, to be floated upon the Nile. Both of them are containers that were created to float in water, and were waterproofed with pitch. As such, it seems more than likely that the word teivah refers to a vessel designed to float in the water. This would mean that even if this particular Ark was not designed to travel anywhere, it was still constructed in the same way as every waterborne vessel. (In addition, the fact that the teivah was constructed as a long, narrow structure also implies that it was modeled after a waterborne transport.) Dr. Irving Finkel, an expert in ancient Mesopotamian script, languages, and cultures at the British Museum, has written that the word tubbu appears in a 2500 year old cuneiform tablet in reference to some sort of boat - and possibly linked to the English word "tub," which also refers either to a boat, or to a container!

If the teivah was a form of waterborne vessel, this also further implies that it was not shaped like a box - all right angles - but rather like a boat, which has a rounded hull. However, this cannot be stated with certainty, since some boats still have right angles. Of especial significance is a rare photograph from 1888, of a boatyard in Iraq in which traditional boats are being constructed:

The similarity of the proportions of these boats to Noah's Ark is striking! The photographer, archeologist John Punnett Peters, described it as "A Noachian Boatyard at Hit on the Euphrates." But even though these boats are constructed with squared rather than rounded corners, they are still clearly perceived as boats rather than chests.

It therefore appears that the Biblical Ark, of both Noah and Moses, and in contrast to the Ark of the Covenant, was indeed a sort of boat. Since the function of this Ark was to house something precious rather than as a form of transport, the term later came to be used for any tub/ chest that houses something precious, like an Ark of the Law.

The good news in all this is that when we eventually do get around to building a scale model of Noah's Ark, it will look much more appealing!


If you'd like to find out how to attain fame, meaning and satisfaction by appearing on our Noah's Ark donor board, please write to

Chickens and International Warfare

For most of us, it's pretty obvious that wars, of the kind that took place over most of history, are a Very Bad Thing. Killing people, e...