Connect with us

RSS

The Torah Can Help Simplify Our Choices

Reading from a Torah scroll in accordance with Sephardi tradition. Photo: Sagie Maoz via Wikimedia Commons.

The acclaimed Iowa-born travel writer, Bill Bryson, known for his witty observations and upbeat take on life, offers a unique perspective on the modern world’s obsession with proliferate choice.

In his 1998 book I’m a Stranger Here Myself, Bryson humorously chronicles his return to the United States after two decades in England. Among other things, he is confronted by the overwhelming variety of consumer goods in American supermarkets in contrast to the somewhat more limited choices available at that time in the UK.

Bryson’s experience in the US retail world perfectly captures the complications and confusion thrown up by too many choices. For, as Bryson discovered, more options doesn’t lead to better decisions and good outcomes. Instead, it leads to frustration and bad choices.

In one particularly hilarious piece, Bryson writes vividly about his attempt to buy breakfast cereal on a visit to his local supermarket: “The breakfast cereals alone could have occupied me for most of the afternoon. There must have been 200 types, and I am not exaggerating. Every possible substance that could be dried, puffed, and sugar-coated was there.”

As he continued exploring the aisles, Bryson’s amazement at the level of choice grew: “I had no idea how the market for junk food had proliferated. Everywhere I turned I was confronted with foods guaranteed to make you waddle.” He lists a barrage of options: “jelly creme pies, moon pies, pecan spinwheels, peach mellos, root beer buttons, chocolate fudge devil dogs”—illustrating an excess of choice that left him more bewildered than satisfied.

Perhaps the most striking example was at Aisle Seven, or as Bryson dubbed it: “Food for the Seriously Obese.” There was “a whole section devoted exclusively to a product called Toaster Pastries, which included, among much else, eight different types of toaster strudel. And what exactly is toaster strudel? Who cares? It was coated in sugar and looked drippy. I grabbed an armload.”

Bryson later reflected on how many of the items he had somehow ended up buying were never even eaten; they lingered in his pantry for ages until they were finally discarded — proof, in his mind, of the folly of excessive choice.

Bryson’s humorous take on the overwhelming abundance of choice highlights a phenomenon unique to modern Western living. Unsurprisingly, sober studies on excessive consumer choices have begun to emerge in recent years, and the picture they paint is not pretty.

Professor emeritus of psychology at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, Barry Schwartz, coined the term “the paradox of choice” in his influential 2004 book The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. He argues that while having some choice is essential to human autonomy and well-being, an overload of options inevitably leads to decision paralysis and often also to anxiety and deep dissatisfaction.

Over the years, Schwartz has conducted experiments showing that when people are presented with too many options, they are more likely to feel overwhelmed and make poorer decisions — or worse, they avoid making decisions altogether, dovetailing with Bryson’s anecdotal experience in the supermarket, where the endless options he faced didn’t enhance his shopping experience, instead leaving him frustrated and, ultimately, unfulfilled.

Schwartz’s research and Bryson’s experiences highlight a critical aspect of human psychology: when faced with too many choices, we tend to second-guess our decisions, or we are hasty and impulsive, usually with poor results, resulting in us feeling less satisfaction. The bottom line is that the very freedom that abundant choice promises often backfires, leading to increased stress and painful regret.

In stark contrast to the modern dilemma of seemingly overwhelming choice, Parshat Re’eh presents a refreshingly simple definition of choices. The parsha begins with a clear, binary proposition: “See, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing if you obey the commandments of God that I am giving you today; the curse, if you disobey the commandments of God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods” (Deut. 11:26-28).

Rashi, commenting on this verse, highlights the significance of the word ‘See’ (רְאֵה). He explains that the Torah urges each individual to open their eyes and truly perceive their choices. This isn’t just about physical sight but about clarity of understanding—being able to discern the real nature of the choices presented. The Torah wants us to see beyond the superficial appeal of specific options and recognize their actual value, or, more accurately, lack thereof.

In this passage, the Torah doesn’t clutter the decision-making process with a multitude of options, nor does it leave room for ambiguity. Instead, it draws a clear line between two paths — one that leads to positive outcomes and the other to adverse outcomes.

Clearly, the Torah’s intention here is not to simplify life’s complexities but rather to provide a framework that guides us in the whole area of making choices – teaching us that what may seem like options may not actually be anything other than a range of bad options, all tantalizingly attractive, but ultimately no good.

Schwartz’s concept of the “paradox of choice” highlights how excessive options paralyze us; the Torah’s approach in Re’eh reminds us that the best way to navigate life’s decisions is to simplify them. The Torah empowers us to choose wisely by reminding us not to be dazzled by choices that appear attractive but which, in reality, prevent us from making the decisions that are good for us.

In Parshat Re’eh, we are guided by Moses to maintain crystal clarity in all our decision-making — essentially a call to rise above the confusion of too many choices and to focus on making the decisions that truly matter without getting distracted.

There is a famous story of the Greek conqueror Alexander the Great. As he advanced eastward towards Asia to expand his empire, he arrived in Gordium, the capital of Phrygia. There, he encountered the Gordian Knot, an intricate and tightly tangled knot tied to the yoke of an ox-cart.

The Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus described it as having “several knots all so tightly entangled that it was impossible to see how they were fastened.” According to an ancient local legend, whoever could untie this knot would be destined to rule all of Asia. Over the many years that the knot had been there, many had attempted to unravel it and failed.

When Alexander confronted the knot in 333 BC, he initially tried to untie it by conventional means. However, after abortive efforts, he chose a different approach: he drew his sword and cut through the knot, solving the problem with a single, decisive action.

Since then, Alexander’s act has become a powerful metaphor for addressing seemingly intractable problems through bold solutions. Because, more often than not, the best way to address overwhelming complexity is through clear, decisive action — cutting through the complications and making the one choice that truly matters.

Sir Winston Churchill remarked, “The price of greatness is responsibility.” The choices we make define us, and in a world filled with distractions and diversions, the Torah helps us focus on what truly matters. By simplifying our decisions into “good” and “bad,” we not only avoid the pitfalls of decision paralysis but also align ourselves with the path of blessing, ensuring that our choices lead to meaningful and fulfilling lives.

The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.

The post The Torah Can Help Simplify Our Choices first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll

Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder

A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.

In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.

Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).

“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”

Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.

“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”

She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”

The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.

According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”

On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.

The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.

“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”

The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.

Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.

“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.

Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.

“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.

The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.

“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”

Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.

Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.

While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.

This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.

However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.

“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.

“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”

Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.

In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.

Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.

However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.

Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”

The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide

Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.

Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”

WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.

The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.

“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.

“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”

Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.

“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”

In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.

In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.

The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.

“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”

In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”

The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News