Uncategorized
An 1859 fight over how to make matzah has lessons about the threat of AI today
(JTA) — In the last few months the world has been dazzled by an astonishing sequence of AI systems capable of performing all kinds of difficult tasks — writing code, composing poetry, generating artwork, passing exams — with a level of competence that rivals or exceeds what humans can do. The existence of these AIs has prompted all manner of soul-searching about the nature of humanity. It has also made many people wonder which human tasks are about to be taken over by machines.
The capabilities of these AIs are new and revolutionary, but the story of machines taking over human jobs is not. In Jewish history the most important story of that transition has to do with matzah, and it’s a story that carries important lessons for the present day.
Starting 164 years ago, dozens of European rabbis engaged in a furious debate that would not be fully resolved until the beginning of the 20th century. Matzah, which for millennia had been made by human hands in accordance with the narrow constraints of Jewish law, could now be processed with a series of machines that promised huge savings of time and money. As town after town adopted these machines, opposition began to rise, until it exploded in 1859 with the publication of “An Alert for Israel,” a collection of letters from prestigious rabbis, who adamantly argued that for anyone interested in following the laws of Passover a matzah made with a machine was no better than a loaf of bread.
The arguments for this position were many, but all will sound familiar to anyone following the AI conversation. Like today, some objected to the machines just because they were new and different, but most had more specific concerns. First, there was the matter of lost jobs. In many parts of Europe matzah was made by the poorest members of society, who were given the job as a way to help them raise money before one of the most cost-intensive holidays of the year. Ceding this job to machines would take work from those who could least afford it.
It takes about 20 seconds in a 1,300-degree, coal-and-wood-fired oven to bake shmurah matzah to perfection. (Uriel Heilman)
Beyond economics, there was concern that the machines just weren’t as reliable as people, especially given the rules around matzah-making outlined in Jewish law. What if bits of dough got trapped in the gears, quietly leavening for hours and unknowingly ruining whole batches of matzah in the process? What if the trays warmed the dough too fast? Without proper oversight, how could you trust your own food?
Finally, some objected to the loss of a literal human touch. Jewish law stated that matzah was supposed to be made by people who knew they were baking matzah. A machine, no matter how sophisticated, didn’t “know” anything. How could you eat matzah on Passover knowing that this most important food was made by a mindless machine?
The responses didn’t take long to arrive. “A Cancellation of the Alert,” a collection published the very same yearr, forcefully argued that machine matzah was perfectly fine — and possibly even better than the human product. No, inventions aren’t inherently bad. No, the machines wouldn’t harm the poor, because the machines made matzah less expensive for everyone. No, the machines weren’t prone to error — and they certainly weren’t more error-prone than lazy, careless humans. No, the machines didn’t know what they were doing — but the people who built them did, and wasn’t that enough?
The machines eventually won, but then something happened that I don’t think either side anticipated. With Manichewitz’s machine matzahs claiming most of the American market by the early 20th century, it was now the handmade matzah makers who were on the back foot; it was they and not the machines who needed to demonstrate that they were up to the difficult task of preparing this food with the efficiency and reliability of the machines.
The result is more than a little tragic. Matzah is the Jewish food with the deepest origins of all — deeper than brisket, deeper than latkes, deeper even than challah — and yet it is the ritual food most likely to be picked up at the supermarket and least likely to be made at home. While there are still communities today that exclusively eat handmade matzah, even this job is now largely outsourced to just a few companies that resemble their machine-driven counterparts in scale. While teachers will sometimes demonstrate how to make matzah for educational purposes, across the religious spectrum the era of locally made matzah is over.
Despite the fact that it’s hard to imagine a simpler baked good — matzah is just flour and water, and it’s literally illegal to spend more than 18 minutes making it — its production is treated as though it is only slightly less complicated than constructing a jet engine, and people are worried about shortages as though matzah were a natural resource or an advanced microchip. The transition has been so complete that we barely remember there was a transition at all.
Baked matzah coming out of the oven at Streit’s Matzo factory on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, date unknown. (Courtesy Streit’s Matzo)
Did the rabbis pushing for machine matzah know this was going to happen? Almost certainly not. The economic impact of machine labor is relatively easy to predict, but the psychological and cultural effects are a lot harder. There was probably no way of knowing how machines would change the way we thought about matzah in the long run, but today it’s clear that automating this ancient task has changed our own relationship to Passover’s central food — and because the change has resulted in a lot of alienation from matzah production, I’m not so sure it was a change for the better. Making matzah locally could have been a way to feel connected to the ancient Israelites, who left Egypt so fast that they didn’t have time to make anything else. Instead of emulating this ad-hoc food, we optimized it for cost and efficiency, in the process turning matzah into just another specialty cracker on the grocery store shelf. Was it really worth it?
It’s probably a bit much to say that OpenAI is just a modern Manischewitz, but the parallels between the debate about machine-generated matzah and the present debate about machine-generated everything are useful for considering how short-term policy choices around AI won’t necessarily capture all of the technology’s long-term effects on how human beings want to spend their time. When we relinquish an activity to an AI for economic reasons, we may eventually come to believe that humans are no longer qualified to do the task at all.
Then as now we must balance our economic needs against our ideas about what kinds of activities make for a good and fulfilling life.
—
The post An 1859 fight over how to make matzah has lessons about the threat of AI today appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Mamdani’s victory divides Jews one more way: Whether to say congratulations
Jewish leaders reacted with a mix of chill, optimism and resolve after state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, an outspoken critic of Israel, coasted to victory in New York City’s mayoral election.
Many of Mamdani’s biggest critics commented on his victory over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. But not all of them were willing to congratulate Mamdani, whose politics have exposed a deep rift in the Jewish community over Israel and antisemitism.
Mamdani’s refusal to disavow the phrase “globalize the intifada,” his description of Israel’s war in Gaza as a genocide and his admission that he would not attend the city’s annual Israel Day parade infuriated many of the city’s Jews, though others — especially younger Jewish voters — understood or appreciated what they saw as a principled stand.
Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, often emphasized that foreign policy was a secondary concern, but he was dogged throughout the campaign by remarks he made about Israel.
Exit polls by CNN showed 60% of the city’s Jewish voters backing Cuomo, who ran as an independent following Mamdani’s victory in the June Democratic primary.
Among the detractors declining to wish the mayor-elect well was Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, who wrote on X that in light of Mamdani’s “long, disturbing record on issues of deep concern to the Jewish community, we will approach the next four years with resolve.”
A joint statement from several establishment New York Jewish institutions, including the city’s Jewish Federation and Board of Rabbis, also declined to congratulate Mamdani, who is the city’s first-ever Muslim mayor-elect.
“New Yorkers have spoken, electing Zohran Mamdani as the next Mayor of New York City,” the statement, which was also signed by the American Jewish Committee, Jewish Community Relations Council and ADL, in part read. “We recognize that voters are animated by a range of issues, but we cannot ignore that the Mayor-elect holds core beliefs fundamentally at odds with our community’s deepest convictions and most cherished values.”
The groups added that they would work with “all levels of government” to ensure the safety of the city’s Jewish community.
Other Mamdani opponents took a friendlier tack.
Pro-Israel billionaire Bill Ackman, who had predicted a Cuomo win earlier in the day, appeared to extend an olive branch. After the election was called for Mamdani, Ackman wrote, “@zohranmamdani congrats on the win. Now you have a big responsibility. If I can help NYC, just let me know what I can do.”
The Democratic Majority for Israel, a national organization, congratulated Mamdani but added, “We urge him to prioritize fulfilling his campaign promises to bring down costs, not foreign policy issues that are unrelated to the everyday lives of most New Yorkers.”
One pattern emerging from the reaction, particularly among Cuomo supporters, was to blame Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa as a spoiler who stayed in the race after even incumbent Mayor Eric Adams dropped out. Cuomo supporters at his Ziegfeld Ballroom watch party chanted, “Shame on Sliwa.” But Sliwa’s votes, even if Cuomo had received all of them, would likely not have been enough to overcome Mamdani’s lead.
New York City controller Brad Lander, who campaigned for Mamdani and helped build bridges to parts of the Jewish community, celebrated at the Brooklyn Paramount Theatre with the mayor-elect wearing a message to Cuomo on his T-shirt, “Good F—ing Riddance.”
The post Mamdani’s victory divides Jews one more way: Whether to say congratulations appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
In a first, a ballot initiative to divest from Israel has won at the ballot box in Boston suburb
(JTA) — A municipal ballot proposal to divest from Israel went before a popular vote for the first time on Tuesday — and pulled off a decisive victory.
Question 3 won more than 55% of the vote in unofficial election results in the Boston suburb of Somerville, Massachusetts, as the Israel-divestment movement saw the elevation of its most well-known proponent in politics — Zohran Mamdani — to mayor of New York City.
Local pro-Palestinian activists claimed victory, with Somerville for Palestine — the group that gathered the signatures required to put the non-binding resolution on the ballot — posting a celebratory Instagram video alongside the Boston chapter of anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace.
However, as they were celebrating, the mayoral candidate best poised to enact the proposal in Somerville conceded his race to a rival who signaled he was far less likely to do so. Willie Burnley Jr., a democratic socialist who had endorsed Question 3, lost to fellow at-large city council member Jake Wilson, who did not.
A handful of other American cities have previously adopted Israel divestment proposals brought by their city councils. One of those is Portland, Maine, whose mayor publicly regretted backing divestment after hearing from local Jewish groups. An attempt last year to place a similar referendum on a Pittsburgh ballot failed after legal challenges to the signatures. Similar attempts to challenge the Somerville measure failed.
Home to Tufts University and several Jewish congregations, the four-square-mile Somerville has a population of around 82,000. Residents voted on whether its mayor should “engage in business that sustains Israel’s apartheid, genocide and illegal occupation of Palestine.” The local teachers union endorsed the measure.
Jewish groups opposed the measure, including the newly formed group Somerville United Against Discrimination, which ran TV ads against it. Brian Sokol, a Jewish IT manager and writer based in Somerville, implored his neighbors on Facebook to reject the measure — citing friends of his who were killed by a Hamas suicide bomber in Israel in 1996.
“I am not equating those in Somerville urging a Yes vote with violent extremists or terrorists,” he wrote. “But passing this ballot measure would unintentionally land Somerville on the wrong side of the deeper ideological rift.”
On the other side, a group of 84 local pro-Palestinian Jews endorsed the measure in an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper. Celebrating the recent ceasefire in Israel and Gaza but saying that Israel has continued to commit atrocities in the region, the authors pointed to local contracts with two companies, Hewlett-Packard and Lockheed Martin, that total over $2 million.
Somerville became a flashpoint in the fight over campus pro-Palestinian activism earlier this year when a Tufts graduate student, Rümeysa Öztürk, was seized by ICE agents and put into deportation proceedings for writing an op-ed in the student paper urging divestment from Israel. A judge freed Öztürk while her deportation case remains ongoing.
The post In a first, a ballot initiative to divest from Israel has won at the ballot box in Boston suburb appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
In a first, a ballot initiative to divest from Israel has won at the ballot box, in Somerville, Mass.
A municipal ballot proposal to divest from Israel went before a popular vote for the first time on Tuesday — and pulled off a decisive victory.
Question 3 won more than 55% of the vote in unofficial election results in the Boston suburb of Somerville, Massachusetts, as the Israel-divestment movement saw the elevation of its most well-known proponent in politics — Zohran Mamdani — to mayor of New York City.
Local pro-Palestinian activists claimed victory, with Somerville for Palestine — the group that gathered the signatures required to put the non-binding resolution on the ballot — posting a celebratory Instagram video alongside the Boston chapter of anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace.
However, as they were celebrating, the mayoral candidate best poised to enact the proposal in Somerville conceded his race to a rival who signaled he was far less likely to do so. Willie Burnley Jr., a democratic socialist who had endorsed Question 3, lost to fellow at-large city council member Jake Wilson, who did not.
A handful of other American cities have previously adopted Israel divestment proposals brought by their city councils. One of those is Portland, Maine, whose mayor publicly regretted backing divestment after hearing from local Jewish groups. An attempt last year to place a similar referendum on a Pittsburgh ballot failed after legal challenges to the signatures. Similar attempts to challenge the Somerville measure failed.
Home to Tufts University and several Jewish congregations, the four-square-mile Somerville has a population of around 82,000. Residents voted on whether its mayor should “engage in business that sustains Israel’s apartheid, genocide and illegal occupation of Palestine.” The local teachers union endorsed the measure.
Jewish groups opposed the measure, including the newly formed group Somerville United Against Discrimination, which ran TV ads against it. Brian Sokol, a Jewish IT manager and writer based in Somerville, implored his neighbors on Facebook to reject the measure — citing friends of his who were killed by a Hamas suicide bomber in Israel in 1996.
“I am not equating those in Somerville urging a Yes vote with violent extremists or terrorists,” he wrote. “But passing this ballot measure would unintentionally land Somerville on the wrong side of the deeper ideological rift.”
On the other side, a group of 84 local pro-Palestinian Jews endorsed the measure in an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper. Celebrating the recent ceasefire in Israel and Gaza but saying that Israel has continued to commit atrocities in the region, the authors pointed to local contracts with two companies, Hewlett-Packard and Lockheed Martin, that total over $2 million.
Somerville became a flashpoint in the fight over campus pro-Palestinian activism earlier this year when a Tufts graduate student, Rümeysa Öztürk, was seized by ICE agents and put into deportation proceedings for writing an op-ed in the student paper urging divestment from Israel. A judge freed Öztürk while her deportation case remains ongoing.
—
The post In a first, a ballot initiative to divest from Israel has won at the ballot box, in Somerville, Mass. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.