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
Dublin city councillors accuse Israel and ‘Zionist lobby’ of quashing proposal to rename Herzog Park
(JTA) — Dublin’s City Council was divided Monday night over a proposal to postpone voting on stripping the name of an Irish-born Israeli president from a city park, with dozens of members voting to move forward with the controversial renaming.
The council ultimately voted to send the “denaming” proposal for Herzog Park back to a planning committee, but not before council members spent more than hour commenting on the proposal and the outcry it drew from Irish, Israeli and Jewish leaders.
Several criticized Israel and said they wanted to see the park named for an Irish Jew whose contributions came at home. Some denounced the “Zionist lobby” and “Israeli lobby” for intervening in the renaming effort.
Pat Dunne, of the United Left party, told chief executive Richard Shakespeare, who proposed postponing the vote on procedural grounds, that he believed the Israeli army was responsible for the outcry. The meeting was livestreamed.
“I’m further convinced that whatever phone calls was made to our CEO and to other officials probably emanated from Israeli intelligence attached to the Israeli Defense Force because they’re active in every issue in relation to Palestine,” Dunne said. “Trace it all the way back, Richard, and you’ll find that’s the source.”
About criticism of the renaming plan from the Irish president and foreign minister, another council member, Cieran Perry, said, “The optics will appear to show these senior Irish politicians carrying out the instructions of the Israeli lobby, and it’s very hard to argue with a view when we see the actual result.”
Ciarán Ó Meachair accused Herzog of having “raped, murdered and pillaged innocent civilians” and said he would continue to press for a renaming, suggesting the British Jewish communist politician Max Levitas, who died in 2018.
“This was a full court press by the Zionist lobby, and they think they will win it,” he said. “They will not win this.”
Herzog Park, located in Dublin’s Jewish hub, was named in 1995 for Chaim Herzog, the son of the first Irish chief rabbi who became Israel’s sixth president in 1983. His son, Isaac Herzog, is the president of Israel today.
Pro-Palestinian activists called for the park to be stripped of the Herzog name during the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, citing Chaim Herzog’s role as a prominent defender of Zionism and his role in Israel’s War of Independence. (He also fought in the British army during World War II.)
Irish Jewish leaders said the proposal to remove Herzog’s name was a hurtful repudiation of decades of strong ties between Ireland and Israel that have recently frayed amid staunch pro-Palestinian sentiment in Ireland. Israel closed its embassy in Dublin last year, citing the Irish government’s “antisemitic rhetoric” including its support for Palestinian statehood.
Several council members said they opposed the renaming because of the hurt expressed by Jewish Dubliners. “These are people, Irish people, who live in our community, work in our community, and have done nothing wrong, and I don’t think anyone’s intention here was to bring hurt upon them, but that is an outcome of what we’ve done here,” said David Coffey of the centrist Finn Gael party.
One council member, Rory Hogan, said he had gone to the neighborhood around Herzog Park and found that residents there felt they had not been consulted in the renaming plan. He suggested that the council find another way to honor the concerns of pro-Palestinian activists.
“The outcome of this debate should not in any way diminish the urgency of recognizing the atrocities taking place in Gaza,” Hogan said. “We should continue to pursue a way in which we can honor and remember the thousands of civilians who have been killed and the children whose lives have been destroyed. But if we are to create a meaningful memorial of place of solidarity, let it be in a location of real significance to all.”
Ultimately, the vote to send the proposal back to the naming committee passed, with 35 in favor, 25 opposed and 1 abstaining. That means the proposal can resurface in the future, if the committee addresses the process errors that the council’s attorneys assessed and outlined in a legal opinion delivered to the council members before Monday’s meeting.
Several council members also apologized to the family of Terrence Wheelock, a man killed by a police 20 years ago who had been set to have a different park renamed after him, because that proposal was simultaneously derailed.
For some Jewish observers, the council meeting renewed bruised feelings that they thought had been repaired by Shakespeare’s decision to withdraw the proposal.
“Watching the @DubCityCouncil meeting – feeling utterly sick and despondent. There is palpable hatred in that room,” tweeted Ed Abrahamson, an Irish Jew who had raised concerns about the proposed renaming and praised the decision to postpone the vote. “My optimism from last night has vanished.”
The post Dublin city councillors accuse Israel and ‘Zionist lobby’ of quashing proposal to rename Herzog Park appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
‘Antisemite of the Year’ finalists include Tucker Carlson and Ms. Rachel, but not Nick Fuentes
Nick Fuentes says he feels snubbed by the controversial activist group StopAntisemitism, which neglected to include him among its finalists for “Antisemite of the Year.”
The group’s finalists, announced Sunday, include conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, whose friendly interview with Fuentes has splintered the conservative movement.
Other “nominees” include pro-Palestinian celebrities Ms. Rachel, Cynthia Nixon and Marcia Cross; mixed-martial-arts athlete and Holocaust denier Bryce Mitchell; two personalities associated with left-wing network The Young Turks; and social media personalities on both the far left (Guy Christensen) and far right (Stew Peters). Followers are encouraged to vote for whomever they feel is most deserving.
But Fuentes himself, the openly white nationalist and antisemitic livestreamer whose “groyper” movement has gained a toehold this year among young Republicans, was left off.
“Why wasn’t I nominated for antisemite of the year,” Fuentes posted on X after the finalists were revealed, apparently wounded by the omission.
In a follow-up post, StopAntisemitism said it does not nominate people more than once and has nominated Fuentes in previous years. “While he was a finalist a few years back, his absence from this year’s cycle does not erase his antisemitism. Rather, it allows us to focus attention on other individuals who are spreading hate,” the group wrote.
A watchdog presence with more than 300,000 followers on X, StopAntisemitism regularly mobilizes against activists and social media posts. The group has faced criticism for what some perceive as an inordinate focus on Muslim personalities, pro-Palestinian actions and non-prominent individuals. Its defenders deny that, pointing out that StopAntisemitism also regularly spotlights neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers on the right.
“From downplaying white supremacy to promoting the antisemitic ‘great replacement’ theory, Carlson has built a career turning extremist dog whistles into broadcast-ready talking points, legitimizing voices that traffic in Holocaust revisionism, conspiracy, and hate,” StopAntisemitism wrote in its nomination of Carlson.
The group nominated Ms. Rachel, the children’s YouTube personality who has become an outspoken advocate for children affected by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, because it said she “has used her massive platform to spread Hamas-aligned propaganda.” A left-wing group, Jews for Racial & Economic Justice, has defended Ms. Rachel, saying StopAntisemitism targeted her for expressing sympathy with Palestinians.
Nixon was nominated for her “BDS activism” (she was listed in a film‑industry petition boycotting Israeli film institutions and has been outspoken about civilian casualties in Gaza); Mitchell and Peters, meanwhile, have embraced open Holocaust denial.
Last year’s “winner,” far-right pundit and conspiracy theorist Candace Owens, was also absent despite her recent resurgence promoting conspiracy theories accusing Israeli of involvement in Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Previous “winners” have included Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, as well as rapper Ye and a board chair of Ben & Jerry’s, the progressive ice cream company founded by Jews.
Since its inception in 2019, the “award” has always gone to a person of color.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post ‘Antisemite of the Year’ finalists include Tucker Carlson and Ms. Rachel, but not Nick Fuentes appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
If Israel reinstates the death penalty, it will betray Jewish values — and Jewish history
The Knesset is considering a bill that would instate the death penalty as a punishment for convicted terrorists in Israel. Passing it would be an enormous mistake.
Allowing executions in the Jewish state — the justice system of which has, since 1954, only issued that punishment to Adolf Eichmann — would only give fodder to Israel’s enemies. Right now, Israel stands apart in the Middle East for its abolishment of the death penalty. Hamas regularly executes Palestinians in Gaza, extrajudicially and otherwise. A court operating under Yemen’s Houthi rebels recently sentenced 17 people to death for allegedly spying on behalf of Israel and others. Iran, which has carried out death sentences against Jews, has executed more than 1,500 people in 2025 alone.
Which means that if Israel violates its moral obligations and ethical standards by undoing its historic commitment to not inflicting the one punishment that can never be undone, it will be giving its enemies a gift.
First, changing the justice system to allow for the death penalty would provide Hamas terrorists incarcerated in Israel with a new platform for their message. Hamas could proclaim them to be martyred heroes — a new layer of disingenuous but effective propaganda.
Terrorists such as the perpetrators of the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre often believe that their spirits will receive rewards upon their physical death. Within that framework, lifetime incarceration is a far harsher punishment, and therefore a more effective one. Plus, the notion that executing terrorists will prevent future hostage-taking for prisoner swaps is shaky. Hamas’ relationship with Israel has long been defined by retaliatory action, which means that the state killing of Hamas prisoners is likely to lead to Hamas reciprocally executing future Israeli hostages and “collaborators.” The endless cycle of violence will continue.
And since Israel seeks to be a transparent democracy that follows the rule of law, particularly within its judiciary, a legal death sentencing scheme also would prove costly in terms of public perception.
Israel’s reputation as a bastion of moral clarity in the Middle East has dramatically changed in the more than two years since the Oct. 7 attack. The devastation of the war in Gaza, and of increasing violence in the West Bank, has led to a substantial drop in positive perceptions of Israel worldwide. And while the Israeli judiciary has long been one of the country’s most trusted institutions, the deleterious effects of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pre-war proposals for a judicial overhaul mean it is no longer held in the same high regard, in Israel or the rest of the world, as it once was.
This bill has already advanced past a first reading in the Knesset. Moving it any further toward becoming law would only hasten the decline of Israel’s image.
Some of those who have argued in favor of the bill have invoked the fallacy of “deterrence.” Shin Bet security service Chief David Zini even told the Security Cabinet that enacting the death penalty for terrorists who kill Israelis would help prevent future attacks.
That statement doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Recent studies have concluded that when it comes to deterrence, there is no demonstrable link between the presence or absence of the death penalty and murder rates.
But the most profound reason to reject this bill comes from our own painful history as a people. Many Jews, including myself, have long objected to the death penalty in part because of the shadow of the Holocaust.
We believe, in the words of Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, that “death is not the answer.” By the end of his life, Wiesel publicly said that he saw no possible exceptions to this rule:“With every cell of my being and with every fiber of my memory, I oppose the death penalty in all forms,” he said. “I do not believe any civilized society should be at the service of death. I don’t think it’s human to become an agent of the angel of death.”
In this light, it is particularly troubling that the Israeli bill proposes using lethal injection against convicted terrorists. That method of capital punishment is a direct Nazi legacy, first implemented in human history by the Third Reich as part of their infamous Aktion T4 protocol, used to kill people deemed “unworthy of life.” Dr. Karl Brandt, Adolf Hitler’s personal physician, devised the program.
In the wake of the Holocaust and the unparalleled horrors of the 20th century, more than 70% of the nations of the world have recognized the inviolability of the human right to life, and have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
21st-century Judaism must reflect this evolution, and Israel must never cross this moral Rubicon.
The post If Israel reinstates the death penalty, it will betray Jewish values — and Jewish history appeared first on The Forward.