Uncategorized
This Jewish studies professor won $60,000 on “Jeopardy!” — despite missing out on a question about Yom Kippur
(JTA) — The most notable message Melissa Klapper got during her four-night run this week on “Jeopardy!” didn’t come because the Jewish studies scholar was unable to answer a question about Yom Kippur. It also wasn’t an unkind note from a game-show stickler who believed she’d gotten credit for a wrong response.
Instead, it was an email from a past student who recognized herself in the story Klapper told as part of her self-introductory stage banter — a staple of the game show. Klapper, who teaches history at Rowan University in New Jersey, described accusing a student of having plagiarized her paper.
The student then replied, Klapper recalled, that she “didn’t know [it] was plagiarized when she bought it.” The anecdote yielded laughs from host Ken Jennings and the two co-contestants whom Klapper later defeated to notch her third win.
After the episode aired Wednesday night, Klapper heard from the former student, whose name she had previously forgotten.
“She watches ‘Jeopardy!’ and when she was watching that interview, she thought to herself, this is about me,” Klapper told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “And she wrote to me to apologize. She’s a teacher now and, I think, is more understanding of why what she did was really not good. And I really appreciated it. It was kind of brave of her to get in touch with me after all these years.”
The experience was a fitting highlight of Klapper’s run on the show, which ended Thursday with a third-place finish and total winnings of $60,100. She said it was her training as an educator — not her education in Modern Orthodox schools or her scholarship on Jewish women, immigrant children and more — that prepared her for success on the show.
“I’m up in front of people all the time,” said Klapper, who is active in the Association for Jewish Studies and whose most recent book, “Ballet Class: An American History,” was published in 2020. “I do not have stage fright.”
Klapper spoke with JTA about her Jewish background, her research interests and how her most religiously observant friends managed to watch her on TV.
This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity.
JTA: First, I have to ask: Last night, did you end up with $1,800 on purpose? That’s a very Jewish number.
Klapper: No! That’s so funny. It didn’t even occur to me.
How are you feeling this morning? Any initial reflections on your appearance now that it’s over?
These shows were recorded in January, so I’ve had time to come to peace with what happened. I was disappointed not to win another game — or two. But Alec, the guy who won last night, was just unstoppable on the buzzer. Knowing the answers is not enough to do well in “Jeopardy!” You also have to have good hand-eye coordination, which I do not. I would say I knew the vast majority of answers but I often just could not get the buzzer in time. Once I knew I was going to be on the show, I did sort of sit at home and practice with a ballpoint pen, but it’s not the same.
I will say the fact that I couldn’t be fast enough to answer the Yom Kippur clue was pretty frustrating. [The clue was about a Jon Stewart quip about the Jewish day of atonement.] And I heard about that — I got a lot of fun teasing from some of my Jewish friends who were sending me helpful emails with links to the dictionary.com definition of Yom Kippur.
Can you share a little bit about your relationship with “Jeopardy!”, how you came to be on the show and your general reflection about your experience?
I grew up in a household where we watched “Jeopardy!” when I was kid. We had a “Jeopardy!” board game that I would play with my parents and my sister and I actually tried out for the teen tournament when I was in high school. Those were the days that you had to go in person, so my parents very kindly drove me into D.C. when we heard that there would be a tryout. I didn’t get past the first round — I didn’t know anything about sports, and I still don’t know that much, although I answered a surprising number of sports questions.
In the last few years I started to watch more regularly and it occurred to me, you know, I really think I could do OK on this show. I made it into the contestant pool the first time I took the online test, but I did not get called. The day after my 18 months [in the pool] ended, I started the process again, but I sort of assumed I would never hear from them again — especially because they asked you to write down dates when you can’t come and I had to write that I was not available during the semester — and, oh, also on Jewish holidays. But they called me for winter break.
They record five shows in a day, and all of mine were on one day. There’s about 10 minutes between shows when you change your top and can have a drink and then go right back onstage. It was just — really, it was all a blur. If you’d asked me at the beginning of this week what any of the categories were I would have been very hard-pressed to tell you.
You got some clues that seemed ready-made for a Jewish contestant such as one about Philip Roth’s “Portnoy’s Complaint” and another about Jack Antonoff, the Jewish musician and producer. What is your Jewish background like and were there moments where you felt like that gave you some kind of advantage?
Now I live in Lower Merion, Pennsylvania, which has a large observant Jewish community. My husband and I belong to a Modern Orthodox synagogue and we are involved in a partnership minyan, Lechu Neranena.
I went to Jewish day school my whole life, kindergarten through 12th grade, first at Akiba Academy of Dallas and then Bais Yaakov of Baltimore, which was the only girls high school and where I got a very solid education and was encouraged to pursue my intellectual ambitions. I went to Israel right after high school before I started college. So I have a very intensive Jewish educational background, and throughout my education and all the schools that I went to, I found a lot of encouragement for my innate nerdiness.
So I’m not sure I could draw a direct line, but what I will say is that in the Jewish educational environment I grew up in, matched by an extremely Jewish traditional home, there was just a huge, enormous value on reading and books and learning, and I think that makes a difference.
I will say I don’t think I knew about Jack Antonoff because he’s Jewish — I knew him because of Taylor Swift.
Were there Jewish highlights of your experience, either on the show or behind the scenes?
They do not pay for you to go out to L.A. You’re responsible for your own travel, but they do provide lunch. I asked if it would be possible to get me a kosher lunch, and they immediately said yes, which I appreciated. There was no question or back and forth about it. I got a salad with a ton of protein that could take me through the day.
And then this is a little funny, but I have friends from across the spectrum of Jewish practice, or lack thereof. Some of my more traditionally observant friends don’t own TVs and wouldn’t have TVs in their houses — but they have been watching the show on YouTube every day because they have no other way to watch.
Your scholarship in American history and Jewish studies has been wide-ranging, and you’ve written books about American Jewish women’s activism, American Jewish girlhood and, most recently, ballet. How did your work as a scholar and a teacher prepare you for your appearance or dovetail with it?
I’m a teacher. I’m up in front of people all the time. I do not have stage fright. I give a lot of public talks of various kinds, in academic venues or community settings. And so I did not have any problems speaking or talking to Ken [Jennings] during the short interview period — that is not a problem for me. And for some contestants, it really is. They’re not used to just speaking in public at all like that. My professional background prepared me very well.
I have to ask about the big controversy. [Some viewers believed Klapper offered “Gregor” rather than “McGregor” as the response to a clue about the actor Ewan McGregor.] What did you make of that, and what do you think it means for the “Jeopardy!” viewership to have such intensity of passion that they referee a professionally refereed show?
First, it’s not a controversy. It’s clear to everyone that I said McGregor on stage, including to my co-contestants who have spoken about this. There should not have been and there should not be any controversy.
That said, I don’t personally sort of participate in any kind of fandom, so the way that this sort of took off is a little alien to me. But I know not just in the “Jeopardy!” community people are really, I guess, just very invested. It’s hard for me to explain.
Has the response been hard for you?
I’m sure that everyone who appears on “Jeopardy!” gets some nasty emails because unfortunately fandom can be vicious and I’m very easy to find. But I do know that women who are on “Jeopardy!”, especially women who do well, really can be targeted. And I do think that is part of what happened. Some of the — most of the emails I got from strangers were extremely nice and positive and, you know, full of good wishes. And I appreciated that, but I also got some really misogynistic, nasty gendered messages.
It’s disappointing because in my mind the “Jeopardy!” community is one of the last nice spaces that exists. I’ve talked about that with other contestants over the years, who have said it’s a congenial space. And I’ve asked them — and now I’ll ask you — what do you think the Jewish community can learn from the “Jeopardy!” community?
As a historian, it’s sort of not in my nature to comment on the contemporary Jewish community. I do think there are shared values around knowledge and education.
I do think there’s a nice community of contestants. Even though we were all each other’s competitors, everybody was just really friendly and encouraging. It’d be nice if all communities would just be like that.
You teach women’s and gender studies. You mentioned one big gender dynamic related to being a “Jeopardy!” contestant. Were there others, or other connections to your scholarship, that jumped out during your time as a contestant?
Not so much gender, but my current research project is about American Jewish women who traveled abroad between the Civil War and World War II. It’s a research interest — I noticed as I was working on all my other projects that the Jewish girls and women I was writing about traveled a lot, way more than you would expect for the late 1800s and early 1900s — but it’s also because I love to travel myself. And that’s another way to learn. There were definitely questions on “Jeopardy!” that I knew because I’ve been there — like about the sculpture in the harbor in Copenhagen of the Little Mermaid. I thought: I’ve been there and I’ve seen that.
So you like traveling and you just won a little over $60,000. Do you have any specific plans for the winnings?
Well, first, I’ll have to deal with the IRS. I’m involved with a bunch of different charities and so I will certainly be giving some of this money to them. And my husband and I already have our big trip for the year planned in May — to the north of England, to Newcastle and Hadrian’s Wall — and so we are going to upgrade some parts of that experience a little bit.
And then let’s go back to the student who reached out to you. What do make of that?
Whatever they’re teaching, teachers really matter, for better or for worse, and that’s where my real impact is. I teach a lot of students a lot of different things and I really value my relationship with them. And as it says in Proverbs, right, I have learned a lot from my students, just like I hope they learned from me. Seeing how excited some of my students have been this week, I do think that, in a way, being on “Jeopardy!” was sort of part of my teaching practice and that it just shows, again, this value of education and knowledge. Yes, it’s trivia, but still it just makes you a better-rounded person. And it was nice to be able to demonstrate that.
—
The post This Jewish studies professor won $60,000 on “Jeopardy!” — despite missing out on a question about Yom Kippur appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Pinchas, this week’s Torah portion, is hard to stomach today
אין דער פֿריִערדיקער פּרשה האָבן מיר געלייענט, ווי אַזוי דער מואָבֿישער מלך בלק, בשותּפֿות מיטן בייזן כּישוף־מאַכער בלעם, האָט אַרײַנגעשיקט פֿרעמדע פֿרויען צו די ייִדן, כּדי זיי צו פֿאַרפֿירן צו דינען עבֿודה־זרה.
אַהרנס אייניקל פּינחס האָט דערזען, אַז זמרי, דער נשׂיא פֿונעם שבֿט־שמעון האָט אָנגעהויבן אָפֿענערהייט אַן אינטימע באַציִונג מיט אַ געוויסער נישט־ייִדישער פֿרוי, כּזבי. די חז״ל דערקלערן, אַז דאָס איז געווען בלקס טאָכטער. פּנחס האָט אַרויסגעכאַפּט אַ שווערד און דערהרגעט דאָס פּאָרל; אַ מגפֿה, וואָס האָט דעמאָלט געבושעוועט צווישן די ייִדן, האָט זיך אָפּגעשטעלט. הגם פּנחס איז לכתּחילה נישט געווען אַ כּהן, האָט אים דער אייבערשטער פֿאַר זײַן קנאָות געגעבן די כּהונה.
אַן אַנדער וויכטיקער פּערסאָנאַזש, וואָס ווערט שפּעטער באַטראַכט אין דער הײַנטיקער סדרה, איז יהושע בן נון. בײַם סוף פֿון די פֿערציק־יאָריקע וואַנדערונגען אין מידבר, האָט דער אייבערשטער געהייסן משה רבינו פֿאַר זײַן טויט אָנצושטעלן יהושע בן נון ווי דעם קומענדיקן מנהיג פֿונעם גאַנצן כּלל־ישׂראל.
פֿון דער הײַנטצײַטיקער פּערספּעקטיוו, זענען פּנחס און יהושע זייער צווייפֿלהאַפֿטיקע פּערסאָנאַזשן. אין הלכה איז פֿאַראַן אַ באַקאַנטע דעה, לויט וועלכער דער תּורה־איסור חתונה צו האָבן מיט אַ נישט־ייִדישער פֿרוי איז חל בלויז אויף די „שבֿע עממין‟, די זיבן אוראַלטע פֿעלקער פֿון ארץ־כּנען. כּזבי איז געווען פֿון בנות־מדין, אַן אַנדער פֿאָלק. אויב זמרי וואָלט מיט איר חתונה געהאַט, וואָלט עס לויט אַ גאַנצער ריי ראשונים און אַחרונים געווען בלויז אַן איסור מדרבנן. דווקא פֿון דער מעשׂה מיט פּנחסן לערנען מיר אָפּ, אַז אין אַ זעלטענער סיטואַציע קומט פֿאַר אַזאַ אינטימער באַציִונג אַ חיובֿ־מיתה. זמרי האָט פֿאַרבראַכט מיט דער מדינישער פּרינצעסין אָפֿענערהייט, פֿאַר די אויגן פֿון אַ גאַנצן מנין ייִדן, דערפֿאַר האָט פּנחס געהאַט דאָס רעכט זיי צו דערהרגענען בשעת־מעשׂה. ווען כּזבי וואָלט נישט געדינט עבֿודה־זרה, וואָלט פּנחס אויך נישט געטאָרט עס טאָן אַפֿילו אין אַזאַ אויסטערלישער סיטואַציע.
מע קאָן זאָגן, אַז פּנחס איז אַ גאַנצער „אַנטיפּאָד‟ פֿון קורח. קורח האָט געגלייבט, אַז ער מעג אויך דינען ווי אַ כּהן און האָט אָרגאַניזירט אַן אויפֿשטאַנד קעגן משה רבינו. אין אַ געוויסער מאָס, האָט ער געהאַט ריכטיקע משיחישע כּוונות, אָבער אויסגעמישט מיט גאווה. פּנחס האָט דווקא נישט געהאַט קיין ספּעציעלן פּלאַן. כּדי צו פֿאַרטיידיקן די תּורה האָט ער זיך באַנוצט מיט אַ שווערד, און צוליב דעם געוואָרן אַ כּהן. על־פּי קבלה ווערן די כּהנים אַסאָציִיִרט מיט דער מידת־חסד; הגם פּנחס האָט אָנגעווענדט אַ בלוטיקן מעטאָד פֿון זײַן מעשׂה־קנאָות, האָט ער דערמיט אַ פּנים געטאָן אַ גרויסן חסד דעם גאַנצן ייִדישן פֿאָלק.
פֿונדעסטוועגן, קלינגט די מעשׂה שרעקלעך פֿאַר אַ הײַנטצײַטיקן לייענער. מע מעג דרשענען וועגן דער סאָציאַלער סכּנה פֿון געמישטע חתונות, אָבער קיין רבֿ וועט נישט פּראָפּאַגאַנדירן די מעשׂה־קנאָות ווי אַ פּראַקטישן מעטאָד. הײַנט וועט אַ נאָרמאַלער מענטש נישט פֿאָרלייגן צו לייזן סאָציאַל־דעמאָגראַפֿישע פּראָבלעמען מיט אַ שווערד.
די מקובלים און חסידישע צדיקים דערקלערן די אינערלעכע דינאַמיק פֿון דער הײַנטיקער פּרשה. זמרי איז געווען אַן עכטער תּלמיד־חכם. ער האָט געוווּסט, אַז כּזבי האָט אַ ייִדישע נשמה און געוואָלט אויף אַן אויסטערלישן ווילדן אופֿן ווײַזן די אַנדערע ייִדן, אַז צוליב זײַנע פּערזענלעכע השׂגות מעג ער זיך מיט איר מזווג זײַן בפֿרהסיא. פּנחס וואָלט עס געקאָנט פֿאַרשטיין און דן צו זײַן זמרי לכף־ּזכות. דווקא צוליב דעם, וואָס ער האָט אויסגענוצט אַן אומגעוויינטלעכן קנאָות־מעטאָד, האָט דער באַשעפֿער אויף אַ חידושדיקן אופֿן געביטן זײַן כּהונה־סטאַטוס.
אין דער הײַנטיקער סדרה ווערט ווײַטער אַנטוויקלט די טעמע פֿון אומגעריכטע חשבונות. עס טרעפֿן זיך צומאָל זעלטענע סיטואַציעס, ווען אַן אַגרעסיווער אַקט לשם־שמים ווערט אין די אויגן פֿונעם באַשעפֿע פֿאַררעכנט פֿאַר אַ גרויסן חסד.
יהושע בן נון איז אַן אַנדער פֿיגור, וואָס קאָן בײַ אַ מאָדערנעם לייענער אַרויסרופֿן אַ סך קשיות. אויב מע נעמט אָן דעם תּנ״כישן ספֿר־יהושע כּפּשוטו, שאַפֿט זיך אַ פֿינצטערער אײַנדרוק, אַז אונטער זײַן פֿירערשאַפֿט האָבן די ייִדן אויסגעהרגעט גאַנצע פֿעלקער אין ארץ־כּנען. געוויסע מאָדערן־אָרטאָדאָקסישע מפֿרשים טײַטשן אָפּ דעם ספֿר־יהושע שלא־כּשפּוטו. למשל, דער פֿרומער פּראָפֿעסאָר־היסטאָריקער לאָרענס שיפֿמאַן האָט באַמערקט, אַז אין די שפּעטערדיקע תּנ״כישע ספֿרים פֿיגורירן גאַנץ אָפֿט די זעלבע פֿעלקער, וועלכע יהושע האָט, כּלומרשט, אומגעבראַכט. אַ צאָל אַנדערע היסטאָריקער באַטראַכטן יהושע ווי אַ מין רעוואָלוציאָנער, וואָס האָט געקעמפֿט בלויז קעגן געוויסע רישעותדיקע שיכטן, וועלכע האָבן באַזעצט די פֿעסטונג־שטעט אין ארץ־כּנען און האָבן עקספּלואַטירט די פּשוטע באַפֿעלקערונג.
די חז״ל לייזן די דאָזיקע עטישע פּראָבלעם אויף אַן אַנדער אופֿן. פֿאַר יעדער מיליטערישער אַקציע, האָט יהושע פֿאָרגעלייגט די כּנענים זיך אָפּצוזאָגן פֿון עבֿודה־זרה, שלום צו מאַכן מיט די ייִדן אָדער צו אַנטלויפֿן. בלויז די, וואָס האָבן זיך פּרינציפּיעל אָפּגעזאָגט פֿון אַלע אַנדערע אָפּציעס, האָט מען אויסגעהרגעט. דערצו, איז עס געווען דער איינציקער יוצא־מן־הכּלל, וואָס איז חל נאָר אויף די אוראַלטע כּנענישע פֿעלקער, וועלכע זענען שוין לאַנג נישט בנימצא אין דער וועלט.
לויט דער ייִדישער מסורה, האָט יהושע אַליין חתונה געהאַט מיט רחבֿ, אַ געוועזענע כּנענישע זונה, וועלכע האָט זיך מגייר געווען. לויט אַן אַנדער דעה, איז זי געווען בלויז אַ באַרימטע וווּנדער־שיינע בעל־הביתטע פֿון אַ האָטעל, צו וועלכער יעדער מאַן האָט געחלומט זיך אָנצורירן, אָבער למעשׂה האָט זי קיינעם נישט געלאָזט. עס באַקומט זיך אַן אינטערעסאַנטע אינווערסיע פֿון דער מעשׂה מיט זמרי און פּנחס, וואָס ווײַזט קלאָר, אַז נישט אַלע כּנענים האָט יהושע בן נון אויסגעהרגעט מיט אַ שווערד.
אַזוי צי אַזוי, טרעפֿן מיר זיך ווידער אין אונדזער פּרשה מיט אַ פּערסאָנאַזש, וועלכער איז באַקאַנט אין דער ייִדישער טראַדיציע ווי אַ גרויסער נבֿיא און צדיק, אָבער זײַנע מיליטערישע מעשׂים ווערן באַטראַכט ווי אַן אוניקאַלער אויסנאַם, וואָס מע טאָר נישט נאָכמאַכן. וואָס שייך פּנחסן, שטייט אין די פּראַקטישע הלכה־ספֿרים געשריבן, אַז „אין מורין כּן‟. זײַן קנאָות־מעשׂה געהערט צו דער קאַטעגאָריע פֿון ריין־טעאָרעטישע הלכות.
מע קאָן זאָגן, אַז מיט די דערמאָנטע צוויי פּערסאָנאַזשן שליסט זיך אַ גאַנצער ציקל פֿון אומגעוויינטלעכע פּערזענלעכע חשבונות אינעם חומש „במדבר‟. פֿריִער האָבן מיר געלייענט וועגן קרח, דעם משיחישן אויפֿשטענדלער; די מיצווה פֿון „פּרה אדומה‟, וואָס אַפֿילו שלמה המלך האָט זי נישט געקאָנט פֿאַרשטיין על־פּי שׂכל. מיט אַ וואָך צוריק האָט די פּרשה געטראָגן דעם נאָמען פֿון בלק, אַ רשע און שׂונא־ישׂראל, וועלכער האָט פֿאָרט געוויזן אַ מוסטער פֿון מסירת־נפֿש. פּנחס און יהושע בן נון רעפּרעזענטירן אַן אַנדער מין פּאַראַדאָקסאַלע מענטשן: צדיקים, וועלכע האָבן געדינט דעם אייבערשטן מיט אַ שווערד.
די תּורה ווײַזט אונדז אין דער הײַנטיקער פּרשה אַן אינטערעסאַנטן לעבנס־פּאַראַדאָקס. זמריס „פֿרײַע ליבע‟ האָט דערוועקט אין הימל די מידת־הדין, אָבער פּנחסן האָט זיך מיט גוואַלד־מיטלען אײַנגעגעבן צו דערוועקן די געטלעכע מידת־הרחמים. ביידע פּערסאָנאַזשן האָבן דעמאָנסטרירט דעם דאָזיקן פּאַראַדאָקס אויף היפּוכדיקע עקסטרעמע אופֿנים.
The post Pinchas, this week’s Torah portion, is hard to stomach today appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
My city and party are changing. The implications for liberal Jewish New Yorkers could be enormous.
I moved to New York City in the early 1990s. My original commitment was for only one year, but I quickly fell in love with the place. Part of the appeal was the city’s Jewishness.
Everywhere you looked, there were signs of Jewish influence. This was an era where people repeated jokes from Seinfeld by the water cooler. And it was conventional wisdom that any candidate who wanted to hold office in New York had to appeal to the three “I’s” — Italy, Ireland, and Israel.
While being Jewish was not a big part of my identity — I am not religious and have always lived an assimilated life — I immediately felt comfortable in this kind of environment. I intuitively understood the humor and the rhythm of the city. Many prominent New York public officials — figures like Ed Koch and Ruth Messinger — were familiar types that I recognized from my extended family gatherings.
And so I ended up staying put, becoming yet another liberal Jewish New Yorker. For more than 30 years, I never really thought much about these three overlapping identities — liberal, Jew, New Yorker — because I didn’t have to. Nothing could be more natural than being a liberal Jewish New Yorker — the town was practically teeming with people more or less just like me.
The number of Jews in New York has remained basically the same since I first moved here, but the city no longer feels quite as hospitable as it once did. In fact, some prominent commentators and publications have begun asking: Is it still safe for Jews in New York?
This question doesn’t come out of nowhere. The years since Oct. 7, 2023 have been challenging for Jews in New York. The day after the attack, the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America held a gathering in Times Square to show their support for the Palestinian cause, marching under the banner “by any means necessary.” This was the start of a season of protest that featured encampments and demonstrations at many New York universities.
The energies unleashed by the pro-Palestine protest movement could not be contained on campus. Events kept landing closer and closer to my doorstep. The Israeli restaurant around the corner from my house was vandalized. My friend Andy Bachman, a liberal rabbi, was prevented from speaking at a Brooklyn bookstore because he supports the existence of Israel.
Then, last week, my congressman, Rep. Dan Goldman, went out to get a cup of coffee at Poetica, a café in Brooklyn. Afterward, Poetica posted a photo of him on Instagram, along with a message that the coffee shop does not serve “genocide enablers.” The post added, “Too bad we didn’t recognize you right away, or we would have turned you away.”
This insult was soon followed by (political) injury: Goldman lost his primary to Brad Lander, whose campaign was largely focused on accusing Goldman of not being tough enough on Israel, even though Goldman has been critical of the conduct of the war in Gaza and supportive of imposing conditions on American aid.
All of this is disconcerting, but let’s be clear: Today’s New York City is not Weimar Germany. Rep. Ritchie Torres — among the Democratic Party’s most vocal and consistent defenders of Israel — just won his primary by a wide margin. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has repeatedly vowed to protect the local Jewish community. Indeed, Mamdani likely would not have been elected without the support of roughly a third of Jewish voters.
New York City may still be safe for Jews, but what is less clear is whether the default position of many liberal Jews — who are critical of the Netanyahu government and supportive of a two-state solution — still has a place in the Democratic Party, either locally or nationally.
In Exit, Voice and Loyalty, economist Albert O. Hirschmann argued that when people are confronted by a deteriorating situation, they effectively have three options: to accept the decline, to leave, or to stay and fight. Jews have been building institutions and fighting for belonging in New York City for hundreds of years. Abandoning that work now would be a colossal overreaction.
However, liberal Jewish New Yorkers who choose to stay in the city will have to reckon with a changing reality. The demographics of New York have shifted. The Muslim population has grown. Younger New Yorkers have different political instincts than the generations that preceded them.
The recent New York congressional primary victories by three candidates who are extremely critical of Israel are not flukes — they are reflective of a significant turn in public opinion.
There has been a massive erosion of public support for Israel in the United States in recent years, with Americans now expressing more sympathy for the Palestinians than Israelis. Writing in Jewish Currents, Peter Beinart triumphantly announced: “Restricting U.S. support for Israel is no longer politically perilous; it’s politically expedient.”
The question is no longer whether the Democratic Party should include activists who are fiercely opposed to Israel. That ship has sailed. The question is whether the party — and polite society — will follow Poetica’s lead and declare people like Dan Goldman unwelcome.
Is there still a place in the Democratic Party for liberal Jews who believe in Israel’s right to exist? It remains to be seen. But for the first time in more than 30 years, I find myself thinking about the words “liberal,” “Jewish” and “New Yorker” as potentially separable things. I doubt I am the only one.
The post My city and party are changing. The implications for liberal Jewish New Yorkers could be enormous. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
We’re losing control of AI. Is Judaism the key to keeping it from killing us?
If you always dreamed of working in artificial intelligence, perhaps you studied computer science, or math. Who knows, maybe you did computational biology to better understand how to build a neural network. What you probably never imagined might be useful was Talmud, halakha and Jewish history.
Yet those are exactly the skills Judd Rosenblatt, founder of AI consulting company AE Studios and AI ethics nonprofit the AI Alignment Foundation, is looking for.
Rosenblatt thinks that the evolution of Jewish thought might be core to solving a very specific — and worrying — issue with artificial intelligence.
That issue is recursive self-improvement, or RSI, the process of an AI editing itself, and then editing those edits, and so on — all without humans in the loop, checking its work or even knowing about the changes. This skill is the current holy grail of AI research, because it will allow for exponential speed in improvements; every major AI company is racing toward RSI and, according to rumors, Anthropic has likely already achieved it. That means changes at a speed and scale human brains are not built to comprehend.
But RSI isn’t just a way to quickly improve AI — it is also the end of human control and oversight over artificial intelligence. It’s a sort of Ship of Theseus paradox, which asks whether a boat is the same object after all of its boards have been replaced. If AI rewrites itself over and over, faster and faster, will it cease to be the machine humans created and become something we can’t understand, predict or control? Which is where Rosenblatt’s project comes in.
“How do you make something that is poised to get exponentially smarter than you continue to do what you think is right and good?” he said. “How do we make it such that it does not kill us?”
This project is known in the business as AI alignment — basically, to make sure AI aligns with human values and ethics. The challenge is that AI might edit out those values during its upgrading; we already have evidence that AI will discard certain commands if it concludes they are extraneous or contradictory to its other goals. So the AI needs to believe that these ethical tenets are useful or valuable enough that it doesn’t delete them when it is rewriting itself.
The crux of Rosenblatt’s research is figuring out how to keep those values alive. He’s not only looking at Judaism; he’s also considering the history of thought, immune systems and even bookkeeping for ideas. (He is himself Jewish, raised Reform and bar mitzvahed — and recognized this may give him a bias toward halakha.) He is particularly interested in far-fetched ideas, outside the current Overton window of alignment techniques, none of which he thinks are sufficient for the coming problem of RSI.
“A lot of the biggest breakthroughs in the history of science come from individuals with strong hunches that no one else believed in. But these people chose to stick with their hunches,” Rosenblatt said.
He believes that finding “neglected visionaries” who are outside the norms and might struggle to find funding, and pairing them with a team of engineers and tech-minded experts, could lead to a breakthrough. To do this, he is taking some of the profits from his AI consulting firm AE Studios and putting them into the nonprofit AI Alignment Foundation.
“It’s interesting to study what has survived adversarial pressure over long periods of time. So you can say let’s study things that have survived evolutionary adversarial pressure,” and examine biological survival mechanisms, he said. “And then there’s civilizational adversarial pressure.”
Before the Second Temple was destroyed, Judaism revolved around temple sacrifice and the priesthood. Yet after its destruction, Judaism didn’t die; instead, it became something different.
The reason Judaism survived is not despite the changes, Rosenblatt hypothesizes, but because of them. “I think a tradition that reinterprets nothing is the more fragile one,” he said. “A rule that cannot be bent, cannot adapt to a new world and dies out.”
There are interesting parallels between the structure of arguments in the Talmud and the problem of RSI: Both involve constantly layered, referential rewritings; it even preserves the ideas that do not end up winning the arguments canonized in the writings. In the Talmud, the original text — the Torah — is interpreted into the Mishna, the Gemara and countless later commentaries that shift the practice of the laws over time. Yet certain values remain. Some of Judaism’s traits have even survived an even bigger change: Christianity. Yet even Christianity keeps some of Judaism’s core ideas, like monotheism and pikuach nefesh, the idea that saving a life supersedes any other command.
“It is maybe the best working example that I know of that survived the total destruction, multiple times, of the thing that was it,” Rosenblatt said. “And it did that using mechanisms that it built into itself, on purpose. That is the alignment problem, stated in Jewish terms.”
Another promising angle is the idea of covenant as a relational bond; Jews inherit the covenant, but must also choose to engage with Judaism, and with God, just as the AI might one day have to choose to preserve certain values even as it adapts them.
“Everything that lasts in Judaism is sort of organized around a covenant which endures the transformation from one generation to the next,” he said. “You inherit it, but you also choose to participate in it.”
Of course, Judaism has changed enormously over time — and some people might argue that its core has changed enormously too, with many Jews centering tikkun olam over keeping kosher, for example, or differing widely on Israel or even not believing in God.
But Rosenblatt said this is part of the point; some traits get selected for and last through major changes, and others don’t, just like in evolution. That’s how you winnow it down to its strongest components.
The question is what is that core that remains, and why. Rosenblatt has a lot of ideas. But he didn’t want to tell me what his hunch about Judaism’s eternal core; he doesn’t want to bias anyone. He wants those neglected visionaries to come and tell him their biggest, best ideas. The door is open.
The post We’re losing control of AI. Is Judaism the key to keeping it from killing us? appeared first on The Forward.
