Even before the Simchat Torah War, many people had gradually come to the conclusion that Harvard no longer represents the highest level of excellence and sophistication, considering the percentage of its students who are there because of the color of their blood (“blue blood” aristocrats), not to mention the color of their skin (based on the well-intended and most admirable goals of diversity, equity and inclusion), let alone the color of the money that helped get them in there (green dollars for the Americans and petrodollars for whatever the color of oil is for Middle Eastern holders of student visas). Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz recently called Harvard a “laughingstock” – and not in a funny way.
The infamous letter signed soon after the October 7 massacre by representatives of 31 (then 33) student organizations held Israel exclusively responsible for the atrocities committed by Hamas and its allies on October 7. (For perspective, there are 450-plus student organizations at Harvard, and even leaders of some of the pro-Hamas organizations later retracted their endorsements of the letter, some of whom conceded they had never even read the letter, and thousands of Harvard “affiliates” went on record opposing the letter.) So, what might be said to many of the members of the 410-plus student organizations that did not sign on to that infamous letter, or to the declarations opposing it? Elie Wiesel famously said, “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
Without even getting into the Congressional testimony of Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, on genocide against Jews or her scholarship, or lack of it (against the scholarship of scholars she allegedly plagiarized), this article will focus on the students at Harvard who may still be among the best and the brightest.
Every human life is priceless, and every avoidable or unnecessary human death is defenseless, regardless of religion or nationality. But many students – and even professors and board members – at Harvard naively (to give them the benefit of the doubt) believe or pretend that the only numbers that count are the number of civilian Israelis murdered in peacetime against the number of human shields and victims of counterattacks aimed at terrorists who died in wartime. Even these numbers are very misleading because they fail to take into account the number of deadly missiles launched by Hamas into major densely occupied Israeli cities (and an estimate of the number of Israeli civilians targeted by Hamas), as well as the number of miracles we have witnessed because the Iron Dome has been so effective. The members of the 33 student organizations referred to above, and many other people – at Harvard and most other venues – generally fail to calculate, take into account or even mention all of these numbers and facts or to put them into context, a lesson the president of Harvard infamously theoretically advocates.
The daf yomi that was studied around the world the week before this newspaper went to press (Baba Kama 54) deals with people and animals who fell into pits that were presumably built with the best of intentions, in contrast to tunnels built with the worst of intentions. The victims are divided into categories – humans versus animals, victims with common sense (including some animals), and those without common sense (including some humans).
It takes a good part of the tractate to discuss all the variations, but some of the commentators take pains to articulate one distinction between humans and animals who fall into different categories before falling into pits. Oxen walk with their heads slightly lowered, and therefore, unless they are defined as dumb oxen, they are more likely to notice the pits in front of them (and to walk around them) than are humans who walk upright, looking straight ahead, on eye level (Tosefos) while thinking a variety of thoughts (Me’iri), whether good or bad, and whether cloudy or in the clouds.
Even animals that walk with their faces closer to – and angled closer to – the ground than humans can be classified into the categories of smart and dumb. The “smart” ones have no excuse for falling into pits in the daytime. Humans have an excuse, according to some commentators, as discussed above. But that doesn’t excuse them from at least taking precautions, wearing glasses, using walking or hiking sticks or poles where appropriate, not texting while walking, and looking where they are going.
All oxen except the “dumb” ones are generally presumed to keep their eyes on the ground, see what is ahead of them, and act with reasonable caution before moving ahead. The students at our elite institutions, and even the “dumb” people who don’t get into Harvard (quotation marks intended), must take the trouble to see what is to be seen before forging ahead. Seeing what is to be seen includes taking note of the context – whether violence is aimed at civilians or to protect civilians, whether people are being used as human shields to protect offensive missiles, or whether the Iron Dome and military maneuvers are used to protect civilians. Once there is a clear delineation between terrorism and defense, then one can come to conclusions as to whether there is any context for the defense of intentional barbarism, mutilation, murder, rape, and hostage-taking in peacetime against Jews and even against some of their neutral innocent employees from outside of Israel (who were not released from captivity immediately upon their origins being ascertained).
Whatever we might think of the leadership of Hamas, it has proven that it is not stupid. Even if the Israeli response to the unprovoked attacks of October 7 (by attempting to eliminate Hamas without any acts of barbarism, mutilation, or rape, etc.) could be defined as genocide of the people of Gaza (which of course I believe it cannot), the Harvard administration’s condoning of passionate public expressions of genocide of all Jews everywhere in the world, regardless of their location, views or level of support of Zionism or opposition to it, cannot possibly be defended by people with enlightened Western values in any context. Even an ox in the days of the Talmud would not be so stupid.
