On the Shoulders of Giants: A Look at Altruism and Renaissance People (Column 572)

Dedicated to my son Shlomi,

“How beautiful are the nights in Canaan”

“If I have managed to see a little farther,

it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants.”

(Isaac Newton. For the history of the expression – see here)[1]

Last night the NBA playoff series was decided and Denver won the championship for the first time. The name of its Serbian star, Nikola Jokić (nicknamed “the Joker,” a play on his name), is on everyone’s lips. He is now regarded as the greatest basketball player in the world. A few days ago I was asked whether I planned to write something toward the end of the season, and I replied that I write only if there is a broader, more general lesson to be drawn from the matter (it’s important to distinguish between business and pleasure). This morning I decided that it is indeed worth writing something here.

On the shoulders of giants: a look at a boomerang process

It has always been known that the team that lays its hands on a giant who isn’t a complete oaf wins the game and the title. The most prominent name for me for this phenomenon is the legendary Vladimir Tkachenko, a CSKA Moscow player in the 1970s–80s. I can still vividly recall his mountainous figure standing in the paint as all the dwarfs stood around him helpless, trying to climb onto his shoulders in a desperate, hopeless attempt to stop him. He wasn’t a great athlete, and his skills weren’t much. But there wasn’t much one could do against his size. In those days, Tkachenkos of various sorts were a winning card. Not for nothing did “Tkachenko” in Israel become synonymous with a giant, roughly like “Gulliver” (who, as we know, wasn’t a giant himself—but in Lilliput he was. Everything is relative).

But one can note that over the years since then an interesting shift has occurred in the basketball world. Giants are no longer an automatic trump card. Of course, it doesn’t hurt to have a good giant, but many coaches choose a small-ball tactic, that is, a shorter and quicker lineup. Small-ball lineups often manage to cope with giants and even beat them. Sometimes coaches even prefer a small-ball unit over fielding a counter-giant of their own. This is apparently a matter of improvements in players’ technique and tactics, their athleticism, and so on—improvements that allow the “dwarfs” to successfully contend with giants. My impression is that they do this in two main ways: on defense they manage to block and body up, or prevent passes to the giant, bother and harass him, and so forth. But even if they can’t really handle the giant on defense, they are willing to absorb his blows if on offense they will have an advantage in quickness and speed over him.

By the way, as part of these changes we find forwards and guards who are themselves pretty giant. Sometimes it’s hard to believe that LeBron James is a fellow whose measurements suit a center, and there are many others like him (power forwards). The division between short and tall, and the link between height and role on the court, has blurred considerably (riddle: what do you think Kristaps Porziņģis’s height is?). Today the tie between height and position depends less on height and more on skills and style of play. There are very short players who sometimes play in the paint almost like centers (for example, our old friend from Hapoel Holon, P. J. Tucker, who found his way to the NBA at a rather advanced age, and other bruisers like Draymond Green of the “Warriors”), and others the other way around.

And in recent years it seems there’s actually been a step back. This is the boomerang process I mentioned. We are once again meeting superstar giants. In fact, it seems that today we’ve reached a point where most of the stars are again such. Think of Antetokounmpo, Jokić of course, Joel Embiid, Kevin Durant, and many others. All of these are right at the top and considered among the most prominent superstars (all were entirely legitimate MVP candidates). There are also others, of course—stars who are not giants (Steph Curry, LeBron James, Ja Morant, and more)—who have abilities that compensate for their dimensional inferiority (height-challenged), but I think that despite this, the boomerang process of the giants’ return to center stage is quite striking.

Is it really a boomerang?

On a closer look, it seems we are not dealing here with a boomerang process. We haven’t really returned to the previous state. If you think of all the folks on the list above, you’ll find that none of them is a classic center. All are endowed with a very diverse set of abilities. Some are as athletic as an average guard (Antetokounmpo), most shoot excellently from three, dribble well, pass wonderfully, and of course also function well inside the paint as befits giants. Some actually function as their team’s primary ball-handler (Antetokounmpo, Durant, and Jokić), running the game like one of the “dwarfs.” It’s a rising of the generations—literally and figuratively. So, in the process I describe here, there is no real return to the earlier situation, but an evolutionary improvement in a spiral or screw pattern. From static giants we moved to quick, shooting dwarfs, until a synthesis emerged: giants who possess the set and variety of abilities of both giants and dwarfs together (giant-dwarfs).

Note that such a skill set can hardly exist in dwarfs. A dwarf can’t be a giant (though above I gave quasi-examples), but a giant can be a shooter and quick. Therefore the giants’ inherent advantage still manifests here—but this time in a more comprehensive, varied, and complete way. These players are more complete than their predecessors, both the dwarfs and the giants. There were always a few such players, but today it seems to be a phenomenon.

In Column 143 I argued that, to the best of my impression, there is a monotonic improvement in basketball players’ abilities. There I said that it is very hard to measure these qualities quantitatively, to explain why this happens, or even to validate the claim that it happens. Here I suggested certain metrics that give meaning to that earlier claim. I’ll note that this isn’t only natural evolution. I assume this process rests on knowledge, technique, and hard work—and in Columns 13 and 569 I discussed the value of these (which is not merely instrumental).

Back to Nikola Jokić

If we focus on the praises of the groom in question, Nikola Jokić—may he live and be well—the fellow is really not quick; he moves quite clumsily and awkwardly (see these wonderful videos parodying it)[2], but he has a marvelous awareness of the entire court (inside and out). He brings the ball up, passes brilliantly, shoots excellently (also from three), defends, blocks (on the move) and even gets quite a few steals; his dribbling isn’t impressive in itself, but if you think about it, it’s hard to recall a situation where someone stripped him of the ball. And at the same time, he also grabs rebounds, blocks (shooters), and of course knows how to bully his way to the rim like one of the Tkachenkos.

It has been noted that in none of these abilities is he perfect, and perhaps in none of them is he the best even today. But in all of them he is very close, and it seems that this ensemble (together with very impressive basketball IQ) makes him a player against whom it is almost impossible to compete. Of him it is said, “No weapon forged against you shall prosper.” Everything tried against him has failed: double-teams, denying passes to or from him, man-to-man or zone—nothing helps. He always has an answer. This stems from the range of his abilities, and no less from his team-orientation and lack of ego.

It is important to note that in addition to all his virtues, Jokić plays in a way that makes it clear his goal is the team’s victory, not his personal stats and achievements. If he doesn’t have a good look, he will pass, and vice versa. Sometimes it seems he doesn’t want to shoot at all; yet even then he runs the game, pulls the entire defensive force toward him, thereby enabling his teammates to score instead (as he frees them from their defenders and hits them with varied, very impressive passes). He is a true altruist—at least in his style of play—and he makes all his teammates better and more effective (very much like the LeBron James of not so long ago).

This brings me to two broader lessons (without which this column would not have been written—see above; give them their due): the meaning of altruism, and the value of Renaissance people.

A further look at the paradox of altruism

In the end I am always surprised to discover that despite his altruistic play, Jokić reaches very impressive numbers on the personal level as well. Somehow, after you hardly noticed him throughout the game, almost always he emerges at the end with a personal triple-double. Needless to say, these numbers usually don’t reflect his true contribution to the game, which is far greater. There are many aspects not captured by those numbers (an assist that didn’t end in a basket, a screen that enabled someone else to score, drawing the defense so others get open, and so on). Precisely his diversity and versatility allow him to rack up personal numbers across varied categories—if not in points, then in assists, steals, rebounds, etc. Each time he attacks from a different angle, but almost always his totals add up to a very impressive picture. For our purposes, his aim is the team’s victory, but in the end both the team and he himself benefit from it.

His mirror image is a player endowed with a broad skill set as well—Russell Westbrook—who systematically failed to reach those places. There were seasons when he held mind-boggling personal records (triple-double counts, season averages), yet his teams again and again didn’t go very far. In Column 357 I mentioned the common interpretation that he plays very selfishly and aims to accumulate personal numbers rather than team success. Even when he passes, it seems to be to tally an assist rather than because the team needs it. In fact, the team ultimately doesn’t succeed, and he personally doesn’t receive the regard befitting the personal numbers he posts.

It turns out that sometimes the invisible hand doesn’t work, and capitalism isn’t the best solution. Capitalism maintains that if a person acts for his own good, the collective will benefit—and that this works better than a centralist approach that tries to organize everything from above optimally for the common good. Capitalism trusts an invisible hand to arrange the world better than people trying to do so directly. But here we discover that someone who acts for the common good actually succeeds more—both at the collective level and at the personal level.

This reminds me of several other contexts where we see something similar. The first is evolution. Many point to the survival value in altruism. Altruism involves a willingness to pay a price, sometimes even to sacrifice oneself, for the group (the collective). It turns out that such willingness—which would seem to harm me personally (for the sake of the collective’s survival)—leads to better outcomes, and not only for the collective. I think that in evolution this is also true: if a group’s members are ready to give themselves for the collective, they will be attacked less; therefore, in the end, individuals can benefit and survive more.

Much has been noted about relations between states or groups: a state’s willingness to go to war—instead of an overly obsessive pursuit of peace (while being ready to pay its price)—is precisely what prevents war. Pursuing peace is almost a guarantee that there will be no peace, and that war will be perpetuated—and perhaps even lost. Resolve and toughness that may seem dangerous and harmful to survival can prove very beneficial to it. If it were clear to the Palestinians that they had no chance of extracting concessions, I assume they would be less motivated to pressure and attack to extract concessions, and then we would all benefit. Likewise, had far more force and determination been applied in the various intifadas, it is possible the number of casualties, both ours and theirs, would have been significantly reduced (see Column 149 on the carrot-and-stick policy).

A further, broader connection was discussed in Column 122. There I dealt with Kant’s categorical imperative and showed that acting from considerations that ignore consequences is precisely what brings about the best outcomes (I likened it to the prisoner’s dilemma; see there). Therefore I argued that, ultimately, Kant can be seen as a hidden utilitarian. For our purposes, there too it turns out that cooperation and altruistic conduct maximize personal gain as well, not only the collective’s. In game theory too, there are situations in which there is an advantage to a coalition strategy and cooperation over maximizing individual profit. So Jokić and his Denver team are further evidence of this. Evolution took 47 years, but now they’re leading the league—and perhaps there is a broader, longer-term lesson here beyond basketball tactics.

The value of Renaissance people

Another point that arises here is Renaissance people. I’ve told here before that when I was an undergraduate at Tel Aviv University, they celebrated Isaiah Leibowitz’s 80th birthday there. I sat in the audience in a large hall and, like everyone, waited for the groom himself to speak. As is known, our groom held several doctorates in different fields and spent his life spread over several disciplines. In his remarks he recounted that many times people approached him and told him that he should have focused on one field, specialized, and devoted himself mainly to it; that way he could have achieved tremendous things—perhaps even a Nobel Prize. He said he always answered that he preferred broad specialization and general education over narrow specialization, even if one goes less far that way. This phenomenon is sometimes called “Renaissance people.” These are people with a broad general education (which also includes deep understanding, not just the ability to quote and impress), even if they’re not true experts in each field. I recall that when I heard those words they made a great impression on me, and I felt similarly.

In Jokić’s case, at least within basketball, one can say he is a Renaissance man. As I described, his hands are many: dribbling, passing, shooting, defense, steals, blocks, post-ups, rebounding, awareness inside and outside the paint, and more and more. In almost every domain of basketball he is near perfection, though in almost none of them on its own is he truly number one. The combination of this whole variety creates a wholeness or value that eclipses the “narrow professionals” who are, ostensibly, better than him in this or that specific area.

Is this the same phenomenon as Renaissance people? Not necessarily. We can divide Renaissance people into three types: (A) people who have understanding in many fields, each independently of the others; (B) people whose understanding in each field adds value to their understanding and success in other fields; (C) people whose set of abilities accumulates and creates a shared, unified value.

With Jokić it is seemingly the third model. Rebounding doesn’t contribute to passing ability, or vice versa. There are, to be sure, some links: the fact that he shoots well makes people guard him, thereby others are left open for him to pass to, and so on. But in general we’re dealing with a set of abilities that add up to one wholeness. To succeed in basketball (to win games) you must defend, shoot, and dribble; pass and steal; etc. All these together create the game’s result. Hence this is the third model, in which the set of abilities accumulates and fuses to create a shared value (the contribution to winning), and it turns out to be greater than what would be achieved by any one of them alone.

The second model is Leibowitz’s, since his scientific understanding contributed to his philosophical, Jewish, and other insights—and perhaps vice versa. That is, this is a case in which the different fields enrich one another, and understanding all of them together contributes to each one something that someone who understands only that field would not have. One who lacks philosophy and science will also find his Talmudic analysis and thought less deep and sharp. But there, there is no shared goal among them; the mutual contribution is to each field separately. They profit from one another.

The first model seems truly puzzling: a person who possesses knowledge and understanding in many fields, yet none of them benefits from the others, and there is no shared goal to which they all strive. Is there value to such a Renaissance person? My feeling is yes. Assuming there is value to knowledge as such—and it is not merely a means to produce things or achieve ends—then knowledge in many fields has value in itself, even if one doesn’t feed the others or join them. Think of Torah study. I have often written that, in my view, the value of Torah study is in the very learning and Torah understanding; it is not merely a means to know what to do. Let us suppose for the sake of argument that one’s expertise in the laws of niddah doesn’t help him understand the laws of blessings, Kabbalah, Tanakh, thought, ethics, and so on. Does the fact that he has understanding in all these areas have value compared to someone with complete understanding in only one? I think so. There is something of intrinsic value in this Renaissance quality. Of course, in practice there is value in the joining of fields, since there is mutual contribution to understanding across them; but I contend that even the very holding of all of them in parallel has value. A multi-faceted person is worth more than a narrow person who is a great expert in his field. There is also an opposing value to narrow expertise, but I claim there is also a Renaissance facet to intellectual value. And this applies not only to a mix of Torah fields but also to other domains of knowledge. Other fields of knowledge are not merely “cooking and baking” for the Torah; they have value in their own right, and their presence alongside Torah has added value.

“A master of one craft”

There is a saying (to my surprise, not from the Sages—although several books quote it in their name from the Talmud; on it and its transformations see here): “Never did anyone defeat me except a master of one craft.” Its meaning is that there is an advantage to a “single-craft artisan,” since he will likely be the greatest expert in that craft. Thus, for example, a washer-dryer combo will usually wash worse than a washing machine and dry worse than a separate dryer (unless the price reflects it).[3] Along these lines, a kosher restaurant will usually be less tasty than a non-kosher restaurant (unless the price differs).[4] A soldier who is also a philosopher will likely be a worse soldier—and perhaps also a worse philosopher (cf. Wittgenstein). A Torah scholar who is also a coalman will likely be less of a scholar than someone who devotes himself solely to Torah (see Berakhot 28a regarding Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua; and Kesef Mishneh on Hilkhot Talmud Torah 3:10).

This sounds very clear to us intuitively. But here I wanted to argue the opposite: there is value in Renaissance-ness, that is, precisely in one who is not a “single-craft artisan.” Of course this doesn’t cancel the advantages of specialization, but it grants advantages the narrow professional lacks—both in breadth of perspective and in the ability to conceive ideas composed of a range of fields (the third model), and in the mutual enrichment between fields. A broad view can give a physicist, a Torah scholar, or a philosopher ideas that would not have occurred to him even in his own area of expertise (the second model). And, as noted, in my opinion even the very diversity of fields has value in itself (the first model).

In the article cited above there is a passage written by “the Poet” (apparently Immanuel of Rome, author of Mahberot Immanuel):

“Indeed, my heart trembles and my thoughts are troubled / at the man who sets his face toward one wisdom / for he will polish its edges and open its stores / and drink and drain its cup… And I will lift my proverb and say: I never waged war with a man of many wisdoms and he defeated me; / but a man of one wisdom, when he battled me one day, drove me to flight.”

It seems there is a tension here between Renaissance-ness and focusing on one wisdom. A master of one wisdom will generally win in battle—but it’s not clear that this is truly the complete model.

I’ll add that on further thought, the first model may be a special case of the third. If we view education itself as human perfection (that is, as a value), then the multiplication and variety of fields in which a person acquires education and understanding combine to create a more complete human being. In this sense, the first model converges into a special case of the third. This is the figure of an intellectual-spiritual Jokić.

Rambam’s words

One of our greatest Renaissance figures was Maimonides. He touches a bit on these issues in the concluding chapter of his Guide of the Perplexed:

“The term ‘wisdom’ in Hebrew applies to four things: it applies to the apprehension of truths whose ultimate aim is the apprehension of Him, may His name be blessed—‘And where shall wisdom be found?’—and ‘If you seek her as silver’…

According to this explanation, one who is wise in all the Torah in its truth is called ‘wise’ in two respects: by virtue of what the Torah includes of intellectual virtues, and by virtue of what it includes of moral virtues. But since the intellectual matters in the Torah are received and not demonstrated by the methods of inquiry, we find in the books of the Prophets and the words of the Sages that they make knowledge of the Torah one kind, and complete wisdom another kind. That complete wisdom is that by which, through demonstration, there is verified what we have learned from the Torah by way of tradition from those intellectual matters. And all that you find in the books exalting wisdom and its value—and ‘few are they who are wise,’ and ‘Whence shall wisdom be found?’ and many such verses—all refer to that wisdom by which demonstration teaches us the doctrines of the Torah. And indeed, in the words of our Sages this too is very frequent; that is, they also make knowledge of the Torah one kind, and wisdom another kind. They said of Moses our Master: ‘Father in Torah, father in wisdom, father in the prophets,’ and it was said of Solomon that he ‘was wiser than all men’—they said, ‘but not more than Moses,’ for he intends by ‘all men’ all the men of his generation; and therefore you find that he mentions Heman, Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol, the wise men famous then. And the Sages also stated that a person is first called to account for knowledge of the Torah, then for wisdom, and then for what is incumbent upon him from the study of Torah—that is, to derive from it what ought to be done. And thus is the proper order: first those doctrines are known by way of tradition, then they are demonstrated, and then the actions that improve man’s ways are made precise. And this is their language: when a man enters judgment, first they say to him: ‘Did you set times for Torah? Did you engage in wisdom? Did you understand one matter from another?’ Behold, it is clarified to you that knowledge of the Torah for them is one kind, and wisdom another, namely to verify the doctrines of the Torah through true inquiry.

And after this introduction I say: The ancient and later philosophers have already explained that the perfections found for man are four kinds. The first and least of them, upon which the people of the world have spent their days, is the perfection of possessions […] The second kind depends upon the human body more than the first, namely the perfection of bodily form and constitution […] The third kind is a perfection in the human body more than the second, namely the perfection of moral qualities […] And the fourth kind is the true human perfection, when the intellectual virtues are attained—that is, the conception of intelligibles from which true opinions about divinity are learned. This is the ultimate end; it perfects man with a true perfection; it is his alone; and for it he merits eternal continuance; and in it man is man. Examine each of the previous three perfections; you will find they are for others, not for you. And if, according to common opinion, it is impossible without their being for you also, still they are for you and for others; but this last perfection is for you alone—no other shares it with you at all: ‘They shall be yours alone, and strangers shall not share with you.’ Therefore it is proper that your effort be to attain that which remains for you; do not toil and labor for others—you who forget your soul until the whiteness of her face is blackened by the domination of bodily powers over her; as is said at the beginning of those poetic parables that pertain to this matter: ‘My mother’s sons were angry with me; they made me keeper of the vineyards; my own vineyard I did not keep.’ And on this very matter he said: ‘Lest you give your honor unto others and your years unto the cruel.’ Behold, the prophets too have explained these very matters to us and expounded them as the philosophers expound them. They told us explicitly that the perfection of possessions, the perfection of bodily health, and the perfection of moral qualities are not the perfection in which one should glory and boast and that one should seek; but the perfection in which one should glory and seek is the knowledge of the Lord—this is the true wisdom. Jeremiah said concerning these four perfections: ‘Thus says the Lord: Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might; let not the rich man glory in his riches; but let him who glories glory in this: that he understands and knows Me.’ Note how he took them in the order of their standing among the masses, for the greatest perfection for them is: rich in his riches; after that, mighty in his might; after that, wise in his wisdom, i.e., the one of good moral qualities—for that man too is great in the eyes of the masses to whom these words are addressed; and therefore he ordered them accordingly. And the Sages derived from this verse the very matters we have mentioned and explained to you in this chapter—that is, that the ‘wisdom’ mentioned without qualification everywhere, which is the end, is the apprehension of the Lord; and that those acquisitions that a person acquires, making them his treasured possession and thinking them perfections, are not perfections; and that all the commandments of the Torah—that is, the modes of service—and likewise the moral qualities that benefit men in their dealings with one another, none of this should be likened to the ultimate end nor equated with it; rather, they are all means for the sake of that end. And hear their words on these matters in their language (Bereshit Rabbah): it is written in one place, ‘And all desirable things are not to be compared to her,’ and in another place, ‘And all your desires are not to be compared to her.’ ‘Desirable things’—these are commandments and good deeds; ‘your desires’—these are precious stones and pearls. ‘Desirable things’ and ‘your desires’ are not to be compared to her; but, ‘Let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows Me.’ See the brevity of this saying and the perfection of its words, and how nothing is lacking from all that we have said at length in its exposition and preliminaries. And after we have mentioned this verse and what it includes of wondrous matters, and mentioned the words of the Sages upon it, we will complete all that it includes: it did not suffice in that verse to state that apprehension of Him alone is the most noble of perfections; for if that were the intent, he would have said, ‘Let him who glories glory in this: that he understands and knows Me,’ and stopped; or he would have said: ‘that I am one,’ or ‘that I have no form,’ or ‘that there is none like Me,’ and the like. Rather, he said that one should glory only in the apprehension of Him and in the knowledge of His ways and attributes—that is, His acts—as we have explained regarding ‘Show me now Your ways’; and he explained to us in that verse that those acts that should be known and practiced are loving-kindness, justice, and righteousness. And he added another matter very necessary: ‘on earth’—which is the axis of the Torah—and not according to the thinking of the destroyers who thought that His providence, may He be exalted, ends at the lunar sphere and that the earth and what is upon it has been abandoned—‘The Lord has abandoned the earth.’ Rather, as the master of all the wise clarified for us: ‘The earth is the Lord’s’—that is, His providence is also on earth according to what it is, just as He exercises providence in the heavens according to what they are; and this is his saying: ‘For I, the Lord, do loving-kindness, justice, and righteousness on earth.’ And afterward he completed the matter and said: ‘For in these I delight, says the Lord’—that is, My intent is that loving-kindness, justice, and righteousness come forth from you on earth, as we have explained in the Thirteen Attributes—for the intent is to emulate them and to walk in their ways. Thus, the intent mentioned in that verse, when clarified, is that the perfection of man in which he may truly glory is to attain, to the extent possible, apprehension of God and to know His providence over His creatures in bringing them into existence and governing them—how it is—and to follow that apprehension in ways that intend always to do loving-kindness, justice, and righteousness, to emulate the acts of God, as we have explained several times in this treatise.”

“This is what I have seen fit to place in this chapter—what I deem very useful for someone like you. And I hope that with proper contemplation you will attain all the matters I have included in it, with God’s help, and may He merit us and all Israel, companions, with what He has promised us: ‘Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped… The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them light has shined.’”

“The end. Completed and finished. Blessed be the Lord forever.”

There is much to discuss in all his words. He writes that there is value in the perfection of possessions (wealth), the body (sport), the character traits (virtues), and the intellect (wisdom). His claim is that the other perfections are only instruments for intellectual perfection, and one who attains that no longer needs them. But simply put, it seems there is added value in one who holds all these perfections together. Thus, for example, all these perfections are cited as conditions for the indwelling of the Shekhinah and prophecy (see Shabbat 92a). The Talmud says that in Moses our Master, Rabbi Judah the Prince, and Rav Ashi, “Torah and greatness were joined in one place” (see Sanhedrin 36a). There, too, such a conjunction seems to have value in itself.

If so, Maimonides was indeed a Renaissance figure, but he championed intellectual Renaissance-ness. He did not believe in combining other perfections. I present here another possibility: Renaissance-ness need not refer only to perfections in the realm of knowledge. Combinations of perfection from the spheres of possessions and the body also have value. And thus we return to our master Jokić (at least in the realms of possessions and body, he is apparently set). May his merit protect us and all Israel, amen.

[1] In the Jewish context, see Dov Zlotnick’s article, “The Parable of the Dwarf and the Giant and Its Transformations,” Sine 76.

[2] That fellow imitates other players excellently. He has a site with such videos.

[3] The uncertainty principle states: drying quality × washing quality × price = constant.

[4] Here too: taste × kashrut × price = constant.