Thank you very much, Rabbi. Regarding the combination of claims—I understood.
As for the Jews in America who received the Nobel Prize—they were not persecuted, and still it is surprising, because there is no example of this in history or even any precedent. Is that what makes the matter unique?
True, Singapore has a direct reason for it (diligence and economic opportunity), but at the end of the day there is still no precedent. I would be glad if the Rabbi could explain what I’m not seeing…

I didn’t claim that the Nobel Prizes are connected to persecution. It is a unique phenomenon that talent appears in unusual concentrations in a certain people. In that sense, it is not like excellence in building airports, which can be explained in terms of local society and culture. A meticulous people will excel at building airports. What does that have to do with our discussion? I once heard that there is also exemplary precision in public transportation in Germany. Do you also think that is similar?

Beyond that, the Singaporeans do not claim that there is some divine promise or special divine quality in the background. There is a difference between uniqueness that was predicted in advance and what was called here “statistics in reverse.” If you roll a die, the sequence you get will be very unusual (the chance of that exact sequence coming up is negligible). But nothing can be inferred from that. However, if that uniqueness is exceptional compared to the other results, and especially if it was predicted in advance by some hypothesis, then it has significance.

“A meticulous people will excel at building airports”—that means the other small nations are not meticulous enough in their culture to reach that title.
Why can’t we say regarding Jewish Nobel Prize winners that we are simply a smarter people than everyone else, or something else along those lines, and that’s the whole story? Is it because technically speaking the gap is much larger, to the point of being exceptional?

I explained what I had to explain. It seems self-evident to me. If you don’t agree—so be it.

In the Rabbi’s answer I noticed that the Rabbi doesn’t seem especially fond of democracy as a system. Can the Rabbi point to a preferable alternative?

Where did you see that? I have nothing against it.

“They have a non-democratic regime and therefore a very efficient one.”

A non-democratic regime has the potential to be more efficient. But it has other drawbacks (harm to freedom), and therefore in the end democracy is usually preferable in my view. You are assuming that efficiency is the main criterion for judging a government, and it is not.

Hello, honorable Rabbi.
The influence of the Jews in the Nobel Prizes was 1,000 times their share of the population. In making this calculation, are we supposed to include all the countries that have no chance of winning a Nobel Prize? (Arab countries or the African continent, etc.) It turns out that about 4 billion people would be removed from the chances of winning out of the world population—and then maybe the Jews’ chances of winning are not all that exceptional relative to what would be expected?

So then we’re down to 500 times their share of the population. Doesn’t really matter.

I got confused—100 times their share of the population. And out of 3 billion who have a chance of winning (with a developed academic culture), the wins are about 40 times their share of that population.
That’s like having a country today with 45 million people that influences the whole world.
I know it’s still impressive, but I’d be glad if the Rabbi could address this—is the claim of “100 times” a mistake?
Thank you very much.

Hello, honorable Rabbi.
The influence of the Jews in the Nobel Prizes was 100 times their share of the population. In making this calculation, are we supposed to include all the countries that have no chance of winning a Nobel Prize? (Arab countries or the African continent, etc.) It turns out that about 4 billion people would be removed from the chances of winning out of the world population (and then we would be about 0.6% of the chance of winning a Nobel). Is the ratio of “100 times” what would be expected—mistaken? (and is it really about 40 times?)
Does that change the wonder of the matter—maybe there has already been a precedent for this in history?
Please—I’d be glad if the Rabbi would answer me, thank you and sorry for the bother.

We have completely exhausted this. I see no point in getting into this bookkeeping. If it doesn’t convince you—then it doesn’t.

By the way, the Rabbi said several times that in his opinion the special quality of Israel is nonsense and that the Nobel Prizes stem from literacy and so on, and now look how the gentiles are catching up with us—specifically in recent decades the proportion of Jewish Nobel Prize winners is going up.

The special quality of Israel*

I haven’t checked and I’m not familiar with the data, but I doubt there is any real trend here. You need perspective in order to determine that. Let’s wait and see.

Hello, honorable Rabbi.
Is the French Revolution a special case, since France, which makes up less than one percent of the world, influenced the whole world? Thank you very much.

Itai, are you sure you’re a real person and not a troll?

Haha, indeed a real person… just “slightly” confusing myself…

If you are a real person, I suggest that you think on your own and not confuse yourself, and then I’m sure you’ll easily discover the answer.

Hello, honorable Rabbi. First of all, thank you for the criticism—it really built me up.
I wanted to ask regarding monotheism: while the whole world was pagan, the Jewish people believed in one God who has no bodily form, etc., and in addition He is a God who reveals Himself to human beings.
Is this an idea that already existed in the world, but simply did not find expression in worship (because of the desire for an immanent power)? If the Jewish people brought the idea of monotheism, can this join the claims the Rabbi made, because of how highly exceptional it is?

People usually say yes (that this is our innovation). But I’ve heard claims by researchers that certain monotheisms also existed. I don’t know. In any case, it is clear that we bequeathed it to the world in its present form.

Regarding the unique survival of the Jewish people and the Torah, despite all the persecutions and dispersions, the Rabbi wrote that this is a phenomenon without equal in the world.

Does the Rabbi mean the survival of the Torah regardless of the persecutions? But there are many ancient traditions (in China, Christianity, Islam…) that have been preserved more or less.

Or did the Rabbi mean that despite the persecutions the Torah was preserved—and there is no example of that in the world? And comparing this to religions that were persecuted and forgot their religion—but then perhaps this does not involve a large percentage of the world, so is the uniqueness really so significant and rare?

Itai, these questions are exhausting and unhelpful. I’ve already answered countless versions of these kinds of fine distinctions for you. Think for yourself.

Hello, honorable Rabbi.
It is known about the Yazidi religion that they survived many persecutions for hundreds of years and nevertheless preserved their religion and customs. Those same customs and traditions are an imitation of various religions, including pagan religions that disappeared. True, those customs are few, but they have a “book of Jewish law” dealing with prayers and accompanying ceremonies, holidays, clothing, and certain actions.
The phenomenon is admittedly not unique, but it is rare, since it is not usual to find peoples who were persecuted so much and still did not convert from their religion. What is the Rabbi’s opinion about this phenomenon? How does it affect our uniqueness in this regard?

Itai, I’m exhausted.

Itai,
The French Revolution was not all that unique. It was preceded by the English Revolution (1689) and the American one (1776). The issue had been under discussion in European society throughout the entire eighteenth century. Even Moses Mendelssohn demanded the abolition of the autonomy of the communities, out of viewing Judaism as a religion in accordance with the Enlightenment revolution before the French Revolution (before that the communities were a separate corporation).

As for the Yazidis and other such things: all over the world there were odd and strange corners. In India there were Zoroastrian Persians who were expelled from Persia by the Shiite Muslims. In America, various Indian groups. In China, its marginal groups. The central characteristic of those groups is their marginality, that is, they are all kinds of historical remnants from the past. The central characteristic of the Jews was their lack of marginality. You can’t imagine a debate between a Yazidi and a Muslim like the one between Nachmanides and Friar Pablo, organized by the king of Aragon, in which Nachmanides won and left with the spoils. In fact, the Jews conducted themselves in practice as equals facing the Muslims and the Christians. Sometimes they were expelled, as happened in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, but they did not disappear and did not become marginal. This is a certain kind of revelation, as the Talmud in Yoma says: “Were it not for His fear, how could one sheep survive among seventy wolves without being devoured?”

To Y.D.—but how does that change the fact that the survival of those religions is a wonder?
Rabbi Michael Abraham wrote in the booklet that this is a unique phenomenon of the Jewish people—but we see that there are other examples?