Is Josephus’ Problem also our problem?

Flavius Josephus was an author who lived during the 1^st Century CE during the time of the Roman Empire. His life began in 37 CE, born in Jerusalem to a wealthy Jewish family. Later he became a military governor for the Galilee province, a general in the Judaean rebellion and later a hostage at Rome. He wrote famous works such as “The Jewish War” and “Antiquities of the Jews,” painting a contemporaneously unique view on Jewish activity, relationships, and public life in antiquity. His works also illustrated the subjugation of the Jews, the pressures of assimilation and integration, the wars fought of Judaea, and later the birth and infancy of Christianity.

Josephus’ most famous commentaries were his first-hand account of the siege of Yodfat and his second-hand account of the disaster at Masada. 

In his first-hand account of the Yodfat siege, the audience is introduced to a problem, that has since been posed as a mathematical puzzle (the titular ‘Josephus Problem’). The context of this problem is as follows: Josephus (acting as general) and 40 of his men were trapped in a cave by the Roman army in Yodfat. Following a discussion, the men decided that death was preferable to what could have lain in store for them were they to be captured, enslaved and forced to worship idols (a major sin in Judaism). The men therefore came up with the following plan: all the soldiers would stand in a circle. The man in the first position would kill the next remaining living person in the chain to his left, the third would kill the fourth, the fifth the sixth, and so on. At the conclusion of the chain of killings (as opposed to mass suicide), only one man would be left at the end, who would (presumably) die by his own hand.

Josephus did not want to die, preferring the thought of capture to death. His aim was to be the last remaining person in the chain, so that on survival, he could choose to surrender instead of being killed by a comrade or killing himself by suicide. The posed problem was therefore, in which position (of the 41 men present) would guarantee his survival? The extended version for n number of individuals, is how to calculate the s survival position in n number of individuals in the chain. For those of you who are interested in solving mathematical puzzles, this one is a doozy.

In addition to this posed problem, Josephus’ commentary on the siege of Masada is one of the most tragically inspiring stories that was recorded not only in Jewish religious texts but also in other historical sources (the most famous being Josephus’ own). As many readers may recall, the tale of Masada is left with almost 1000 Jews dead inside the fortress at Masada. Some may remember scaling Masada in the early hours of the morning to watch the sunrise atop the summit via the Roman path (a relatively short road, initially built to siege the fortress). Sometimes it can be difficult to reconcile the beauty of the sunrise with the tragedy that struck there – the mass suicide plan of 960 individuals to avoid and resist Roman subjugation.

Both stories are examples of the Jewish Halakhic principle of פיקוח נפש (Pikuakh Nefesh – “saving a life / soul”) being overridden by necessity. 

פיקוח נפש is the principle in Judaism that in almost all circumstances, the preservation of one’s own or another’s life is preferable even to keeping commandments from the Torah, abiding by Halakhah (Jewish law), or honouring customs and traditions.

There are only three exceptions to the principle of פיקוח נפש. These are in the face of:

1. Murder (שפיכות דמים – sh’fikhut damim – literally “spilling of blood”)
2. Idolatry (עבודה זרה – avodah zarah – literally “foreign worship”)
3. Sexual Misconduct (גלוי עריות – giloi arayot – literally “forbidden relationships”)

 In the case of both Yodfat and Masada, the threat of idolatry was too great to warrant the option of survival and so in this extreme case, פיקוח נפש was overridden and lives were taken. One may question why only the three above areas are the exceptions to פיקוח נפש and that to limit the applicable scenarios to only three as paltry, but the reasoning behind this limitation is that these actions were historically common strategies instigated by oppressive regimes that aimed to publicly humiliate or make examples out of Jewish people. Some examples of occasions where the ideals of פיקוח נפשwere overridden were the Spanish Inquisition (1478 – 1834), inclusive of the Expulsion of the Jews, per the Alhambra Decree in 1492; the various Russian pogroms against the Jews (in 1821, 1859, 1871, 1881 and 1905); and most notably prior to and including the Holocaust (1933 – 1945).

The extremity of this situation and Halakhah of פיקוח נפש may not be incredibly relevant to us today, en masse. One common application, in modern times of this Halakhah, is the permission for medical professionals to work over Shabbat – to “save lives.” It is important, therefore, to distinguish relevant lessons that we learn from this sort of history, and how we can apply those lessons to our run-of-the-mill daily lives.

I will put the following ideas to you. When we face difficult (but not extreme) decisions that aren’t life-threatening, how should we feasibly proceed?

Naturally, rabbonim and religious teachers may guide you towards the ethics of the Torah and Mitzvot (commandments), whereas secular leaders might point you to observing the national laws or following a set of values, perhaps based on a selection of philosophical arguments.

My advice, instead, would be to aim to manifest some sort of balance or compromise between the two.

Marvel’s Peggy Carter, and later Steve Rogers, spoke on the importance of standing up for one’s own values, as follows:

“Compromise where you can. Where you can’t, don’t. Even if everyone is telling you that something wrong is something right. Even if the whole world is telling you to move, it is your duty to plant yourself like a tree, look them in the eye and say – no, you move.”

This motivational statement exemplifies the attitude of the besieged Jews at both Yodfat and Masada. This determination to remain resolute in the faith they believed in, not give in to the pressures of changing their identity simply to please others and make a stand on their own terms is evident of the same sort of steadfastness that the Marvel characters are suggesting. This sort of tenacity and strength of belief is a difficult ideal to champion and nurture but is exactly the sort of characteristic that has helped see Jewish identity survive the adversities of discrimination, persecution and antisemitism from the birth of the Hebrew nation to present.

 In contrast, the modern Chinese author and speaker, Ping Fu, made comments instead about emulating the characteristics of bamboo when taking on the pressures and tests the world throws at us. She said:

“Bamboo is flexible, bending with the wind, but never breaking, capable of adapting to any circumstance. It suggests resilience, meaning that we have the ability to bounce back even from the most difficult times… Your ability to thrive depends, in the end, on your attitude to your life circumstances. Take everything with grace, putting forward energy when it is needed, yet always staying calm inwardly.”

If this weren’t painfully obvious, the Jewish people have been acting like bamboo since the very inception of the nation and people. This sort of belief mirrors the manner in which Jewish lifestyle, heritage and teaching has continued to find a way to survive throughout the various disasters ranged against us. The Jewish people have had to bounce back from the struggles of slavery in Egypt, survival in the desert, conquest by neighbouring empires, and most recently the continuous status of being at war with its neighbours since its rebirth in 1947/48 and the current hostage and war situation with Hamas from 2023.

If the Jewish people were to have simply planted themselves as trees, they would have been felled and never recovered. Had they have simply taken the battering of persecution and never fought back like bamboo, the identity might have remained malformed and malnourished. The Jewish people have needed to trust in their abilities to act both like trees and like bamboo to remain stalwarts in their worldly presence throughout the ages.

Between these two philosophies, it is apparent that both qualities are required to make a present difference in the world. Between פיקוח נפש, and the philosophies of Peggy Carter / Steve Rigers and Ping Fu, we owe it to ourselves to stand by what we believe in, adapt to respond to issues in a way that encourages a positive impact by way of the continued presence of the Jewish people and make sure to, where possible, endanger the fewest lives in the meantime.

In summary, whilst we, on the whole, are not facing the extremities of the situations Josephus describes, our approach to solving issues presented to us will likely reflect the nature of Josephus’ response to dangerous circumstances, life-threatening or not.