Sometime in the late 15th century, an illuminated manuscript of the Haggadah came into the possession of a monastery in southern Germany, which then passed it on to the Christian Hebraist Erhard von Pappenheim, who appended a detailed prologue. The entire manuscript, prologue included, has now been published with a series of scholarly introductions. Philip Getz writes:

Although its illuminations are exquisite, what makes this Haggadah utterly unique is that some of them are also aggressively Christian. For instance, the quotation from Chronicles 21:16, “with a drawn sword in his hand directed against Jerusalem,” is accompanied by a Jesus-like figure raising a cross-like sword with one hand and folding two fingers and his thumb into the palm of his other hand to symbolize the Trinity. The same Jesus appears again several pages later when the Haggadah beseeches God to “Pour out Your fury on the nations that do not know You.” This time he is capped with a Judenhut and galloping in as the messiah on a white horse. . . .

The Latin prologue that precedes the manuscript contains something darker: a detailed outline of the seder, its laws and traditions, together with several classic (and innovative) versions of Christian anti-Semitism. . . . Nearly every element of Erhard’s prologue contributes to its meticulous depiction of a contemporary Ashkenazi seder. I say nearly because, written in as matter of fact a manner as the recipe for “herosses” [sic], we find the following: “If there is fresh blood, the head of the household sprinkles some drops—more or fewer, depending on how much he has—into the prepared batter, even though, they say, a single drop will suffice.”

Yesterday I saw an unconfirmed report that the Biden administration has offered Israel a massive arms deal in exchange for a promise not to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even if the report is incorrect, there is plenty of other evidence that the White House has been trying to dissuade Jerusalem from mounting such an attack. The thinking behind this pressure is hard to fathom, as there is little Israel could do that would better serve American interests in the Middle East than putting some distance between the ayatollahs and nuclear weapons. Aaron MacLean explains why this is so, in the context of a broader discussion of strategic priorities in the Middle East and elsewhere:

If the Iran issue were satisfactorily adjusted in the direction of the American interest, the question of Israel’s security would become more manageable overnight. If a network of American partners enjoyed security against state predation, the proactive suppression of militarily less serious threats like Islamic State would be more easily organized—and indeed, such partners would be less vulnerable to the manipulation of powers external to the region.

[The Biden administration’s] commitment to escalation avoidance has had the odd effect of making the security situation in the region look a great deal as it would if America had actually withdrawn [from the Middle East].

Alternatively, we could project competence by effectively backing our Middle East partners in their competitions against their enemies, who are also our enemies, by ensuring a favorable overall balance of power in the region by means of our partnership network, and by preventing Iran from achieving nuclear status—even if it courts escalation with Iran in the shorter run.