In A History of Judaism, the scholar Martin Goodman attempts to compress his vast subject into a single volume. He does so with no small degree of success, writes Rivkah Fishman-Duker, who sees the book as a bold deviation from academics’ current allergy to writing broad, useful surveys of the subjects they study:

[U]niversity professors increasingly focus [in their teaching and writing] on specific issues, even minutiae, rather than dealing with more general questions; thus we seem to know more and more about less and less. [Therefore] Martin Goodman’s A History of Judaism has appeared not a moment too soon and represents a welcome antidote to trends dating back several decades. In this age of ultra-specialization and deconstruction, . . . it is an act of extraordinary intellectual courage that Goodman . . . has written A History of Judaism from its origins to the present.

The volume offers a comprehensive overview of the development of Jewish religion and thought without imposing either a tenuous uniformity or a disorientating fragmentation. This balanced approach avoids the pitfalls of . . . recent studies [presenting] a random collection of disparate movements, ideas, and events.

Goodman’s definition of his subject as a history of Judaism rather than a history of the Jews facilitates his approach. Since Judaism was and is created by Jews, the author includes historical events and trends that are essential as background for the development of the variety of Jewish movements, ideas, principles, and practices. Therefore, the reader benefits from a chronological and geographical framework that accompanies the presentation and analysis of the texts and their authors during a given time period.

The significance of integrating dates and facts, while interpreting and evaluating the content of the sources cannot be overemphasized. . . . Goodman’s solid treatment dispels fuzzy thinking and misleading ideas, and he deserves accolades for honest scholarship and cogent arguments based on a wide selection of sources.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.