From 1751 to 1764, European Jewry was riven by a very public dispute between two of the most revered talmudic scholars of the day: Jacob Emden and Jonathan Eybeschütz. It began when the former accused the latter of being a secret follower of the 17th-century messianic pretender Shabbetai Tsvi—and therefore, a heretic. Shnayer Leiman comments on this and also on the oft-forgotten role of another esteemed rabbi, Jacob Joshua Falk:

Emden’s animosity toward Eybeschütz . . . could easily be explained away on grounds that are not necessarily bound up with an accusation of heresy. . . . In his autobiography, and certainly in his polemical works, Emden often emerges as a misanthropic, tempestuous, cantankerous, chronically ill, and incessantly whining social misfit and rabbinic genius who did not suffer either fools or [other] rabbinic scholars gladly.

Emden, whose father and grandfather had served as chief rabbis of [the triple community of] Altona, Hamburg, and Wandsbek surely felt that he should have been appointed to succeed them. That he had to live in Altona for some fifteen years [while Eybeschütz held this position] was simply more than he could bear.

It is far more difficult to explain away Jacob Joshua Falk’s animosity toward Eybeschütz on grounds other than the accusation of heresy. . . . [D]uring the key early years of the controversy, from 1751 until 1756, the campaign against Eybeschütz was directed primarily by Falk, then serving as chief rabbi of Frankfurt-am-Main; virtually everyone agreed that no other rabbi in the mid-18th century was in a better position to resolve the controversy.

Yet there are reports that Falk was blind. If so, he would not have been able to examine the amulets bearing kabbalistic incantations composed by Eybeschütz, which were the original basis for the accusations. Leiman, in a thorough investigation of the evidence, shows that it is unlikely Falk was blind when the controversy began—and notes, tellingly, that the earliest source stating that he was can be found in a letter written by Eybeschütz’s son.

Below, today’s newsletter will return to some other reflections on the one-year anniversary of the outbreak of the current war, but first something must be said of its recent progress. Israel has kept up its aerial and ground assault on Hizballah, and may have already killed the successor to Hassan Nasrallah, the longtime leader it eliminated less than two weeks ago. Matthew Levitt assesses the current state of the Lebanon-based terrorist group, which, in his view, is now “a shadow of its former self.” Indeed, he adds,

it is no exaggeration to say that the Hizballah of two weeks ago no longer exists. And since Hizballah was the backbone of Iran’s network of militant proxies, its so-called axis of resistance, Iran’s strategy of arming and deploying proxy groups throughout the region is suddenly at risk as well.

Hizballah’s attacks put increasing pressure on Israel, as intended, only that pressure did not lead Israelis to stop targeting Hamas so much as it chipped away at Israel’s fears about the cost of military action to address the military threats posed by Hizballah.

At the same time, Levitt explains, Hizballah still poses a serious threat, as it demonstrated last night when its missiles struck Haifa and Tiberias, injuring at least two people:

Hizballah still maintains an arsenal of rockets and a cadre of several thousand fighters. It will continue to pose potent military threats for Israel, Lebanon, and the wider region.

How will the group seek to avenge Nasrallah’s death amid these military setbacks? Hizballah is likely to resort to acts of international terrorism, which are overseen by one of the few elements of the group that has not yet lost key leaders.

But the true measure of whether the group will be able to reconstitute itself, even over many years, is whether Iran can restock Hizballah’s sophisticated arsenal. Tehran’s network of proxy groups—from Hizballah to Hamas to the Houthis—is only as dangerous as it is today because of Iran’s provision of weapons and money. Whatever Hizballah does next, Western governments must prioritize cutting off Tehran’s ability to arm and fund its proxies.