In 1772, the Jewish printer L. Alexander of London produced one of the country’s first Jewish books: an English translation of the talmudic tractate Pirkei Avot (“Ethics of the Fathers”) along with the commentary of Moses Maimonides. Jeffrey Maynard describes this work, and its historical context. (Reproductions of some pages can be found at the link below.)

The Ashkenazi community in London started to flourish under the . . . rabbinic leadership of Rabbi David Tevele Schiff, who was appointed chief rabbi in 1765. The rebuilt Great Synagogue was dedicated in 1766, and Hebrew printing in London started in 1770 with what was probably the first book by Jewish printers and typesetters, [an edition of the penitential prayers known as sliḥot]. At about the same time (1770), the first siddur in Hebrew with an English translation was printed in London by Alexander Alexander and Baruch Meyers. This was followed in 1771 by a set of Hebrew maḥzorim (festival prayer books).

The translator, the English scholar Abraham Tang (d. 1792) was a grandson of the [rabbinic judge] of Prague, Abraham Tausig Neu-Greschel. Like his grandfather, the author signed his name with the Hebrew initials TN”G, and is thus generally known as Tang. Tang wrote a number of other works, all unpublished, and his manuscripts were until recently in London. . . . In addition to his rabbinic knowledge, Tang was an enlightened scholar, well familiar with secular writings. He cites “a noble passage of my countryman, Milton” as an introduction to a comment by Maimonides. The late Cecil Roth described Abraham Tang as “the first Anglo-Jewish scholar of modern times.”

Abraham Tang was born in England, and we notice interesting accents in his transliterations. He drops his h like a London Cockney, and calls himself an “Ebrew.”

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.