After the completion of the Babylonian Talmud in the 6th century CE, the heads of the major rabbinic academies of Mesopotamia—scholars known as g’onim—became widely acknowledged as the religious leaders of world Jewry. It was during this period that the term hazan ceased to refer to a synagogue functionary and came to refer to a new kind of prayer leader, who distinguished himself by singing hymns. Tamar Marvin explains this transition:

A central factor was the continued decline of Hebrew knowledge among laypeople. . . . Earlier, the Shabbat experience at synagogues was defined by the delivery of formal sermons, some of which are preserved, many in altered form, in the classical homiletical Midrash collections. Now, congregants evidently began to prefer piyyut (liturgical poetry) in place of the sermon—not because it was more understandable but because it was pleasantly sung.

In concert with these developments, there was the push of late Roman policy, which under the Christian emperors Theodosius and Justinian limited or outright persecuted pagans, Jews, and other religious minorities. In particular, Justinian’s Novella 146, issued in 553, dictated that Jews were to use Greek as the language of [sermons], an attempt to undercut the interpretive translation of Hebrew, which congregations could largely no longer understand, as well as the Oral Tradition upon which the interpretations relied. The limitations put in place by Novella 146 may have spurred the development of piyyut with its unique ability to convey midrashic interpretations in sung form that [would not] contravene Justinian’s legislation.

Robert Satloff has some harsh words for the U.S. government in this regard, words I take especially seriously because Satloff is someone inclined to political moderation. Why, he asks, have American diplomats failed to achieve anything in their endless rounds of talks in Doha and Cairo? Because

there is simply not enough pressure on Hamas to change course, accept a deal, and release the remaining October 7 hostages, stuck in nightmarish captivity. . . . In this environment, why should Hamas change course?

Publicly, the U.S. should bite the bullet and urge Israel to complete the main battle operations in Gaza—i.e., the Rafah operation—as swiftly and efficiently as possible. We should be assertively assisting with the humanitarian side of this.

Satloff had more to say about the hostages, especially the five American ones, in a speech he gave recently:

I am ashamed—ashamed of how we have allowed the story of the hostages to get lost in the noise of the war that followed their capture; ashamed of how we have permitted their release to be a bargaining chip in some larger political negotiation; ashamed of how we have failed to give them the respect and dignity and our wholehearted demand for Red Cross access and care and medicine that is our normal, usual demand for hostages.

If they were taken by Boko Haram, everyone would know their name. If they were taken by the Taliban, everyone would tie a yellow ribbon around a tree for them. If they were taken by Islamic State, kids would learn about them in school.

It is repugnant to see their freedom as just one item on the bargaining table with Hamas, as though they were chattel. These are Americans—and they deserve to be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.