The Lieberman Open Orthodox Haggadah, which contains essays and commentary by several figures in the eponymous liberal wing of Orthodox Judaism, attempts to do more than present a new version of the Passover liturgy. Rather, writes Alan Brill, it aims self-consciously to set “an agenda for the future of Orthodoxy”:

Willy-nilly, one finds oneself reading about the problem of women unable to obtain halakhic divorces while everyone is singing Dayenu and about the rapid downfall of a local rabbi who violated everyone’s trust while everyone is singing Ḥad Gadya. For many, these juxtapositions will be their first impression of this Haggadah. . . .

There is no significant use of historical context, [academic Jewish studies], or source criticism. The volume is not aimed at those who seek an intellectual discussion. Its audience is not seeking aesthetics or [a synthesis of Torah and secular thought]. In addition, there is focus neither on the Holocaust nor on the state of Israel. . . . [This Haggadah] was not written for intellectual or spiritual edification, or for those who want to hear about how God took us out from Egypt with a strong hand and outstretched arm.

In short, this Haggadah oozes moxie and a direct appeal to those who like the Orthodox lifestyle but find a tension with what they perceive as the abuses of the system. For them, they do not need reasons for the commandments, rather an active commitment, determination, and ability to overcome their social concerns. All who are hungry for this moxie, let them come and eat.

Yesterday, the Iranian foreign minister flew to Geneva to meet with European diplomats. President Trump, meanwhile, indicated that cease-fire negotiations might soon begin with Iran, which would presumably involve Tehran agreeing to make concessions regarding its nuclear program, while Washington pressures Israel to halt its military activities. According to Israeli media, Iran already began putting out feelers to the U.S. earlier this week. Aviram Bellaishe considers the purpose of these overtures:

The regime’s request to return to negotiations stems from the principle of deception and delay that has guided it for decades. Iran wants to extricate itself from a situation of total destruction of its nuclear facilities. It understands that to save the nuclear program, it must stop at a point that would allow it to return to it in the shortest possible time. So long as the negotiation process leads to halting strikes on its military capabilities and preventing the destruction of the nuclear program, and enables the transfer of enriched uranium to a safe location, it can simultaneously create the two tracks in which it specializes—a false facade of negotiations alongside a hidden nuclear race.