In an investigation of how traditional Jewish law operates, Moshe Koppel compares it with two competing models: that of a legal system, where general rules, written by legislators, are applied to specific instances and then enforced by police and courts, and that of a language, where native speakers learn rules through imitation and can change organically without a formal amendment process. He argues it is meant to be more like that latter:

[T]he main written sources of Jewish tradition themselves repeatedly make the point that halakhah is ideally meant to be spoken fluently like a first language and not learned from written rules like a second language. . . . The Talmud itself records the undisputed opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that no text other than the Bible should be written. . . . The oral tradition [on which he Talmud is based] was compiled in writing only when social turmoil threatened its very existence. . . . Intuitive knowledge of Torah (Torah as a first language) is replaced by a compiled set of rules (Torah as an acquired language) only when necessary. . . .

[Furthermore, even] codes like the Shulḥan Arukh, [the most important post-talmudic digest of halakhah] actually reflect popular practices more than they determine them, and are incapable of preventing popular disinclination to abide by their rulings. In a considerable number of cases, rulings cited in the codes lose general support and subsequent codes reflect the later practice. . . .

When new issues arise, popular consensus often precedes rabbinic consensus. For example, turkey was almost universally regarded as a kosher bird long before rabbis made any determination to that effect. . . .

Electricity came into wide use in urban areas in the 1880s. The first to rule against the permissibility of the use of electric devices on Shabbat was the rabbi of Lemberg, Isaac Shmelkes, in 1895. He argued that creating a new electric current was akin to transferring fragrance, which the Talmud forbids on somewhat vague grounds. The prohibition was universally accepted, as evidenced by the fact that almost all subsequent scholars take the prohibition as a given, despite rejecting the reasoning behind it.

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.