Although Samuel David Luzzatto (1800-1865) was undoubtedly Italy’s leading Jewish scholar in his day, his commentary on the Pentateuch—which was only published after his death—is still rarely studied. Until recently, it was difficult to find a serviceable edition in the original Hebrew, let alone a useful English translation. Martin Lockshin thus praises Daniel A. Klein’s translation-in-progress for remedying the latter problem. In his review, he surveys Luzzatto’s accomplishments:

Samuel David Luzzatto . . . refused to be ordained as a rabbi himself, repeatedly declining the offers of his colleagues. He spent most of his life teaching in the Modern Orthodox rabbinical seminary in Padua, the Collegio Rabbinico. [In addition], he was a respected member of [the founding generation of academic Jewish studies], but at the same time was deeply opposed to [efforts to ground Judaism in] rationalist Greek philosophy, including Maimonides’ approach, on ethical grounds.

Luzzatto’s prolific literary output included an insightful commentary on the Torah that was unique in its time and continues to speak to readers today. It focused on the p’shat (the plain meaning) of the text and on the moral and religious messages that the p’shat contains. That alone does not seem terribly unusual, but Luzzatto was also an expert in Hebrew and other Semitic languages. Well-acquainted with the research of Jews, Christians, traditionalists, and critical scholars, he cited any source . . . that helps advance our understanding of the biblical text.

He was perhaps the first Torah commentator to draw liberally both from the writings of Bible critics and the traditional medieval Jewish commentators. Since his time, very few others have followed that path. A strong defender of the antiquity and divinity of the Torah, he still found insights in the interpretations of Jews and Gentiles who did not share his beliefs.

Yesterday, President Biden reportedly met with his advisers to discuss how to achieve a breakthrough in hostage negotiations. Meir Ben Shabbat takes a closer look at what the terrorists themselves are saying:

Khalil al-Hayya, Hamas’s deputy chief in Gaza, reiterated that this issue is merely one of several demands his group has put forward as conditions for a deal. “We stress that any agreement must encompass a full cessation of hostilities, complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, including the Philadelphi Corridor and the Rafah crossing [which allow Hamas to smuggle weapons and supplies from Egypt], unimpeded return of displaced persons to their homes, aid and relief for Palestinians, Gaza’s reconstruction, and a prisoner exchange,” al-Hayya stated.

This stance isn’t new. What stood out in its presentation was the self-assurance displayed by the senior Hamas official, during a week when he and his associates were expected to be on edge, fearing repercussions for the killing of six hostages. However, the reaction to this in Israel and the United States prompted an opposite response from them. From their perspective, not only did they avoid consequences for the heinous act, but through it, they managed to escalate tensions and internal disagreements in Israel, while also prompting Washington to consider presenting a framework defined as a “final offer, without room for negotiation.

Hamas assumes that a final American proposal will inevitably come at Israel’s expense. The primary pressure to reach an agreement is already being applied to Israeli leadership. Hamas faces no consequences for prolonging the process, and so long as it holds hostages, it can always resume negotiations from where they left off.