In Canada and some European countries, laws have gradually expanded the circumstances under which doctors may kill their patients. The Netherlands this year has moved to relax its restrictions on the euthanization of children between the ages of one and twelve. Shlomo Brody explains the halakhic strictures on such deeds, as well as the ways that Jewish tradition has addressed the humanitarian concerns usually cited by euthanasia advocates:

Judaism certainly places a premium on preserving life and usually calls upon us to do everything to save a life. We value the life of all human beings and certainly do not belittle the inherent dignity of those with physical or mental impairments. We furthermore condemn active euthanasia, assisted suicide, or intentionally hastening someone’s death. Judaism does not want humans to “put out a flickering candle,” as the [talmudic] sages put it.

Nonetheless, . . . “There is a time for death” (Ecclesiastes 3:2). Sometimes our interventions will not extend living but instead prolong dying. Judaism doesn’t value dragging out a painful process of dying. Halakhah allows a person to forego further interventions when their ailments have become too great and their quality of life has become too degraded.

Of course, Brody explains, rabbinic authorities differ on how to find the correct balance:

Jewish law mandates that we can desecrate Shabbat to save the life of a person, even if we will only be extending their life for a short, fleeting amount of time. On this basis, Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg asserted that even as we treat people for pain, we should generally do everything to extend a person’s life, even for a limited time. Similarly, Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits repeatedly asserted, “Any fraction of life, whether ten years or a minute, whether healthy, crippled, or even unconscious, remains equally infinite in value.”

In contrast, Rabbi Yaakov Kanievsky (the “Steipler gaon”), followed by Rabbi Asher Weiss, have contended that this sentiment is wrong. Their proof is that halakhah permits removing an impediment to a suffering person’s death, if this will prevent severe suffering, as long as one does not move the dying person himself in a way that will cause him to die. Sometimes, we should passively allow natural death.

Between December 27 and January 6, terrorists in Gaza fired rockets at Israel almost every night. On Monday, one rocket struck a home in the much-bombarded town of Sderot, although no one was injured. The rocket fire had largely halted last spring, and for some time barrages were often the result of Israeli forces closing in a Hamas unit or munitions depot. But the truth—which gives credence to Ran Baratz’s argument in his January essay that the IDF is struggling to accomplish its mission—is that Hamas has been able to rebuild. Yoni Ben Menachem writes that the jihadist group has been “producing hundreds of new rockets using lathes smuggled into tunnels that remain operational in Gaza.” Moreover, it has been replenishing its ranks:

According to Israeli security officials, Hamas has recruited approximately 4,000 new fighters over the past month. This rapid expansion bolsters its fighting capabilities and complicates Israel’s efforts to apply military pressure on Hamas to expedite a hostage deal. Hamas’s military recovery has allowed it to prolong its war of attrition against the IDF and adopt tougher stances in hostage negotiations. The funds for this recruitment effort are reportedly from the sale of humanitarian-aid packages, which Hamas forcibly seizes and resells in Gaza’s markets.

In fact, Ben Menachem writes, Hamas’s rocket fire is part of the same strategy:

By firing rockets, Hamas seeks to demonstrate its resilience and operational capability despite the IDF’s prolonged offensive. This message is aimed at both Gaza’s residents and the Israeli public, underscoring that Hamas remains a significant force even after enduring heavy losses [and] that Israel cannot easily occupy this region, currently a focal point of IDF operations.