In last week’s Torah reading of Re’eh, the punishment for someone who encourages another Israelite to worship idols is introduced thus (Deuteronomy 13:6): “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, who is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers . . . ” This vivid description of a friend stands out in the context of the Pentateuch, which, unlike other parts of the Hebrew Bible, rarely mentions friendship. Kate Rozansky takes this passage as an opportunity to compare the biblical, talmudic, and Aristotelian views of friendship:

The first and only Hebrew [in the Pentateuch] who is said to have a friend is Judah. But when Judah makes a friend we also start to notice that Judah’s life goes in a new and disturbing direction. . . . Given this rather murky beginning, isn’t it fascinating that the Oral Torah, and the rabbinic Judaism that follows from it, depends on friendship? The Oral Torah was transmitted to us through [companions studying together].

Rabbinic Judaism strongly disagrees with Aristotle’s assertion that a friendship of ideas—sharing in excellent speeches and thoughts—is the essence of what it means for human beings to live in community, as opposed to living like cattle. Jewish life makes those herd-animal activities—eating together, just simply being near each other—holy.

Sometimes I fear that the Greeks teach us that it is only what makes us excellent that makes us human (or to put it another way, that excellence of mind is the source of human dignity), while for the Torah, humanity itself is a source of dignity, even when it is messy, or deeply flawed. The Torah teaches us that our whole selves are a reflection of the Divine, and thus, merely by being present, we are able to participate in something transcendent.

This is why, when someone texts in the [synagogue’s] WhatsApp, “We need a few good men for the minyan!” [referring to the quorum of ten necessary for public prayer], the rabbi can add, “They don’t even have to be so good.” Because your presence is enough.

If Iran succeeds in obtaining nuclear weapons, the war in Gaza, let alone the protests on college campuses, will seem like a minor complication. Jonathan Schachter fears that this danger could be much more imminent than decisionmakers in Jerusalem and Washington believe. In his view, Israel seems to be repeating the mistake that allowed it to be taken by surprise on Simchat Torah of 2023 and Yom Kippur of 1973: putting too much faith in an intelligence concept that could be wrong.

Israel and the United States apparently believe that despite Iran’s well-documented progress in developing capabilities necessary for producing and delivering nuclear weapons, as well as its extensive and ongoing record of violating its international nuclear obligations, there is no acute crisis because building a bomb would take time, would be observable, and could be stopped by force. Taken together, these assumptions and their moderating impact on Israeli and American policy form a new Iran concept reminiscent of its 1973 namesake and of the systemic failures that preceded the October 7 massacre.

Meanwhile, most of the restrictions put in place by the 2015 nuclear deal will expire by the end of next year, rendering the question of Iran’s adherence moot. And the forces that could be taking action aren’t:

The European Union regularly issues boilerplate press releases asserting its members’ “grave concern.” American decisionmakers and spokespeople have created the unmistakable impression that their reservations about the use of force are stronger than their commitment to use force to prevent an Iranian atomic bomb. At the same time, the U.S. refuses to enforce its own sanctions comprehensively: Iranian oil exports (especially to China) and foreign-currency reserves have ballooned since January 2021, when the Biden administration took office.

Israel’s response has also been sluggish and ambiguous. Despite its oft-stated policy of never allowing a nuclear Iran, Israel’s words and deeds have sent mixed messages to allies and adversaries—perhaps inadvertently reinforcing the prevailing sense in Washington and elsewhere that Iran’s nuclear efforts do not present an exigent crisis.