A decade ago, an intense debate came to a head within American Modern Orthodoxy over the ordination of female rabbis. Forty years earlier, the same controversy played out within Conservative Judaism, with very different results. The decision to ordain women was championed by Gerson Cohen, an eminent historian of medieval Jewry and then the chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary—the movement’s flagship institution. Zvi Leshem examines an unfinished draft of a letter about the controversy composed by Cohen’s main opponent at the time, Rabbi David Weiss Halivni (1927–2022), a highly original talmudist raised in the same Romanian shtetl as Elie Wiesel.

In the letter, Halivni wrote of the dispute, “An emotional frenzy was whipped up against those who stand firm in their opposition [to the ordination of women]. Such individuals have been branded ‘immoral,’ . . . narrow-minded, as possessing a STETL-mentality [sic] and non-native ignorance.” Leshem comments:

The last point—“non-native ignorance”—is deserving of a bit more analysis. As we have pointed out, the strongest opposition to women’s ordination came from the senior faculty members of the Talmud Department. . . . In addition to [the seniormost scholar Saul] Lieberman himself, Professors Halivni, Israel Francus, and Dov Zlotnick were European; Professor Chaim Zalman Dimitrovsky was Israeli; and Professor Jose Faur was from Argentina. All had been yeshiva trained before turning to academic Talmud study. Thus, they were in fact a soft target for the charge of possessing a “shtetl-mentality and non-native ignorance.”

Halivni, turning the tables, views these very qualities as positive in the context of the debate: “We reject with disgust these accusations, proudly proclaiming that we who are clinging to Jewish tradition are the true moralists; that thanks to the stetl and non-native religious and cultural influence the American Jewish scene turned in the last few decades from a spiritual desert into a blooming community.”

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.