Outside of yeshiva circles, the name Moshe Shapira is hardly recognized by American Jews, even those with a particular interest in Jewish thought. Yet Rabbi Shapira, who died in 2017, had an outsize influence on haredi theology in Israel and to a lesser extent in the diaspora, with his distinctive and intellectually sophisticated blend of non-hasidic mysticism, musar (moral introspection), and reverence for unadulterated Talmud study. Mark Gottlieb reviews a posthumously published work by Mattisyahu Rosenblum that presents many of Shapira’s ideas to the English-language reader:

In a chapter aptly titled, “Finding Truth in Other Traditions,” Rabbi Rosenblum observes, with a candor and authenticity that is refreshingly relevant, “Did you really hope there was nothing there [in the wisdom of the Gentile world, specifically classical Greek culture] that you might find intelligent and compelling?” Rather than glibly claiming that the contributions of the West are a waste of time for a Torah Jew, Rabbi Rosenblum recognizes both the potential worth—and the possible danger—contained in these competing systems of thought.

Rabbi Rosenblum’s ambivalence feels honest, a recognition of the genuine power of ideas and their ability to lead us to places we may not want to go. But there’s a paradox here, too, that sometimes feels lost to the author. . . .

For instance, Rosenblum—himself a Yale graduate—suggests that a young, devout American Jew might be better off studying accounting than taking classes on Plato or Nietzsche:

If Rabbi Rosenblum would have taken his own advice . . . the book under discussion could not have been written—at least not in its current sophisticated, learned and literate form. This insight was surely not lost on the author. But it is not totally resolved, either.

Ron Ben-Yishai, reporting from a visit to IDF forces in the Gaza Strip, analyzes the state of the fighting, and “the persistent challenge of eradicating an entrenched enemy in a complex urban terrain.”

Hamas, sensing the war’s end, is mounting a final effort to inflict casualties. The IDF now controls 65 percent of Gaza’s territory operationally, with observation, fire dominance, and relative freedom of movement, alongside systematic tunnel destruction. . . . Major P, a reserve company commander, says, “It’s frustrating to hear at home that we’re stagnating. The public doesn’t get that if we stop, Hamas will recover.”

Senior IDF officers cite two reasons for the slow progress: meticulous care to protect hostages, requiring cautious movement and constant intelligence gathering, and avoiding heavy losses, with 22 soldiers killed since June.

Two-and-a-half of Hamas’s five brigades have been dismantled, yet a new hostage deal and IDF withdrawal could allow Hamas to regroup. . . . Hamas is at its lowest military and governing point since its founding, reduced to a fragmented guerrilla force. Yet, without complete disarmament and infrastructure destruction, it could resurge as a threat in years.

At the same time, Ben-Yishai observes, not everything hangs on the IDF:

According to the Southern Command chief Major General Yaron Finkelman, the IDF is close to completing its objectives. In classical military terms, “defeat” means the enemy surrenders—but with a jihadist organization, the benchmark is its ability to operate against Israel.

Despite [the IDF’s] battlefield successes, the broader strategic outcome—especially regarding the hostages—now hinges on decisions from the political leadership. “We’ve done our part,” said a senior officer. “We’ve reached a crossroads where the government must decide where it wants to go—both on the hostage issue and on Gaza’s future.”