Usually, when people speak of the relationship between science and religion, they have in mind the conflict between scriptural narrative—especially regarding creation, the origins of mankind, and miracles—and modern scientific findings. But in Judaism there is an entirely separate realm of conflict, when rabbinic laws based on natural reality are contradicted by scientific understanding of the same realities. The most important case involves the cycles of the moon, on which the sacred calendar depends. Ron Ennis contrasts the approaches to this problem of three rabbis: Moses Maimonides (1138–1204), Judah Loew ben Betzalel of Prague (a/k/a Maharal, 1520–1609), and Moses Isserles (Rema, 1530–1572).

All three were aware of, and keenly interested in, the scientific advances of their own times, yet they came to radically different conclusions:

Maharal stridently and unambiguously disagrees with Maimonides’ approach. For Maharal, Torah and other (scientific) knowledge are separate domains and best kept apart. A Maimonidean synthesis is misguided.

Yet, Ennis explains, Maharal was not hostile to, or dismissive of, knowledge that came from outside the Jewish canon; he only wished to maintain its separateness. Isserles, meanwhile, sought a sort of compromise between Maimonides and Maharal. Ennis adds:

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) was born in Krakow, where Isserles would later be born, attended the University in Krakow from 1491 to 1495, and later returned a few times. He published his revolutionary On the Revolutions of Celestial Spheres in 1543, which led to a severe firestorm of criticism from the Church. Isserles, who was thirteen years old at the time of publication, undoubtedly heard about this given that he was living in Copernicus’ hometown.

Johannes Kepler was a student of Copernicus. Kepler lived in Prague from 1600 to 1612 and helped make Prague a center for astronomical sciences where he improved Copernicus’ discovery by showing the orbits of the planets were ellipses, not circles. Maharal lived in Prague during this time; . . . it is not surprising that he would become aware of the implications of the new astronomic science and respond to them.

Considering the current state of Israel-Arab relations, Ghaith al-Omari writes

First and foremost, no ceasefire will be possible without the release of Israeli hostages and commitments to disarm Hamas and remove it from power. The final say on these matters rests with Hamas commanders on the ground in Gaza, who have been largely impervious to foreign pressure so far. At minimum, however, the United States should insist that Qatari and Egyptian mediators push Hamas’s external leadership to accept these conditions publicly, which could increase pressure on the group’s Gaza leadership.

Washington should also demand a clear, public position from key Arab states regarding disarmament. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas endorsed this position in a June letter to Saudi Arabia and France, giving Arab states Palestinian cover for endorsing it themselves.

Some Arab states have already indicated a willingness to play a significant role, but they will have little incentive to commit resources and personnel to Gaza unless Israel (1) provides guarantees that it will not occupy the Strip indefinitely, and (2) removes its veto on a PA role in Gaza’s future, even if only symbolic at first. Arab officials are also seeking assurances that any role they play in Gaza will be in the context of a wider effort to reach a two-state solution.

On the other hand, Washington must remain mindful that current conditions between Israel and the Palestinians are not remotely conducive to . . . implementing a two-state solution.