One of the perennial questions asked by scholars of the great 17th-century philosopher Benedict Spinoza is what, and how much, to make of the Jewish upbringing he thoroughly rejected. Yitzhak Melamed, a philosophy professor who has similarly distanced himself from his ultra-Orthodox upbringing, has written a forceful reinterpretation of Spinoza’s thought that seeks to overturn much 20th-century scholarship on the subject. His special target is the late Harry Austryn Wolfson, himself a “talmudic prodigy turned unbeliever,” who discerned a talmudic mind at work in Spinoza’s thought processes. In his review of Melamed’s book, Michah Gottlieb wonders if the two former yeshiva students turned scholars have something in common (free registration required):

While Melamed rejects Wolfson’s interpretation of Spinoza, . . . he does intimate that he shares a kinship with Wolfson in a different respect. In his acknowledgments, [for instance], Melamed refers to his own numerous discussions of [Spinoza] since emigrating from the ultra-Orthodox “holy city of Bnei Brak.” . . .

On close inspection, one can discern a talmudic sensibility that informs Melamed’s approach to Spinoza, albeit one that differs from Wolfson’s. Like Wolfson, Melamed explores how Spinoza uses key philosophical sources through careful textual analysis and dialectical argument. But while Wolfson’s dialectic was more internal to Spinoza and his purported sources—asking why and how Spinoza departed from his medieval predecessors—Melamed’s dialectic is usually directed at a prominent modern interpretation of Spinoza. . . .

If Wolfson’s approach was akin to that of the [latter] talmudic sages in relation to their mishnaic predecessors, Melamed’s is more like tertiary medieval Jewish commentators such as Tosafot who defended their interpretations by refuting such prior commentators as Rashi. . . . [T]he level of Melamed’s attention to detail combined with his logical acuity is unusual even among Spinoza scholars and may owe something to his talmudic training.

Two extraordinary events demonstrate something important about Israel’s most fervent adversaries. One was a speech given at something called The People’s Forum (funded generously by Goldman Sachs), which stated, “When the state of Israel is finally destroyed and erased from history, that will be the single most important blow we can give to destroying capitalism and imperialism.”

The suggestion that this tiny state is the linchpin of a global, centuries-old phenomenon like capitalism goes well beyond anything resembling rational criticism. Even if Israel were guilty of genocide, apartheid, and oppression—which of course it is not—it would not follow that its destruction would help end capitalism or imperialism.

The other was an anti-Israel protest that took place in front of New York City’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, deemed “complicit” in Israel’s evils. At organizers’ urging, participants shouted their slogans at kids in the cancer ward, who were watching from the windows. Given Hamas’s indifference toward the lives of Gazan children, such callousness toward non-Palestinian children from Hamas’s Western allies shouldn’t be surprising. The protest—like the abovementioned speech—deliberately conveyed the message that Israel is the ultimate evil and its destruction the ultimate good, cancer patients be damned.

The fact that Israel’s adversaries are almost comically perverse does not mean that they can be dismissed. If its allies fail to understand the obsessive and irrational hatred that it faces, they cannot effectively help it defend itself.