The fundamental problem defining the human condition, both ontological and metaphysical, is the problem of the movement from a wilderness to a dwelling place. This teaching is couched in the first letter of the Torah, which is itself the foundation of creation. The beit with which the Torah begins designates a “house,” the shelter that we are summoned to transform into a dwelling place. What is a dwelling place? It is a space into which we invite another, the stranger - the space opened up by the Torah that commands the Jews to attend to the care of the stranger. Drawing upon the Hebrew language, this chapter examines Jewish thinking about exile and return. Arguing that exile is not a punishment but is itself part of the Jewish journey to redemption, this chapter addresses (1) the relation between exile and revelation, (2) the condition of the soul in exile, and (3) the traumatic isolation of exile. The chapter shows that (1) Jewish thinking about any spiritual journey is different from the thinking that characterizes Western speculative thought, and that (2) for Jewish thought, exile is a metaphysical condition

Chapter 10 discusses the complex interaction between Israeli law and Jewish heritage. I address the Zionist-Israeli resolve to ensure its political and legal independence—that is, an independent Israeli legal system that is not subordinate to foreign law and which legislates for itself in accordance with Israeli society’s needs, interests, and values. I also consider the attention the Israeli legal system gives to symbols of national independence. This includes both what might be called general symbols, such as the Hebrew language, and also specifically legal symbols, such as the effort to promulgate a constitution and civil code. Finally, I show that the Zionist movement and Israel have adopted “a moderate cultural option” centered on muting cultural debates while adopting common cultural symbols that arouse no dissension—the Hebrew language, devotion to the Land of Israel, evocation of Jewish history, and a long list of consensual symbols, values, and concepts with roots in Jewish law and heritage. I show that Israeli law cannot not be Jewish and Israeli, and that Israeli law and culture are today lieux de mémoire of primary importance in the preservation of Jewish law and heritage and an important guarantee of the future of Jewish culture.

One does not find in Isa 24–27 the frequency of typologically LBH forms found in other texts that seem to date from the late sixth century. There is no similarly dated text that shows a comparably successful avoidance of late features. Still less can a Hellenistic date be seriously entertained; that would take us into the period of the Qumran psalms and the Great Isaiah Scroll, and there is no sign that SBH was being effectively emulated any longer. William R. Millar observed some time ago that the prosody of Isa 24–27 is generally classical, and the same can now be said for its Hebrew. Not only is there is not a single one of the sort of obvious neologisms that characterize the works of the middle to late Persian period; the overall percentage of late features in Isa 24–27 is also low. However one counts, the rate of late features per word in Isa 24–27 is less than that of Isa 40–66, Haggai, and Malachi. The comparison at least suggests that Isa 24–27 is typologically prior to those compositions. Its percentage is in line with the number of late features in Isa 3–6 and Amos.