Is it not self-evident that such behavior is wrong? And why not prohibit cursing anyone? Yet, in this week’s Torah reading, the book of Leviticus states specifically, “You shall not insult the deaf, or place a stumbling block before the blind.” Shai Held searches for an answer:

Maimonides interprets the prohibition on cursing the deaf as a signature example of the Torah’s concern with human character and virtue. “We might have thought,” he writes, “that . . . since a deaf person does not hear [the curse] and is not pained by it, there is no sin involved in that case.” [But] our verse works to undercut that line of thought. . . Why? Because the Torah “is concerned not only with the one who is cursed, but also with the one who curses.” The potential character flaw the Torah worries about in this instance, according to Maimonides, is “gearing oneself up for revenge and growing accustomed to being angry.”

[Y]et I am not sure that the character failing the Torah works against here is a proclivity to anger and vengeance. . . . [I]t seems more likely that the Torah’s focus is on the temptation to see people with disabilities (and, perhaps, the vulnerable more generally) as less human than ourselves, and therefore as less deserving of dignity and protection.

In this context, it is important to pay careful attention to the Hebrew word for insult, killel. The root k-l-l also means to be light [in weight]. In its prohibition of verbally abusing the deaf, the Torah is also . . . warning us not to treat the deaf person “lightly,” as if he or she has no importance. The opposite of k-l-l is k-v-d, to treat as weighty, or, more conventionally, to treat with respect. What the Torah seeks to instill, in other words, is kavod, respect, for the deaf, the blind, and those with any one or more of countless other disabilities.

On Tuesday, a Hizballah drone attack injured three people in northern Israel. The next day, another attack, targeting an IDF base, injured eighteen people, six of them seriously, in Arab al-Amshe, also in the north. This second attack involved the simultaneous use of drones carrying explosives and guided antitank missiles. In both cases, the defensive systems that performed so successfully last weekend failed to stop the drones and missiles. Ron Ben-Yishai has a straightforward explanation as to why: the Lebanon-backed terrorist group is getting better at evading Israel defenses. He explains the three basis systems used to pilot these unmanned aircraft, and their practical effects:

These systems allow drones to act similarly to fighter jets, using “dead zones”—areas not visible to radar or other optical detection—to approach targets. They fly low initially, then ascend just before crashing and detonating on the target. The terrain of southern Lebanon is particularly conducive to such attacks.

But this requires skills that the terror group has honed over months of fighting against Israel. The latest attacks involved a large drone capable of carrying over 50 kg (110 lbs.) of explosives. The terrorists have likely analyzed Israel’s alert and interception systems, recognizing that shooting down their drones requires early detection to allow sufficient time for launching interceptors.

The IDF tries to detect any incoming drones on its radar, as it had done prior to the war. Despite Hizballah’s learning curve, the IDF’s technological edge offers an advantage. However, the military must recognize that any measure it takes is quickly observed and analyzed, and even the most effective defenses can be incomplete. The terrain near the Lebanon-Israel border continues to pose a challenge, necessitating technological solutions and significant financial investment.