The book of Lamentations (Eikhah in Hebrew), read in synagogue on Tisha b’Av, consists of five chapters. Four of them are structured as alphabetical acrostics; that is, each verse starts with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet starting with aleph and proceeding in order. In three of these chapters, however, one letter is out of place: the letter peh proceedes ayin—the equivalent of p preceding o. Mitchell First suggests a possible explanation:

In 1976, a potsherd was discovered at Izbet Sartah in Western Samaria, dating to about 1200 BCE. The potsherd had five lines of Hebrew writing on it, one of which was an abecedary (an inscription of the letters of the alphabet in order). In this abecedary, the peh preceded the ayin. There is a scholarly consensus that Izbet Sartah was an Israelite settlement in this period. . . .

[In all other] abecedaries . . . that have [subsequently] been discovered in ancient Israel, dating from the period of the Judges and the First Temple and spanning the letters ayin and peh, peh precedes ayin in every one! . . . [T]hese abecedaries come from different regions in ancient Israel, not merely from one limited area. All of this suggests that peh preceding ayin was the original order in ancient Israel.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.