The counting song “Eḥad mi yodei’a” (Who Knows One?), sung toward the very end of the seder, has been a standard element in Ashkenazi Haggadahs since at least the 16th century. It does not appear in most Sephardi versions of the Haggadah, but there are exceptions. In a few local traditions (like that of the Jews of Rhodes), it is generally sung in Ladino, with words somewhat different from the standard Hebrew text. Ty Alhadeff explains. (Audio recordings are included at the link below.)

[A]n exploration of . . . audio recordings of “Ken Supiense” [as the song is called in Ladino]—not only from Rhodes but also from other locales in the former Ottoman empire, including Salonica and present-day Turkey—reveals a wide variety . . . in the song’s wording and melody.

All versions of “Eḥad Mi Yodei’a,” whether in Hebrew or in Yiddish or Ladino translation, agree that, among the thirteen canonical references enumerated in the song, the number one always refer to one God and five always refers to the five books of the Torah. But there are some major variations among the Ladino versions. . . . Perhaps one of the most intriguing differences can be discerned in the varied references in the final, thirteenth, verse. The Rhodesli and Turkish versions do not refer to the thirteen attributes of God’s mercy as the original Hebrew text does, but rather to the renowned medieval sage Moses Maimonides’ thirteen principles of faith. . . .

The specific importance of these thirteen principles in the Sephardi tradition is reflected in the Ladino saying: está en sus treje (literally, “he is standing on his thirteen”), which refers to someone who is strong in his faith. According to [a] popular legend, . . . this expression dates back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition, when an inquisitor would ask of someone suspected of practicing Judaism in secret: “Está en su treje?” meaning: would a person abandon or stay steadfast in his belief in the thirteen principles of faith?

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.