Born in Tel Aviv in 1935 to a working-class family, Chaim Topol gained fame in Israel for his role in the film Sallaḥ Shabati, but it was his performance in the Israeli production of Fiddler on the Roof that propelled him to the part for which he is best remembered—as Tevye in the Hollywood version of the musical. Topol died on Wednesday at the age of eighty-seven. David Herman reflects on his career:

Topol was then chosen over the more renowned Zero Mostel (who famously played the part on Broadway) to play Tevye in Norman Jewison’s Hollywood adaptation. According to Alisa Solomon in her book Wonder of Wonders: A Cultural History of Fiddler on the Roof: “Jewison felt Mostel lacked reality. He was too big, too American.” The director wanted a much more realistic feel for his film, especially for the part of the dairyman.

Mostel was religiously observant and spoke Yiddish, but Topol was a Hebrew-speaking sabra (Jew born in Israel) and was still in his thirties. Critics agreed. Pauline Kael, writing in the New Yorker, said Topol’s “brute vitality” helped to “clear away the sticky folk stuff.” Fiddler went on to become the top-grossing film of the year and was part of Jewish wave of Hollywood films in the 1960s, which included Goodbye Columbus, The Graduate, and Woody Allen’s early films.

Along with the musical duo Esther & Abi Ofarim and a new generation of Israeli writers, including Amos Oz, whose first novels were published in the mid-1960s, and S.Y. Agnon, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1966, Topol symbolized a new Israeli culture. . . . His death was announced by Israel’s president Isaac Herzog, who described him as a “gifted actor who conquered many stages in Israel and overseas, filled the cinema screens with his presence, and especially entered deep into our hearts.”

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.