Israeli archaeologists have unearthed two stone seals from the First Temple period; one bears the name Elihanaḥ bat Goel (or Gael), the second that of Sa’adyahu ben Shebnayahu. While the discovery of ancient seals with personal names is unusual, the fact that a woman’s name (Elihanaḥ daughter of Goel) appears on one makes this an extremely rare find. Christopher Rollston writes:

The script of both of these seals is the standard old Hebrew script . . . [and] is nicely done, certainly the work of a trained seal maker. . . . I would contend that a date in the late 8th century or early 7th century BCE is the best date [based on the style of writing]. Regarding language, . . . both of these seals [are in] old Hebrew, and, of course, the [fact that the name Shebnayahu contains the name of God, in typical Judean fashion for this time period] argues for this as well.

I should also like to emphasize that the reason it was quite rare for women to have seals was not because, as some have apparently suggested, of the “generally inferior economic status of women.” Rather, I would contend that it was because ancient Near Eastern societies were patriarchal. For this reason, men were normally responsible for most of the agreements that would require the sealing of documents. There were certainly some exceptions, as reflected in the lofty narratives about Job’s daughters (Job 42), the daughters of Zelophehad (Numbers 27), and the Noble Wife (Proverbs 31). But the biblical and epigraphic evidence converges to suggest that men were the normal brokers of agreements requiring sealed documents.

The fact that one of these seals is that of a woman demonstrates that she was a very prominent woman indeed, someone who must have engaged in business and legal activities that necessitated her owning a seal.

Ron Ben-Yishai, reporting from a visit to IDF forces in the Gaza Strip, analyzes the state of the fighting, and “the persistent challenge of eradicating an entrenched enemy in a complex urban terrain.”

Hamas, sensing the war’s end, is mounting a final effort to inflict casualties. The IDF now controls 65 percent of Gaza’s territory operationally, with observation, fire dominance, and relative freedom of movement, alongside systematic tunnel destruction. . . . Major P, a reserve company commander, says, “It’s frustrating to hear at home that we’re stagnating. The public doesn’t get that if we stop, Hamas will recover.”

Senior IDF officers cite two reasons for the slow progress: meticulous care to protect hostages, requiring cautious movement and constant intelligence gathering, and avoiding heavy losses, with 22 soldiers killed since June.

Two-and-a-half of Hamas’s five brigades have been dismantled, yet a new hostage deal and IDF withdrawal could allow Hamas to regroup. . . . Hamas is at its lowest military and governing point since its founding, reduced to a fragmented guerrilla force. Yet, without complete disarmament and infrastructure destruction, it could resurge as a threat in years.

At the same time, Ben-Yishai observes, not everything hangs on the IDF:

According to the Southern Command chief Major General Yaron Finkelman, the IDF is close to completing its objectives. In classical military terms, “defeat” means the enemy surrenders—but with a jihadist organization, the benchmark is its ability to operate against Israel.

Despite [the IDF’s] battlefield successes, the broader strategic outcome—especially regarding the hostages—now hinges on decisions from the political leadership. “We’ve done our part,” said a senior officer. “We’ve reached a crossroads where the government must decide where it wants to go—both on the hostage issue and on Gaza’s future.”