In a well-known rabbinic legend, a group of rabbis are walking on Mount Scopus in Jerusalem, a city destroyed in 70 CE by the Romans, and see a fox wandering among the ruins of the Temple. They respond with tears—except for Rabbi Akiva, who bursts into laughter. Justifying their sorrow with a biblical verse, they ask Akiva to explain his bizarre behavior; he does so, citing a series of verses of his own. Meir Ben-Shahar offers a novel reading of Akiva’s answer, arguing that it originally served as an immediate call for armed revolt against Roman rule.

Akiva uses an innovative interpretation of Isaiah 8:1-2 to link a destructive prophecy—“Zion shall be plowed as a field” (Micah 3:12)—“with the prophet Zechariah’s redemptive vision that “there shall yet be old men and women in the squares of Jerusalem” (8:4-5). . . .

Micah’s prophecy about Zion being plowed as a field fits nicely with seeing the Temple Mount in shambles. But why, of the many prophecies of consolation in the book of Zechariah, did Akiva choose to quote these particular verses?

Note that the verse preceding the aforementioned prophecy in Zechariah states, “Thus said the Lord: I have returned to Zion, and I will dwell in Jerusalem. Jerusalem will be called the City of Faithfulness, and the mount of the Lord of Hosts the Holy Mount.” . . . Significantly, the only other verse in the Bible that place the terms “Zion, Jerusalem, and the mountain of the house / mountain of the Lord” alongside each other is the verse cited from Micah that predicts the calamity. . . . For this reason it is likely that Zechariah 8:3, and not the following verses, was originally quoted in Akiva’s homily. . . .

For some 60 years after its destruction [in 70 CE], Jerusalem served as a camp for a Roman legion. This situation changed after Emperor Hadrian’s visit to the East in 129-130 CE. If Hadrian indeed founded a new city on the ruins of Jerusalem during this visit, [as mounting historical evidence suggests], then Akiva’s interpretation essentially constitutes a call to revolt, together with the reassurance that now, when Micah’s prophecy of devastation has been realized in full, the time has come for God to return to Jerusalem as Zechariah promised.

Indeed, in 132 CE, the Jews, led by Simon bar Kokhba (whom Akiva is known to have supported) rose up against Roman rule. Ancient sources confirm that this revolt was provoked when Hadrian began rebuilding Jerusalem as a pagan city. According to Ben-Shahar, the text’s redactors, writing after the Bar Kokhba revolt ended in failure, altered Akiva’s words to leave the reader with a message of hope in the messianic future rather than with a call to arms.

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.