In 1960, an Israeli archaeologist discovered seven clay fragments that had once constituted a letter written (or, more likely, dictated) by a Jewish field hand sometime in the 7th century BCE, probably during the reign of King Josiah. Henry Abramson explains its significance:

Carefully reconstructed, the entire trapezoid-shaped document measures no more than 20 by 17 centimeters, a little smaller than an iPhone, yet it records incredibly rare information. . . . More specifically, this 2,600-year-old clay text, called an ostracon, records a common field laborer’s complaint against his abusive employer. It is the very first lawsuit brought by an ordinary Jew that invokes the authority of the Torah to support a claim.

What exactly happened? We need to read between the lines to reconstruct the initial problem. It seems that the laborer was taking a well-deserved break in the field after finishing his pre-Shabbat quota of work. . . . Moments later, he was accosted by Hoshayahu ben Shobay, apparently a supervisor or foreman of some sort, who punished the unnamed servant for his presumed laziness by seizing his cloak and taking it as collateral for an unspecified length of time, or perhaps against a measure of harvesting to be done.

Since . . . this remarkable discovery, many great scholars have dedicated energy to squeezing every possible scrap of meaning from the brief and fragmentary complaint. Perhaps the most profound observation is the laborer’s implicit understanding that the foreman’s disciplinary action went beyond the acceptable rules of conduct, as taught in the Torah itself.

Even though the field laborer may have been illiterate, he was apparently familiar with the strict guidelines to be followed when seizing a garment, described in Deuteronomy 24:10-13 and in Exodus 22:25-27.

On Tuesday, a Hizballah drone attack injured three people in northern Israel. The next day, another attack, targeting an IDF base, injured eighteen people, six of them seriously, in Arab al-Amshe, also in the north. This second attack involved the simultaneous use of drones carrying explosives and guided antitank missiles. In both cases, the defensive systems that performed so successfully last weekend failed to stop the drones and missiles. Ron Ben-Yishai has a straightforward explanation as to why: the Lebanon-backed terrorist group is getting better at evading Israel defenses. He explains the three basis systems used to pilot these unmanned aircraft, and their practical effects:

These systems allow drones to act similarly to fighter jets, using “dead zones”—areas not visible to radar or other optical detection—to approach targets. They fly low initially, then ascend just before crashing and detonating on the target. The terrain of southern Lebanon is particularly conducive to such attacks.

But this requires skills that the terror group has honed over months of fighting against Israel. The latest attacks involved a large drone capable of carrying over 50 kg (110 lbs.) of explosives. The terrorists have likely analyzed Israel’s alert and interception systems, recognizing that shooting down their drones requires early detection to allow sufficient time for launching interceptors.

The IDF tries to detect any incoming drones on its radar, as it had done prior to the war. Despite Hizballah’s learning curve, the IDF’s technological edge offers an advantage. However, the military must recognize that any measure it takes is quickly observed and analyzed, and even the most effective defenses can be incomplete. The terrain near the Lebanon-Israel border continues to pose a challenge, necessitating technological solutions and significant financial investment.