The Hebrew term lilith seems to have originally referred to a winged demon that preyed upon pregnant women and infants. During the Middle Ages, a legend—which had probably existed in some form for centuries—appears in Jewish sources to the effect that Lilith was Adam’s original wife, exiled from the Garden and replaced by Eve; eventually this story entered Christian mythology as well. Megan Sauter summarizes the recent scholarship about the story’s origins:

The creation of humans is described in the first two chapters of Genesis. The first account is fairly straightforward: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). The second account describes how God formed man out of the dust of the ground and then creates woman [later given the name Eve] from the man. . . .

In the post-biblical period, some ancient Jewish scholars took the stance that Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:21–22 must describe two separate events, since it appears that woman is created differently in these accounts. . . . Accordingly, Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of Adam and an unnamed woman (Lilith); Genesis 2:7 gives more details of Adam’s creation; and Genesis 2:21–22 describes the creation of Eve from Adam.

Lilith’s creation is recounted in the Tales of Ben Sira, an apocryphal work from the 10th century CE. [The scholar] Dan Ben-Amos explains that although this is the first extant text that records the legend of Lilith, her story probably existed earlier.

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.