In 1926, a year after the Scopes trial brought the theological implications of the theory of evolution to public attention in the U.S, two prominent New York Orthodox rabbis—Leo Jung of the Jewish Center and David de Sola Pool of Shearith Israel—engaged in a heated exchange on the subject in the pages of the Orthodox community’s main organ. While in many ways similar in education and outlook, the two took opposite positions on the question of whether Darwinism and Judaism were compatible. Rachel S.A. Pear argues that the differences stemmed as much from their respective communal contexts as from philosophical and hermeneutic abstractions.

Pool led the oldest Jewish congregation in the United States. . . . In 1907, he was called to help lead the synagogue by his cousin, Henry Pereira Mendes. Rabbi Mendes belonged to a group of young traditionalists who were well-educated scientifically as well as religiously, and who came out in strong support of Darwinism in the 1880s. . . . Pool, as well as many other young Orthodox rabbis, followed suit, seeing the embrace of Darwinism as in no way out of step with religious sensibilities.

Jung, by contrast, led a synagogue less than a decade old, whose first rabbi, Mordecai Kaplan, had left due to his increasingly unorthodox positions. (He would go on to found the Reconstructionist movement):

Jung realized that his young congregation lacked the communal and theological stability that Pool enjoyed sixteen blocks away. Jung was at the eye of a storm, fighting for every congregant, and considered himself a defender of an Orthodoxy under fierce attack in the 1920s. While the defense against what he termed “Kaplanism” did not detract from Jung’s mission to display Orthodoxy’s sophistication and elegance, it likely made him hesitant to embrace concepts that seemed radical in their adjustments to Jewish thought, especially one like Darwinism, which Kaplan himself had placed at the center of his [own thought]. . . .

Therefore, somewhat ironically, Pool’s support of Darwinism did not emerge despite tradition but because of the tradition of predecessors like Mendes. . . . Jung’s rejection of Darwinism, on the other hand, was not merely the preservation of old beliefs, but a conscious reaction against what he viewed as a pressing danger to Orthodoxy in America.

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.