Ḥasidic mystical theology, combined with the ḥasidic tendency to invest minor details of custom with religious significance, led Ḥasidim to view ritual objects not invested with sanctity by halakhah—kiddush cups, seder plates, the decorations on the collars of prayer shawls, and so forth—as imbued with kabbalistic symbolism. Ḥasidic craftsmen then began to make these items with this symbolism in mind. In an interview with Alan Brill, Batsheva Goldman-Ida, the author of a recent book on this subject, explains:

The reason behind this radical move of investing objects with holiness is rooted in a general ḥasidic approach of “worship through the mundane.” This approach was very much part of early Ḥasidism and is generally attributed to [the movement’s founder], the Baal Shem Tov. . . .

The most important [style of] kiddush cup is the epl-bekher, or apple-shaped cup, whose form was designed by the Maggid of Mezrich [Rabbi Dov Ber, an early ḥasidic leader, ca. 1700-1772], according to tradition. The apple-form is symbolic of the Sh’khinah [or divine presence], as the “rose among thorns” which is “surrounded by five petals” as described in the opening pages of the Zohar . . .

The Ḥasid is required to hold the cup upright in his right hand—which represents the sfirah (emanation) of compassion—with all five fingers. . . . The apple-shaped cup is engraved with a winding chain with generally three leaves and a trefoil base. Over time, the petals underneath the cup were increased to thirteen, corresponding to the thirteen attributes of divine mercy, or to 26, corresponding to the numerical value of the Tetragrammaton. The finial at the top is sometimes in the form of an olive and other times in the form of a dove with outspread wings, both representing the “assembly of Israel,” [a kabbalistic term of art for the divine presence].

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.