The sprawling nature of the Talmud, where discussion of one topic leads seamlessly to another, sometimes with only the loosest of connections, has invited comparison with the Internet, where a reader can follow one link after another to roam farther and farther afield from the subject with which he or she began. But the comparison only goes so far, writes Gil Student:

While there is some truth to this abstract comparison, [the differences] deserve our attention as well. [The Talmud] begins with page 2a of Tractate Brakhot and continues for 2,711 pages until it concludes with Nidah 73a. Of course, you can start anywhere in the middle, particularly at the beginning of any of the 37 tractates. But it has a discrete beginning and end. . . . By contrast, the Internet has no entrance or exit. Every article contains links to many others. Every person has his own beginning and only stops when other concerns beckon.

[In studying the Talmud], we study the text, perhaps with additional tools when available, but always remaining on, or at least returning to, the page. The Internet, [by contrast], has no anchor, sending you across the globe with endless links.

Finally, notes Student, while the Internet encourages social isolation, the Talmud is customarily studied communally—with a study partner, or in a class, or even individually in the public space of the synagogue or study hall.

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.