Today marks the Jewish holiday of Tu b’Av (i.e., the fifteenth day of the month of Av), which—according to the Talmud—celebrates an ancient decree allowing marriage among the twelve tribes of Israel, as well as the end of a period of bloody intertribal violence described in the book of Judges. Despite the day’s minor status, the talmudic sages compare it to Yom Kippur in its holiness. On this day, moreover, “the daughters of Jerusalem” would borrow white clothes from one another, so that their socioeconomic status would be undeterminable, and dance in the vineyards, calling to young men to pick them as wives. For Stuart Halpern, Tu b’Av bears an important lesson for American society today:

For the disparate tribes, accustomed to decades of nomadic life, to cohere into one nation, into one people, they needed to experience a major psychological, emotional, and economic leveling. This was best done by literally making them borrow each other’s clothes and walk a mile or two in each other’s shoes.

Of course, one day’s break from difference was not a John Lennon-style imagining of no possessions or distinctions. But Tu b’Av was a day when all could at least dance together. Maybe, like all dances before and since, not everyone was able to throw off their inhibitions and hit the floor. Maybe some shifted their feet awkwardly or loitered at the drinks table. But all showed up, having stepped outside of their normal concerns, and stopped signaling, just for a moment, their virtues. And the joy felt that day matched that of the holiest day of the year.

Tribally drawn lines seem to be marked in the sands of social media by the millisecond [and] economic disparity exacerbates all manners of societal ills. . . . But Tu b’Av offers a glimpse into a different possibility. Unlike Yom Kippur, it doesn’t require . . . formal, and often difficult-to-follow, all-day services. It simply asks us to remember the unifying possibilities of emerging from our echo chambers, stepping into each other’s shoes, and dancing together. Even if only for a day.

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.