To some, the dietary regulations of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are exemplars of what rabbinic tradition calls a ḥok (literally, a statute)—a Divine decree whose rationale is unintelligible to mankind, and known only to God himself. Natan Slifkin argues that, on the contrary, these dietary laws have ethical meaning, if one understands ethics not “in the narrow Western sense of not causing harm to other people,” but in a more expansive Judaic sense:

The Torah (Leviticus 11:45–47) explicitly states that the dietary laws are about k’dushah, sanctity. This [term] relates to the concept of separation—restricting oneself from freely eating whatever is available, and also separating the Jewish nation culturally from other nations, so that they survive with a distinct identity and remain focused on their mission. And there are themes we can clearly detect in the Torah’s choice of forbidden species. These include a general avoidance of eating predatory animals and birds (conduct we do not want to internalize), an avoidance of eating “aberrant” creatures (such as bats), and avoiding creatures that generally elicit disgust as food items, such as reptiles and most insects. The Torah even explicitly and repeatedly uses the term shekets, “repulsive,” with regard to eating insects.

Avoiding eating disgusting creatures is an aspect of morality. The social psychologist Jonathan Haidt wrote a famous and fabulous book called The Righteous Mind, which is . . . an excellent source of insights into Judaism. As he explains, there are many different spheres of morality. One of these is sanctity versus degradation, which is shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination: “if we had no sense of disgust, . . . we would also have no sense of the sacred.” The idea is to reinforce the sentiment of disgust in order to encourage moral behavior. Haidt explains that it underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, more noble way.

But what about all the many millions of people in the world for whom eating bugs is perfectly normal? . . . The answer is that [doing so] is indeed not objectively disgusting. . . . But even disgust that is culturally subjective becomes religiously significant.

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.