Last week, thousands of Jews around the world following the daily regimen of Talmud study known as daf yomi completed the tractate of Kiddushin, whose name means “betrothals,” or, more literally, “sanctifications.” Dovid Bashevkin explains the ritual—perhaps better described as a legal transaction—that is the tractate’s focus, and why the Talmud devotes so much space to it while ignoring the actual marriage ceremony almost entirely:

The very name kiddushin, the Talmud explains, derives from the term k’dushah, [sanctity]. Marriage is an act of holiness, and the source of the holiness is from the preparation, the designation, the sanctification prior to the actual marriage. . . .

The first occurrence of the word holy in the Torah is in reference to Shabbat. And the holiness of Shabbat itself is an exercise in preparation. “Whoever prepares before Shabbat, eats on Shabbat,” the Talmud reminds. Holiness means to be set apart, removed, deliberate. Profane means uncared for, careless, and messy. A commitment to holiness is a commitment to the deliberate, intentional, routinized acts that ultimately pave the way for the experience of holiness itself. Moments of spirituality, ecstasy, even intimacy, do not provide long-lasting holiness without the preparation for those experiences.

Spirituality without religious preparation will never yield a life of sustained holiness.

Last week, the New York Times reported, based on unnamed sources within the Trump administration, that the president had asked Israel not to carry out a planned strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. That is, somebody deliberately gave this information to the press, which later tried to confirm it by speaking with other officials. Amit Segal writes that, “according to figures in Israel’s security establishment,” this is “the most serious leak in Israel’s history.” He explains:

As Israel is reportedly planning what may well be one of its most consequential military operations ever, the New York Times lays out for the Iranians what Israel will target, when it will carry out the operation, and how. That’s not just any other leak.

Seth Mandel looks into the leaker’s logic:

The primary purpose of the [Times] article is not as a record of internal deliberations but as an instrument of policy itself. Namely, to obstruct future U.S. and Israeli foreign policy by divulging enough details of Israel’s plans in order to protect Iran’s nuclear sites. The idea is to force Israeli planners back to the drawing board, thus delaying a possible future strike on Iran until Iranian air defenses have been rebuilt.

The leak is the point. It’s a tactical play, more or less, to help Iran torpedo American action.

The leaker, Mandel explains—and the Times itself implies—is likely aligned with the faction in the administration that wants to see the U.S. retreat from the world stage and from its alliance with Israel, a faction that includes Vice-President J.D. Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and the president’s own chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Yet it’s also possible, if less likely, that the plans were leaked in support of administration policy rather than out of factional infighting. Eliezer Marom argues that the leak was “part of the negotiations and serves to clarify to the Iranians that there is a real attack plan that Trump stopped at the last moment to conduct negotiations.”