YINR 929: Tanach Yomi

It is fitting that Moshe’s trajectory ends with a song. Back in Exodus 15, Moshe’s leadership role began with a song—Az Yashir. That song was sung in conjunction with the Israelites, with Moshe leading the way. This song is a solo—sung by Moshe and directed at the people. Az Yashir is written as a series of interlocking bricks in the text—symbolic of the bricks that the Israelites toiled over in Egypt. Haazinu is written as two columns. Perhaps the two columns represent the bookends of Moshe’s two songs. In the beginning, Moshe had to lead a weary group of slaves, and now he lets go of a complete nation, ready to take on their next heady task of conquering the land of Canaan without their only leader.Az Yashir contains a lot of aquatic imagery. This makes sense, as it commemorates the Egyptians drowning in the Sea of Reeds. Haazinu also has some interesting water imagery. “May my teachings come down as the rain, My speech distill as the dew, Like showers on young growth, Like droplets on the grass” (verse 2).יַעֲרֹף כַּמָּטָר לִקְחִי תִּזַּל כַּטַּל אִמְרָתִי כִּשְׂעִירִים עֲלֵי־דֶשֶׁא וְכִרְבִיבִים עֲלֵי־עֵשֶׂב(Deuteronomy 32:2)The connection between the Torah and water hearkens back to the very first incident after Az Yashir. “Then Moses caused Israel to set out from the Sea of Reeds. They went on into the wilderness of Shur; they traveled three days in the wilderness and found no water” (Exodus 15:22).וַיַּסַּע מֹשֶׁה אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיַּם־סוּף וַיֵּצְאוּ אֶל־מִדְבַּר־שׁוּר וַיֵּלְכוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים בַּמִּדְבָּר וְלֹא מָצְאוּ מָיִם(Exodus 15:22)The commentators explain that the three days without water was symbolic of the people going three days without Torah. This caused them to start complaining. This verse is also the source for Torah reading taking place three times a week—so that three days do not pass without Torah.In Haazinu, Moshe utilizes four types of precipitation—1) rain, 2) dew, 3) showers, and 4) droplets. Like precipitation, the Torah comes in many forms. Sometimes the Torah can be heavy and difficult like the showers, sometimes it can be soft and pleasant like the dew, other times it can be in between like the rain. Points of the Torah can be distinct like droplets. The Torah also manages to cover all areas at all times—just like showers, rain, dew, and droplets symbolize different ways that moisture covers the earth at one time. The Torah also comes down from the heavens to nourish the people on earth.Perhaps Moshe also utilizes four different types of rain to symbolize the four other books of the Torah that are already completed (Bereishit, Shemot, Vayikra, and Bamidbar), or the four books of the Torah that encompass his lifetime (Shemot, Vayikra, Bamidbar, Devarim). From a poetic standpoint, it is fitting that Moshe borrows this powerful multi faceted image of water used after his first song to set up the introduction of his final one.

The final message is nigh. Moshe begins the introduction tohis song and blessings: “I am now one hundred and twenty years old, I can notgo out and come in.”בֶּן־מֵאָהוְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹםלֹא־אוּכַל עוֹד לָצֵאת וְלָבוֹא(Deuteronomy 31:2)The Hebrew “latzeit v’lavo” literally means go out and comein. Ostensibly, Moshe is saying that he is 120 years old and cannot move aroundanymore. This makes sense for him to say right before he dies. However, Rashidoes not like the literal translation. How could Moshe be frail if in a fewchapters the Torah says “His eye was not dim nor his natural force abated”(34:7)?לֹא־כָהֲתָהעֵינוֹ וְלֹא־נָס לֵחֹה(Deuteronomy 34:7)Rashi gives two answers. The first is that Moshe was notpermitted to move on—Hashem had given that role to Yehoshua. This first answermatches the second part of the verse: “Hashem said to me, ‘You shall not goacross yonder Jordan.’”וַה׳ אָמַר אֵלַי לֹאתַעֲבֹר אֶת־הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה(Deuteronomy 31:2)This must be the explanation for the first part. Moshecannot move beyond this point because Hashem decreed it. Rashi’s second answeris that Moshe could no longer provide guidance on the Torah.Ibn Ezra explains it as Moshe declaring that he is no longerfit to be a political or military leader  Latzeit = going out to lead the people to war Lavo = coming in to judge, teach, and administerjusticeThe use of go out and come in also evokes the blessings andcurses of a few chapters ago. “Blessed shall you be in your comings and blessedshall you be in your goings.”בָּרוּךְאַתָּה בְּבֹאֶךָ וּבָרוּךְ אַתָּהבְּצֵאתֶךָ(Deuteronomy 28:6)“Cursed shall you be in your comings and cursed shall you bein your goings.”אָרוּר אַתָּה בְּבֹאֶךָ וְאָרוּראַתָּה בְּצֵאתֶךָ(Deuteronomy 28:19)Perhaps Moshe uses this phrase specifically tolet the people know not just that he is no longer able to move forward, butthat he is no longer eligible for the blessings and curses. Additionally, whilehe is no longer able, the people are now given the opportunity to move forward.Moshe may not be able to go out, but the people can. For the first time, theIsraelites can do something that the great Moshe can not. The path before themis the same that Moshe laid out three chapters earlier. If they follow God theywill be blessed like Moshe had been blessed, but if they fail to follow God,then their comings and goings will not be as pleasant as Moshe’s.

The Talmud in Bava Metzia 59b discusses a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua regarding the ritual purity of a stove. Rabbi Eliezer called upon miracles to prove his position, including a heavenly voice. Rabbi Yehoshua stood and declared:“It is not in the heavens!” (verse 12).לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִוא(Deuteronomy 30:12)God had given the Torah to the people, and by doing so transferred authority to human interpretation. Halacha follows the majority.There is another way to understand this verse. After forty years of wandering, Moshe—who spoke face to face with God—is not entering the land. He has given the people 613 commandments, many carrying severe consequences. How can ordinary people live up to this?Moshe answers with one of the most poetic passages in the Torah:“It is not in the heavens, that you should say, ‘Who among us can go up to the heavens and get it for us…?’Neither is it beyond the sea…No, the thing is very close to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to observe it.” (verses 12–14)לֹא בַשָּׁמַיִם הִוא לֵאמֹר מִי יַעֲלֶה־לָּנוּ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְיִקָּחֶהָ לָּנוּ…וְלֹא מֵעֵבֶר לַיָּם הִוא…כִּי־קָרוֹב אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר מְאֹד בְּפִיךָ וּבִלְבָבְךָ לַעֲשֹׂתוֹThe laws may seem overwhelming in the abstract, but Moshe insists they are attainable. They are not meant for angels, nor do they require heroic quests. They live in daily speech and moral instinct. With the right mindset, they can be fulfilled.

Moshe’s final farewell address commences in chapter 29. He begins by reaffirming the covenant of the Torah itself:“I make this covenant, with its sanctions—not with you alone, but both with those who are standing here with us this day before our God and with those who are not with us here this day” (verse 13).לֹא אִתְּכֶם לְבַדְּכֶם אָנֹכִי כֹּרֵת אֶת־הַבְּרִית הַזֹּאת וְאֶת־הָאָלָה הַזֹּאת׃כִּי אֶת־אֲשֶׁר יֶשְׁנוֹ פֹה עִמָּנוּ עֹמֵד הַיּוֹם לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנּוּ פֹה עִמָּנוּ הַיּוֹם(Deuteronomy 29:13–14)The Talmud explains that “those not present” refers to converts who are not currently part of the Israelite nation (Shabbat 146a). The Midrash says that this verse alludes to the fact that the souls of all future generations of Israelites/Jews were present that day. “Those who are not standing with us” were actually present at this moment so that they too would be bound by the covenant. They may not have been physically there, but they were spiritually there.The idea of a future covenant for those not physically present was not new. The Rav points out that Avimelech had Avraham swear on behalf of his children and grandchildren in Genesis 21:23. People of the ancient world understood the importance of binding future generations.This chain of passing the covenant forward is immortalized in the opening Mishnah of Avot: “Moses received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua…” and continues through rabbinic authority to this day. This creates an incentive for past generations to preserve the mesorah, knowing that their descendants remain bound by God’s covenant. At the same time, the covenant anchors future generations to the mesorah of the past. For example, communities outside Israel still observe two days of Yom Tov despite a fixed calendar, based on the Talmudic principle “minhag avoteinu b’yadeinu.” This reaching backward and forward creates a stable foundation that keeps the Torah and God’s covenant alive.

Chapter 28 addresses the other half of the covenantal equation: the blessings and the curses. At first glance, the two lists seem to parallel one another closely, but a closer look reveals subtle and meaningful differences.Both sections open with a conditional introduction. Blessings are promised if the people obey God and faithfully observe the commandments, while curses follow if the people fail to obey. The structure then proceeds through a series of matched statements:• Blessed in the city / cursed in the city• Blessed in the country / cursed in the country• Blessed in comings and goings / cursed in comings and goingsThe most significant difference, however, appears in the introductory verses. Blessings are not promised merely for obedience, but for faithful obedience. In Hebrew, this is expressed through the doubled verb שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ (shamoa tishme’u), emphasizing attentiveness, intention, and consistency. This phrase appears elsewhere in the Torah—Exodus 15:26, Exodus 23:22, and Deuteronomy 15:5—and in each case introduces divine blessing.Curses, by contrast, require far less. One does not need to actively rebel; simply failing to heed God’s commandments is sufficient. This asymmetry suggests an important principle: it is easier to lose blessing than to earn it.Moshe may be introducing a three tiered moral framework:1. Disobedience leads to curse. 2.Basic obedience maintains the status quo. 3.Faithful, intentional obedience brings blessing. In this model, merely “going through the motions” is not enough to secure divine favor. Blessing requires attentiveness, commitment, and a genuine alignment of will. By adding this extra requirement, Moshe pushes the people beyond minimal compliance and challenges them to pursue excellence in their relationship with God.As the nation prepares to enter the land, Moshe’s message is clear: covenantal life is not sustained by habit alone. Blessing flows from conscious, faithful devotion—and that, ultimately, is the standard to which the people are being called.

God commands the people to split onto two mountains with six tribes on one and six on the other. One side answers amen to the blessings and one side answers amen to the curses. God then pronounces twelve curses.“When you cross the Jordan, these shall stand on Mount Gerizim for the blessing… and these shall stand on Mount Ebal for the curse.”אֵלֶּה יַעַמְדוּ לְבָרֵךְ אֶת־הָעָם עַל־הַר גְּרִזִים… וְאֵלֶּה יַעַמְדוּ עַל־הַקְּלָלָה בְּהַר עֵיבָל(Deuteronomy 27:12–13)Why these twelve curses? How are they related? One possible answer is that these curses given at the end of the wilderness journey correspond to the Ten Commandments which were given at the beginning. Some do match clearly—such as verse 15, which addresses idol worship:“Cursed be anyone who makes a sculptured or molten image…”אָרוּר הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה פֶסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה(Deuteronomy 27:15)Verse 16, which prohibits insulting one’s parents:“Cursed be one who insults his father or his mother.”אָרוּר מַקְלֶה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ(Deuteronomy 27:16)And verse 24, which addresses murder:“Cursed be one who strikes down his fellow in secret.”אָרוּר מַכֵּה רֵעֵהוּ בַּסָּתֶר(Deuteronomy 27:24)Other curses are only partially related. Verses 20, 22, and 23 address forbidden sexual relationships as a parallel adultery:“Cursed be one who lies with his father’s wife…”אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם־אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו (27:20)“Cursed be one who lies with any animal.”אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם־כָּל־בְּהֵמָה (27:21)“Cursed be one who lies with his sister…”אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם־אֲחֹתוֹ (27:22)Verse 25, which condemns taking a bribe to kill an innocent person, could be connected to false testimony:“Cursed be one who takes a bribe to strike down an innocent person.”אָרוּר לֹקֵחַ שֹׁחַד לְהַכּוֹת נֶפֶשׁ דָּם נָקִי(Deuteronomy 27:25)However, several curses do not clearly correspond to the Ten Commandments at all: verse 17, moving a neighbor’s boundary marker:אָרוּר מַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֵהוּ (27:17)Verse 18, placing a stumbling block before the blind:אָרוּר מַשְׁגֶּה עִוֵּר בַּדָּרֶךְ (27:18)Verse 19, subverting justice for the vulnerable:אָרוּר מַטֶּה מִשְׁפַּט גֵּר יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה (27:19)And verse 26, a general curse for not upholding the Torah:“Cursed be one who does not uphold the words of this Torah.”אָרוּר אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָקִים אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת(Deuteronomy 27:26)Only seven of the curses clearly correspond—or even loosely correspond—to the Ten Commandments, while several commandments are not represented at all. So this theory does not work well. Rashbam explains that all twelve curses share a single unifying characteristic: they are sins typically committed in secret. Because they often escape judicial punishment, the Torah invokes a public, communal curse. Even the two acts that could occur publicly—idolatry and murder—are explicitly framed in the text as occurring secretly.Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch builds on this idea, explaining that these curses target people who present themselves publicly as righteous while acting immorally in private. A person may loudly proclaim concern for the orphan or widow, yet secretly exploit them. Tragically, later in the book of Kings, the people openly profess loyalty to God while secretly harboring idols behind closed doors.Perhaps the simplest explanation is that Moshe selected these twelve curses because they represent the greatest hidden threats to a just society as the people enter the land. This may also explain why the ceremony is commanded only after crossing the Jordan. The people are divided by tribe so that no group can claim immunity from either God’s blessing or God’s judgment.

The chapter begins with the commandment to bring the first fruits, but it also contains a passage that is a significant part of the Pesach Haggadah. The passage is a mini history of the Israelites. It describes them going down to Egypt, God saving them from the Egyptians with signs and wonders. God then brings the people to the land of milk and honey and now the people bring the first fruits to God.The passage opens with the phrase “Arami oved avi.” What does this phrase mean?“An Aramean was destroying my father, and he went down to Egypt and sojourned there with a small number, and there he became a nation—great, mighty, and numerous.” (Deuteronomy 26:5)אֲרַמִּי אֹבֵד אָבִי וַיֵּרֶד מִצְרַיְמָה וַיָּגָר שָׁם בִּמְתֵי מְעָט וַיְהִי־שָׁם לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל עָצוּם וָרָבRashi translates this as “An Aramean destroyed my father.” The Aramean, according to Rashi, is Lavan. This is also how the Targum translates it. Some commentators say the word oved should be read with an ayin, meaning worked, as in Lavan worked Yaakov.The Pesach Haggadah follows this interpretation as well:“Go out and learn what Lavan the Aramean sought to do to Ya'akov, our father; since Pharaoh only decreed [the death sentence] on the males, but Lavan sought to uproot the whole [people]. As it is stated (Deuteronomy 26:5), ‘An Aramean was destroying my father and he went down to Egypt, and he resided there with a small number and he became there a nation, great, powerful and numerous.’”There are many questions about this interpretation. Why start this passage with Lavan without naming him? Going down to Egypt was not directly after the Lavan story, so why connect the two?Ibn Ezra raises many of these questions. He translates the phrase as “my father was a lost Aramean.” Oved is not used here as a transitive verb, but as an adjective. The Aramean is Yaakov, and he was lost because he was poor.This sets up a mirrored structure. Yaakov was poor and went down to Egypt with a small group of people on one side. The mirror image is that God intervened, and instead of remaining a small group, the people emerged from Egypt as a great nation. Instead of poverty, they entered a land flowing with milk and honey. This contrast highlights the journey from humble beginnings to abundance and explains why the penitent farmer brings his first fruits to the Temple.Rashbam goes even further back and explains that the Aramean here is Avraham, who was a wanderer. Avraham serves as a stand in for all three forefathers, none of whom had a permanent land of their own and all of whom lived as wanderers. Rashbam’s interpretation also preserves the mirrored structure.The question remains: did Rashbam and Ibn Ezra have a different version of the Haggadah?

Chapter 25 contains the commandment to remember Amalek. This is fulfilled every year by a special reading of the end of this chapter on the Shabbat before Purim. Haman is described as Haman the Agagite, and Agag was the king of Amalek in the time of King Saul in the book of Samuel, making the reading about Amalek particularly appropriate for that Shabbat.The story of Amalek first appeared earlier in the Torah, in chapter 17 of Exodus. That passage also contains a commandment from God to Moshe to write down and remember what Amalek did. Why, then, is the pre Purim reading taken from Deuteronomy 25 rather than from the original narrative in Exodus? Why does Moshe repeat this commandment at all? At first glance, it would seem more logical to read from the actual story in Exodus, which already includes a commandment to remember Amalek.To answer these questions, we must compare the two passages.In Deuteronomy, Moshe commands:“Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey, after you left Egypt—how, undeterred by fear of God, he surprised you on the march, when you were famished and weary, and cut down all the stragglers in your rear. Therefore, when the LORD your God grants you safety from all your enemies around you, in the land that the LORD your God is giving you as a hereditary portion, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!” (Deuteronomy 25:17–19)זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְךָ עֲמָלֵק בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם׃אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כָּל־הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים׃וְהָיָה בְּהָנִיחַ ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְךָ מִכָּל־אֹיְבֶיךָ מִסָּבִיב בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ תִּמְחֶה אֶת־זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם לֹא תִּשְׁכָּחCompare this with the commandment in Exodus:“Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the sword. Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Inscribe this in a document as a reminder and read it aloud to Joshua: I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.’” (Exodus 17:13–14)וַיַּחֲלֹשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־עֲמָלֵק וְאֶת־עַמּוֹ לְפִי־חָרֶב׃וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה כְּתֹב זֹאת זִכָּרוֹן בַּסֵּפֶר וְשִׂים בְּאָזְנֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כִּי־מָחֹה אֶמְחֶה אֶת־זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִםThere are two significant differences between these two passages. The most obvious difference is that Deuteronomy omits the narrative elements entirely—there is no mention of Joshua’s military heroics or Moshe’s raised hands and miraculous support. The commandment stands on its own, without the surrounding story.The second difference is subtle but critical and comes down to a single letter in Hebrew. In Exodus, God says “I will blot out the memory of Amalek”—אֶמְחֶה (with an alef). In Deuteronomy, Moshe commands the people “you shall blot out the memory of Amalek”—תִּמְחֶה (with a taf).This small linguistic shift reflects a major theological change. At the time of the original attack, the Israelites had only just left Egypt. Although they emerged victorious, their success depended heavily on Joshua’s leadership and Moshe’s miraculous intervention. God therefore reassures them that He Himself will ultimately deal with Amalek in the future.Forty years later, the people have matured into a nation. Moshe and God have prepared them to take responsibility for their own destiny. That is why the story is no longer necessary, and why the commandment is now framed as a human obligation. God no longer says, “I will blot out Amalek.” Instead, He charges the people themselves with the task. They are now ready for that responsibility.This shift explains why the pre Purim reading comes from Deuteronomy rather than Exodus. Purim is a story of Jewish survival without overt miracles, where human courage and responsibility play the decisive role. The Deuteronomy passage, with its focus on memory, moral responsibility, and human action, is therefore the fitting text to frame the holiday.

In the middle of chapter 24, the Torah discusses tzaraat.“In cases of tzaraat be most careful to do exactly as the Levitical priests instruct you. Take care to do as I have commanded them; remember what the LORD your God did to Miriam on the way after you left Egypt.” (verses 8–9)הִשָּׁמֶר בְּנֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת לִשְׁמֹר מְאֹד וְלַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּ אֶתְכֶם הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִם תִּשְׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת׃זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְמִרְיָם בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם(Deuteronomy 24:8–9)Why is Miriam mentioned here? Is this meant as a warning to avoid Miriam’s gossiping behavior, or is it something else?The verse immediately before is also striking. Unlike the lengthy and technical discussion of tzaraat found in Leviticus, verse 8 offers no details at all. It simply instructs the people to follow the rulings of the priests. These verses also seem out of place within the chapter as a whole.Chapter 24 opens with laws about divorce and remarriage, emphasizing a husband’s obligations toward his wife and limiting the ways she can be treated casually or discarded. It then states that a kidnapper must be put to death. The remainder of the chapter largely focuses on care for the poor and vulnerable: one may not take income producing property as collateral, may not take a poor person’s clothing as collateral, must pay a worker on time, must treat the widow and orphan with sensitivity, and must leave portions of the harvest for the poor.Every other law in this chapter clearly addresses protection for someone vulnerable. The laws regarding the poor are straightforward, but what about the earlier sections? The opening laws protect women, who in that historical context could not own property and were especially vulnerable after divorce. The Torah prevents a husband from treating his wife recklessly by forbidding remarriage after a second marriage and by requiring him to remain with his wife during the first year of marriage rather than leaving for military service. The Torah then protects those most susceptible to kidnapping. Each section highlights a different category of vulnerability.How, then, do tzaraat and Miriam fit into this framework?A person afflicted with tzaraat is also vulnerable. Whatever the cause of the affliction, such a person is isolated, dependent, and exposed. The Torah therefore emphasizes that one must seek guidance from the priest and carefully follow the prescribed process rather than acting independently or harshly.The commandment to remember Miriam, in this context, may not be primarily about her wrongdoing, but about how she was treated afterward. Miriam was healed quickly after Moshe prayed on her behalf, and the entire nation waited for her before continuing their journey. The focus is not on punishment, but on compassion and communal responsibility toward someone in a moment of weakness. Seen this way, the passage about tzaraat fits squarely within the chapter’s broader theme: protecting and responding appropriately to those who are most vulnerable.

The struggle between the southern slave holding states and the northern mostly free states reached a boiling point in the mid 19th century before the start of the Civil War. As a last act of desperation to try to hold the Union together, Stephen Douglas and Henry Clay helped pass the Compromise of 1850. One part of the Compromise was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Under this act, all law enforcement in both northern and southern states were required to return enslaved people who had escaped to free states. The Act was meant to shore up the earlier Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which had been weakened by northern states’ refusal to enforce it.In 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that a local abolitionist could not be arrested for violating the Act. The United States Supreme Court overruled the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Ableman v. Booth. Justice Taney—who also authored the infamous Dred Scott decision holding that enslaved people had no rights under the Constitution—wrote the majority opinion.Justice Taney clearly did not read Chapter 23 of Deuteronomy:“You shall not turn over to the master a slave who seeks refuge with you from that master. He shall live with you, in your midst, in the place he chooses within one of your settlements, wherever he pleases; you must not oppress him.” (verses 16–17)לֹא־תַסְגִּיר עֶבֶד אֶל־אֲדֹנָיו אֲשֶׁר־יִנָּצֵל אֵלֶיךָ מֵעִם אֲדֹנָיו׃עִמְּךָ יֵשֵׁב בְּקִרְבְּךָ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַר בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ בַּטּוֹב לוֹ לֹא תוֹנֶנּוּ(Deuteronomy 23:16–17)From a modern perspective, the Torah has a complicated relationship with slavery. Slavery is permitted—as was the universal practice in the ancient world—but it is also highly regulated. There are different categories of slavery, such as Israelite and non Israelite slaves. Certain slaves may not be worked for more than six years, enslaved people are granted specific protections within a household, and an injured slave must be set free.Verse 16 does not distinguish between Israelite or non Israelite slaves. Any enslaved person who escapes and seeks refuge may not be returned to their master. All escaped slaves are to be granted protection and allowed to live freely among the people. In sharp contrast to American law in the 19th century, the Torah places human dignity above property claims, even within a system that otherwise permits slavery.

“If, along the road, you chance upon a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs and the mother sitting over the fledglings or on the eggs, do not take the mother together with her young. Let the mother go, and take only the young, in order that you may fare well and have a long life” (verses 6–7).כִּי־יִקָּרֵא קַן־צִפּוֹר לְפָנֶיךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּכָל־עֵץ אוֹ עַל־הָאָרֶץ אֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ בֵיצִים וְהָאֵם רֹבֶצֶת עַל־הָאֶפְרֹחִים אוֹ עַל־הַבֵּיצִים לֹא־תִקַּח הָאֵם עַל־הַבָּנִים׃שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת־הָאֵם וְאֶת־הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח־לָךְ לְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ וְהַאֲרַכְתָּ יָמִים(Deuteronomy 22:6–7)What is the reason behind this commandment, known as kan tzippur? Rashi explains that the point of this commandment is its simplicity. Sending the mother bird away in order to take the eggs requires little effort and does not meaningfully reduce the benefit one receives. God deliberately attached a great reward to this easy commandment to teach that if a minor mitzvah carries such a reward, then more demanding mitzvot must certainly carry even greater reward.However, Rashi’s explanation does not clarify why this particular easy commandment was chosen for such a promise. There are many easy commandments that could have carried the same reward. Moreover, this mitzvah resembles other laws involving parent and offspring—such as the prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother’s milk or slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day—neither of which is paired with the promise of long life.Other commentators explain that this commandment teaches compassion. One must show mercy even to a bird, and cultivating such sensitivity will naturally extend to how one treats other human beings. If one is careful not to cause unnecessary distress to an animal, one will be more attentive to the suffering of people.In context, however, this mitzvah may convey an additional lesson: do not act impulsively. The commandments that immediately follow share this theme. The Torah continues:“When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you do not bring bloodguilt upon your house if someone falls from it.”כִּי־תִבְנֶה בַיִת חָדָשׁ וְעָשִׂיתָ מַעֲקֶה לְגַגֶּךָ וְלֹא־תָשִׂים דָּמִים בְּבֵיתֶךָ כִּי־יִפֹּל הַנֹּפֵל מִמֶּנּוּ(Deuteronomy 22:8)“You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed.”לֹא־תִזְרַע כַּרְמְךָ כִּלְאָיִם(Deuteronomy 22:9)“You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.”לֹא־תַחֲרֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמֹר יַחְדָּו(Deuteronomy 22:10)“You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen.”לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו(Deuteronomy 22:11)Each of these commandments requires a person to pause and consider the consequences of their actions rather than acting on impulse. Sometimes this restraint shows compassion toward animals, as with the bird or the ox and donkey. Sometimes it protects other people, as with building a fence. Sometimes it safeguards the environment, as with planting seeds. And sometimes it protects oneself, as with clothing choices.Taking a moment to think beyond immediate desire—to consider others, consequences, and limits—is the Torah’s recipe for a long and meaningful life.

Chapter 21 details the unique case of the Eglah Arufah, the calf with a broken neck. When a dead body is found between two cities, the leaders of both cities must measure to determine which city is closest. The elders of that city must then bring a young calf that has never been worked down to a valley and perform a ritual of atonement:“If a slain person is found lying in the open, in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess, and it is not known who struck him down… then your elders and judges shall go out and measure the distances to the towns around the slain person.”(Deuteronomy 21:1–2)כִּי־יִמָּצֵא חָלָל בָּאֲדָמָה… לֹא נוֹדַע מִי הִכָּהוּ׃וְיָצְאוּ זְקֵנֶיךָ וְשֹׁפְטֶיךָ וּמָדְדוּ אֶל־הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹת הֶחָלָלThe elders of the nearest city then take a calf that has never been worked and bring it to a barren valley:“The elders of that town shall take a calf which has not been worked and has not pulled in a yoke, and the elders shall break the calf’s neck in the valley.”(Deuteronomy 21:3–4)וְלָקְחוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַהִוא עֶגְלַת בָּקָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עֻבַּד בָּהּ…וְעָרְפוּ שָׁם אֶת־הָעֶגְלָה בַּנָּחַלThe leaders then wash their hands and declare their innocence:“Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it.”(Deuteronomy 21:7)יָדֵינוּ לֹא שָׁפְכוּ אֶת־הַדָּם הַזֶּה וְעֵינֵינוּ לֹא רָאוּThey pray for forgiveness, and the Torah concludes:“Thus you will remove from your midst guilt for the blood of the innocent, for you will be doing what is right in the sight of the LORD.”(Deuteronomy 21:9)וְאַתָּה תְּבַעֵר הַדָּם הַנָּקִי מִקִּרְבֶּךָ כִּי תַעֲשֶׂה הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי ה׳What is the meaning behind this strange ritual? Rambam explains that the ceremony creates a public spectacle that draws attention from the surrounding population. By highlighting the unsolved murder, the ritual may prompt witnesses or informants to come forward with information that could lead to justice.Nechama Leibowitz strongly questions this explanation. She asks why the Torah would require city leaders to confess and pray simply to generate investigative leads. Instead, she argues that the purpose of the ritual is moral shock. It forces the community to confront the reality of murder rather than ignore it. A body found between cities could easily be dismissed as someone else’s problem, especially in a time without modern media or accountability.She further explains that the ritual compels townspeople to examine their own behavior—not only toward the victim, who may have been a lonely traveler denied escort or hospitality, but also toward the unknown murderer. Perhaps warning signs of desperation or alienation were ignored. The ritual thus addresses both sides of the crime.The Eglah Arufah also functions as a conceptual companion to the City of Refuge. In both cases, the Torah addresses communal responsibility for bloodshed. In both cases, an axe plays a role. And in both cases, the Torah insists on purging innocent blood from the land.This parallel is explicit elsewhere:“Thus innocent blood will not be shed, bringing bloodguilt upon you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.”(Deuteronomy 19:10)וְלֹא יִשָּׁפֵךְ דָּם נָקִי בְּקֶרֶב אַרְצְךָ אֲשֶׁר ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה וְהָיָה עָלֶיךָ דָּמִיםIn both the Eglah Arufah and the City of Refuge, the Torah seeks to restore law and order. Cities must take responsibility for strangers who pass through them, and communities must intervene to prevent cycles of violence and blood vengeance. Only through shared responsibility can further bloodshed be prevented in the land.

Chapter 20 details the various laws of war. After outlining who is exempt from battle and the rules of engagement, the Torah commands:“When in your war against a city you have to besiege it a long time in order to capture it, you must not destroy its trees, wielding the ax against them. You may eat of them, but you must not cut them down…” (verse 19).כִּי תָצוּר אֶל־עִיר יָמִים רַבִּים לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ לְתָפְשָׂהּ לֹא־תַשְׁחִית אֶת־עֵצָהּ לִנְדֹּחַ עָלָיו גַּרְזֶן כִּי מִמֶּנּוּ תֹאכֵל וְאֹתוֹ לֹא תִכְרֹת(Deuteronomy 20:19)The verse then ends with a striking phrase that can be read either as a statement or as a rhetorical question:“For is the tree of the field a human, to withdraw before you into the besieged city?”כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה לָבֹא מִפָּנֶיךָ בַּמָּצוֹרThere are two primary schools of thought on how to understand this line. Some commentators read it as a rhetorical question: Are trees of the field human? Trees are helpless and not participants in battle. They cannot fight back and pose no threat. Therefore, they must be protected. This interpretation centers on environmental preservation and the moral limits of war: the conflict is between people, not against nature.The other school of thought reads the phrase as a declarative statement: “For man is a tree of the field.” Under this reading, fruit trees are vital to human survival because they provide sustenance. Destroying them inflicts unnecessary suffering not only on the besieged city but also on future inhabitants. This interpretation is less about environmental consciousness and more about concern for human welfare beyond the battlefield.Taking this idea a step further, preserving the trees may also express faith that God will ultimately grant victory. By leaving the trees intact, the army signals confidence that the land will soon be theirs and that there is no need to destroy resources out of anger or spite. The trees will bear fruit for Israel in the future.This verse also serves as the textual source for the custom of upsherin—waiting until a boy reaches the age of three before cutting his hair. The verse explicitly compares a person to a fruit tree. This connection is reinforced by a law in Leviticus:“When you come into the land and plant any tree for food, you shall regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years it shall be forbidden to you; it shall not be eaten.”וְכִי תָבֹאוּ אֶל־הָאָרֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם כָּל־עֵץ מַאֲכָל וַעֲרַלְתֶּם עָרְלָתוֹ אֶת־פִּרְיוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים יִהְיֶה לָכֶם עֲרֵלִים לֹא יֵאָכֵל(Leviticus 19:23)Just as a fruit tree’s produce is not taken during its first three years, so too a young child’s hair is left uncut for three years. In both cases, growth precedes use, restraint precedes benefit, and patience is framed as a moral and spiritual value.

“You shall not move your neighbor’s landmarks, set up by previous generations, on the property that will be allotted to you in the land that your God is giving you to possess” (verse 14).לֹא תַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר גָּבְלוּ רִאשֹׁנִים בְּנַחֲלָתְךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּנְחַל בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ לְרִשְׁתָּהּ(Deuteronomy 19:14)This verse prohibits someone from moving their boundary into their neighbor’s yard in order to increase their own property. Rashi asks: if there is already a general prohibition against stealing, why does the Torah need this additional commandment? He answers that one who moves a boundary violates two prohibitions—the general prohibition against theft and the specific prohibition of hasagat gevul (encroaching on boundaries).Rashi further explains that this commandment is unique to the Land of Israel. If someone were to move a boundary outside the land, they would violate only the prohibition of theft, not this specific commandment. As the people are about to enter the land, it makes sense that Moshe would emphasize a prohibition uniquely tied to land ownership.But why have this second transgression at all? The delineation of tribal boundaries was a major theme in the Book of Numbers. Recall that the daughters of Tzelofchad—and later other members of the tribe—were deeply concerned with property lines and the proper protection of familial estates. This additional prohibition functions as a kind of “belt and suspenders” safeguard, reinforcing stability and preventing conflict over land.This rule is later expanded by the Rabbis to include economic encroachment, such as competing businesses intruding on the livelihood of an established business. While this could sound like a mechanism for enforcing monopolies, halakhic authorities introduce important limits.Rav Moshe Isserlis (the Rema) writes:“There are those who say that the ability of residents to prevent a business from another place is only when there will be no loss to the consumers—meaning that the newcomer would sell the same goods, at the same price, and of no better quality. But if the newcomer would sell at lower prices, or the goods would be better, then the consumers benefit, and the original residents may not prevent him… And similarly, if the newcomer brings a product not previously available, even if it is not cheaper or better, he may not be prevented.”(Rema on Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 156:5)The Rabbis therefore sought to strike a careful balance: protecting boundaries and livelihoods on the one hand, while also safeguarding the broader community’s interests by allowing fair and beneficial competition.

The second half of chapter 18 returns to the well-trodden restrictions against false prophets, witches, wizards, and soothsayers. The Torah is very specific listing out all of these types of magicians those who tell the future through bones, talking through body parts, and necromancers. Why the obsession with witches, wizards, prophets and soothsayers? God knows that he people were heavily influenced by the idol worship that included wizardry in Egypt (recall that he charumim were a big part of the Exodus story). This influence caused them to sin greatly at Mount Sinai. It can easily happen again. The Israelites are now about to enter the land of Canaan, a land full of intense idol worship. Idol worship is not just bowing down to images, it also involved other types of spirit connections. It makes sense, therefore, that God would emphasize these restrictions. But there is also a deeper reason that this comes up a lot in Deuteronomy. Until this point, the only leader the people knew was Moshe. Moshe talked to God and performed miracles and guided the nation through the wilderness. But, Moshe was not going to be entering the land with the people. Joshua was going to be with them, but the people would be spread out and not centralized as they were in the wilderness. This sets them to be vulnerable to others who claim to be speaking for God and work. Moshe, therefore, emphasizes that these prophets and others who claim to talk to and for God are false and not to be trusted.

A Few Good Men (1992)The entire film builds to Jessup’s testimony, culminating in the famous “You can’t handle the truth!” moment.To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)Mayella Ewell’s testimony exposes the moral fault lines of the case and the town.My Cousin Vinny (1992)Mona Lisa Vito’s comedic inversion of the trope: the last witness dismantles the prosecution through expertise rather than emotion.Watch any courtroom drama in film and television and the crescendo always comes from the one dramatic witness on the stand. Halacha treats witnesses very differently in criminal cases.“A person shall be put to death only on the word of two or three witnesses; no one shall be put to death on the testimony of a single witness” (verse 6).עַל־פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת לֹא יוּמַת עַל־פִּי עֵד אֶחָד(Deuteronomy 17:6)The death penalty is severe, and the Torah requires a court to be absolutely certain before meting out such a punishment. A single witness is not enough. Circumstantial evidence is also not enough. Two witnesses are required.The Talmud derives several important rules from this verse. The emphasis on “by the word of” (al pi) teaches that the accused must be warned by two witnesses that the act constitutes a capital crime before committing it. In addition, “by the word of” means that the court must hear the testimony directly from the witnesses themselves and may not rely on an interpreter (Makkot 6b).Why does the verse say “two or three witnesses”? Why not simply say two? On the most basic level, the Torah means two or more witnesses. But the Talmud understands the phrasing as setting the framework for the laws of eidim zomemim—conspiring witnesses.“Just as three witnesses can render the two witnesses conspiring witnesses, so too the two witnesses can render the three witnesses conspiring witnesses.” (Makkot 5b)The Talmud in Sanhedrin further explains that “three witnesses” teaches that if a group of three is found to be false witnesses, the third member cannot claim exemption by arguing that only two witnesses are normally required and that their testimony was therefore unnecessary (Sanhedrin 9a).Why does the verse conclude with “no one shall be put to death on the testimony of a single witness”, seemingly repeating the opening requirement? The Talmud explains that this teaches an additional rule: the two witnesses must have observed the crime together, from the same vantage point. A person cannot be put to death based on the combined testimony of two witnesses who saw the act from different locations and did not witness it as a single, unified event.Because this verse addresses capital punishment, this strict requirement of shared vantage point applies only to death penalty cases. In monetary cases, testimony from witnesses who observed events separately may still be admissible.

“Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may thrive and occupy the land that your God has given you” (verse 20).צֶדֶק צֶדֶק תִּרְדֹּף לְמַעַן תִּחְיֶה וְיָרַשְׁתָּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ(Deuteronomy 16:20)This famous phrase, or at least its opening words, has often been used as a rallying cry for “Jewish values” centered on the pursuit of justice. But what does it actually mean, and why is the word justice repeated?In its immediate context, the verse appears to apply specifically to judges and courts. Rashi explains that the repetition simply means that one must actively seek out proper judges, and that establishing a fair and functioning legal system is sufficient to ensure the people’s continued presence in the land.Sforno adds that the commandment goes one step further: it requires careful vetting of judges before their appointment, ensuring that they are already known for integrity and fairness. Justice, according to Sforno, must precede the courtroom.The Talmud in Sanhedrin 32b expands the scope further, teaching that this guiding principle must inform every stage of a legal case—not only the final ruling. Even compromise (pesharah) must be shaped by justice and not convenience alone.Ibn Ezra also focuses on the doubled language, explaining that justice must govern the outcome even if it results in financial loss or personal cost to the judge. The repetition emphasizes unwavering commitment, not efficiency or self interest.Ramban offers a more conceptual interpretation, reading the two instances of tzedek as referring to two kinds of justice. The first is justice in this world—the imperfect, human system of law. The second is justice in the World to Come, where divine reward completes what human courts cannot. Pursuing justice in this world earns justice in the next.The Rav expands on Ramban’s idea. Justice in this world is necessarily incomplete because truth and peace are often in tension. A just compromise may preserve peace, but it can never fully preserve truth, since each litigant must relinquish part of their claim. This idea is rooted in a Midrash describing a dispute among the angels: righteousness and justice favored the creation of humanity, while truth and peace opposed it, knowing that humans could never fully embody both. God cast truth aside, allowing peace to remain alongside justice and righteousness. In the World to Come, truth will be restored, and full harmony between truth, peace, justice, and righteousness will finally be possible. This, according to the Rav, is the second tzedek in the verse.All of these interpretations, however, remain grounded in the immediate context of judges and law. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch extends the verse beyond the courtroom to all areas of public and private life. The obligation to pursue justice, he argues, is not limited to legal institutions but must guide every sphere of human conduct. Perhaps Rav Hirsch is motivated to broaden the verse’s meaning because of its placement. Although it appears in a legal section, the verse stands on its own as a concluding principle, teaching an overarching lesson: justice is not merely a system—it is a way of life

“Every seventh year you shall make a shmita.” (verse 1)מִקֵּץ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים תַּעֲשֶׂה שְׁמִטָּה(Deuteronomy 15:1)The Shmita year appeared twice before—the first in Exodus 23:11 and the second in Leviticus 25:4–7. Interestingly, while the fallow land aspect of Shmita may be the most famous, the term “shmita” itself appears here in Deuteronomy specifically in the context of loan forgiveness.Ibn Ezra explains that the word shmita comes from the root שׁמט, meaning to release or let drop—indicating that one must release financial claims. Rashi asks whether the “six years” mentioned in this chapter refers to six years from the start date of any individual loan. Verse 9 clarifies that question, warning against withholding loans simply because the Shmita year is approaching:“Beware lest you harbor the base thought, ‘The seventh year, the year of remission, is approaching,’ so that you look unfavorably upon the needy and give nothing.” (Deuteronomy 15:9)הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן־יִהְיֶה דָבָר עִם־לְבָבְךָ בְלִיַּעַל לֵאמֹר קָרְבָה שְׁנַת־הַשֶּׁבַע שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִטָּהוְרָעָה עֵינְךָ בְּאָחִיךָ הָאֶבְיוֹן וְלֹא תִתֵּן לוֹConfusingly, the next topic in the chapter—the freeing of an Israelite slave—uses the same six years work/seventh year freedom framework. However, that law is case specific: an Israelite slave works for six years and goes free in the seventh year of their servitude, not based on the Shmita cycle.What is the connection between leaving the land fallow and loan forgiveness?In Exodus, the Shmita year is discussed in the broader context of Shabbat and charity:“You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt.Six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield; but in the seventh you shall let it rest and lie fallow. Let the needy among your people eat of it, and what they leave let the wild beasts eat. You shall do the same with your vineyards and olive groves.Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor, in order that your ox and your ass may rest, and that your home born slave and the stranger may be refreshed.”(Exodus 23:9–12)וְגֵר לֹא תִלְחָץ כִּי אַתֶּם יְדַעְתֶּם אֶת־נֶפֶשׁ הַגֵּר כִּי גֵרִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם׃וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְרַע אֶת־אַרְצֶךָ וְאָסַפְתָּ אֶת־תְּבוּאָתָהּ׃וְהַשְּׁבִיעִת תִּשְׁמְטֶנָּה וּנְטַשְׁתָּהּ וְאָכְלוּ אֶבְיוֹנֵי עַמֶּךָ וְיִתְרָם תֹּאכַל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה כֵּן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְכַרְמְךָ לְזֵיתֶךָ׃שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תַּעֲשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂיךָ וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי תִּשְׁבֹּת לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ שׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרֶךָ וְיִנָּפֵשׁ בֶּן־אֲמָתְךָ וְהַגֵּרLeviticus discusses Shmita as a standalone commandment tied explicitly to entering the land:“But in the seventh year the land shall have a sabbath of complete rest, a sabbath of the LORD… Whatever the land yields during its sabbath you shall eat.”(Leviticus 25:4–7)וּבַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִת שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן יִהְיֶה לָאָרֶץ שַׁבָּת לַה׳…וְהָיְתָה שַׁבַּת הָאָרֶץ לָכֶם לְאָכְלָהChapter 15, by contrast, presents Shmita primarily through the lens of charitable loans. While it makes sense that Shmita is connected to entering the land, there is a deeper message linking all three appearances.Until this point, the people have not had the opportunity to own land. Property ownership makes it easier to isolate oneself from others, especially from the poor who lack land. Land ownership is also a marker of wealth and security. The Shmita year forces even the wealthiest individuals to recognize that they, too, depend on someone else for sustenance—God. That realization, in turn, reinforces their obligation to care for those who are less fortunate.

“Do not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” This is the third time the Torah relays this exact commandment. The first was in Exodus, the second also in Exodus, and the third in Deuteronomy. The Torah repeats many laws, especially in Deuteronomy, but this law is unique in that it is repeated using the exact same phrase three times.The formulation appears first in the context of first fruits and festivals:“The choice first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the LORD your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” (Exodus 23:19)רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָלֹא־תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹIt appears again, word for word, at the end of the second tablets narrative:“The choice first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the LORD your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” (Exodus 34:26)רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָלֹא־תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹThe third appearance is in Deuteronomy, now firmly embedded in the laws of permitted and forbidden foods:“You shall not eat anything that has died a natural death; give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or sell it to a foreigner. For you are a people consecrated to the LORD your God. You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” (Deuteronomy 14:21)לֹא־תֹאכְלוּ כָל־נְבֵלָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנָכְרִיכִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָלֹא־תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹThe commentators derive several lessons from this triple repetition. One common explanation is that each occurrence forbids a different act: cooking meat and milk together, eating the mixture, and deriving benefit from it. The Talmud in Chullin 113a explains instead that each verse comes to include a different category of animals: birds, domesticated kosher animals, and wild animals. (Believe it or not, eating a non-kosher cheeseburger is not a Torah violation of eating meat and milk, even if it is prohibited by not eating non-kosher meat).Chizkuni explains that the three times are there to emphasize the prohibition during three moments of temptation- Ibn Ezra notes that some heretical interpretations claimed the first two verses referred to boiling fruit in milk, based on the surrounding context of first fruits. He rejects this reading outright, pointing out that the verse explicitly refers to a mother and milk, categories that do not apply to fruit. Ibn Ezra explains that Deuteronomy 14 provides the correct legal context, while the placement in Exodus is thematic: the first fruit season coincides with the birthing season of livestock.Sforno explains that this commandment addresses a specific pagan fertility rite, in which a young goat would be boiled in its mother’s milk to ensure agricultural blessing and herd fertility. This explains why the phrase appears alongside first fruits in Exodus, where the Torah warns against idol like ritual practices. When Moshe later repeats the phrase in Deuteronomy, he places it in its proper halakhic context among the dietary laws, fully integrating it into Israel’s system of sanctified eating.

Idol worship is one of Moshe’s central concerns in his farewell speech, and for good reason. The people are about to enter a land filled with entrenched idol worshiping cultures. Unlike in the wilderness, Israel will not simply pass through these influences; they will live among them permanently. But Moshe warns that external influence is not the only danger. Chapter 13 identifies three internal sources of spiritual corruption: the false prophet, the family member who entices, and the wayward city.The first threat is the false prophet, someone who is technically part of the Israelite community but socially distant from the individual. Because this figure lacks close personal trust, the false prophet relies on spectacle to persuade:“If there appears among you a prophet or a dream diviner and gives you a sign or a portent, and the sign or portent comes true, but he says, ‘Let us follow other gods’… you shall not heed the words of that prophet.” (Deuteronomy 13:2–4)כִּי־יָקוּם בְּקִרְבְּךָ נָבִיא אוֹ חֹלֵם חֲלוֹם וְנָתַן אֵלֶיךָ אוֹת אוֹ מוֹפֵת׃וּבָא הָאוֹת וְהַמּוֹפֵת… לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים…לֹא תִשְׁמַע אֶל־דִּבְרֵי הַנָּבִיא הַהוּאThe Torah emphasizes that these signs may be real. This is not illusion or trickery—it is a test from God:“For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and all your soul.” (Deuteronomy 13:4)כִּי מְנַסֶּה ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֶתְכֶם לָדַעַת הֲיֵשְׁכֶם אֹהֲבִים אֶת־ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶםThe decisive factor is not the miracle, but the message. God will never send a prophet to instruct idol worship.The second threat moves closer to home: a family member or close friend. Here, no miracles are needed, because trust already exists:“If your brother, your son or daughter, your wife, or your closest friend entices you in secret, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’… you must not consent or listen to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:7–9)כִּי־יְסִיתְךָ אָחִיךָ בֶן־אִמֶּךָ אוֹ־בִנְךָ אוֹ־בִתֶּךָ אוֹ אֵשֶׁת חֵיקֶךָ אוֹ רֵעֲךָ אֲשֶׁר כְּנַפְשְׁךָ בַּסֵּתֶר לֵאמֹר נֵלְכָה וְנַעַבְדָה אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִיםThis form of influence is more dangerous precisely because it is personal. Emotional bonds can override rational judgment, which is why the Torah’s language here is especially forceful.The third and most expansive threat is an entire city led astray. Unlike the false prophet or family member, a city does not rely on miracles or intimacy. Its power comes from collective pressure:“If you hear it said of one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you… that base men have gone out and led the inhabitants astray, saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’…” (Deuteronomy 13:13–14)כִּי־תִשְׁמַע בְּאַחַת עָרֶיךָ… לֵאמֹר יָצְאוּ אֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי־בְלִיַּעַל מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וַיַּדִּיחוּ אֶת־יֹשְׁבֵי עִירָםHere the Torah warns that environment itself can corrupt. It may take a family to raise a person, but it can also take a city to undermine one.

At first glance, Deuteronomy 12 feels repetitive and disorganized. The chapter moves back and forth between destroying idolatry, prohibiting private altars, permitting ordinary meat consumption, and insisting on worship at a central location. But when the themes are separated, a deliberate structure emerges.At its core, the chapter revolves around two anchoring ideas:1. Entering and remaining in the land2. Centralized worship at the place God chooses (eventually the Temple)Everything else in the chapter supports or protects the relationship between those two ideas.Instead of tracking every verse individually, the laws fall naturally into five recurring themes:• A — The Land: entering the land, remaining in it, and long term stability there• B — Idolatry: destroying pagan worship sites• C — Imitation: not worshiping God in the way the nations worship their gods• D — Central Worship: sacrifices and sacred foods belong only in the chosen place• E — Private Altars: the prohibition of decentralized, personal worship sites• F — Ordinary Meat: non sacrificial meat may be eaten anywhere• G — Blood: the absolute prohibition on eating bloodSome themes naturally pair together:• C and E both deal with how not to worship God• D always asserts where God must be worshipedRather than reading the chapter as a long, linear argument, it helps to notice this pattern:Every small unit of laws is anchored either in the Land (A) or the Temple (D) — and often both.In other words:• Laws about idolatry only matter once you are in the land• Laws about private altars only matter because there is now a central sanctuary• Laws about meat consumption exist to distinguish everyday life from sacred worship• Laws about blood preserve holiness both inside and outside the TempleThe repetition is intentional. Moshe keeps returning to the same anchors to reinforce the message.Deuteronomy 12 is not a random collection of ritual rules. It is a re ordering of religious life for a settled people.In the wilderness:• Worship was portable• Sacred and ordinary life overlapped• Private altars made senseIn the land:• Worship must be centralized• Sacred space must be protected• Everyday life must be clearly separated from ritual sacrificeThat is why the chapter constantly oscillates between:• Land language (“when you cross the Jordan,” “so that you may remain”)• and Temple language (“the place God will choose,” “there you shall bring”)

Moshe concludes the chapter by framing Israel’s future as a stark choice. God presents the people with two possible paths:“See, I place before you today the blessing and the curse.” (Deuteronomy 11:26)רְאֵה אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּרָכָה וּקְלָלָהGod then clarifies what each path represents:“The blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you this day; and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside from the path that I command you this day.” (Deuteronomy 11:27–28)אֶת־הַבְּרָכָה אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶל־מִצְוֹת ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם׃וְהַקְּלָלָה אִם־לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ אֶל־מִצְוֹת ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְסַרְתֶּם מִן־הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹםGod presents the people with a series of blessings and a series of curses. The blessings come from follow God and his ways and the curse comes from refusing to follow God. This verse always reminds me of the famous Robert Frost Poem The Road Not Taken. “Two roads diverged in a yellow wood/ And sorry I could not travel both/ And be/ one traveler, long I stood/ And looked down one as far as I could/To where it bent in the undergrowth/ Then took the other, as just as fair/And having perhaps the better claim/Because it was grassy and wanted wear/Though as for that the passing there/Had worn them really about the same…” In Robert Frost’s poem, the poet describes facing a fork in the road. Unable to see past a short length of either side, the poet is forced to make a decision- which to take. He thinks that he could try one and then come back and try the other, yet knows that there is a chance he will not return from the first. The poem ends with the conclusion “I took the one less traveled by/And that has made all the difference.” The reader does not know which of the paths was the least traveled, or why that made all the difference. Was it a good difference? A bad one? The poet’s point is that a choice has to be made in life without knowing what the end of that decision will be. In the poem the paths are there in the woods already. The poet simply has to choose. In chapter 11, God also sets the paths before the people, a good path and a bad path. The key though is that God offers the choice. Just like in the poem, the people have the option to decide which path to take. They can choose to take the cursed path or the blessed one, but the choice is theirs. Unlike in the poem, though, God provides a bit more of a roadmap as to what the end of each path would look like. Whatever the people decide, God promises, that will make all the difference.

The first half of the chapter has an odd chronology. The chapter opens with Moshe carving the new tablets and coming down from the mountain:“At that time the LORD said to me: Carve two tablets of stone like the first, and come up to Me on the mountain… I carved two tablets of stone like the first, and I went up the mountain with the two tablets in my hand.” (Deuteronomy 10:1–3)בָּעֵת הַהִוא אָמַר ה׳ אֵלַי פְּסָל־לְךָ שְׁנֵי לֻחֹת אֲבָנִים כָּרִאשֹׁנִים וַעֲלֵה אֵלַי הָהָרָה…וָאֶפְסֹל שְׁנֵי־לֻחֹת אֲבָנִים כָּרִאשֹׁנִים וָאַעַל הָהָרָה וּשְׁנֵי הַלֻּחֹת בְּיָדִיMoshe then states that God rewrote the tablets and that he placed them in the Ark:“He wrote on the tablets, according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments… and I turned and came down from the mountain and placed the tablets in the Ark which I had made.” (Deuteronomy 10:4–5)וַיִּכְתֹּב עַל־הַלֻּחֹת כַּמִּכְתָּב הָרִאשׁוֹן אֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים…וָאֵפֶן וָאֵרֵד מִן־הָהָר וָאָשִׂים אֶת־הַלֻּחֹת בָּאָרוֹן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִיThen, somewhat abruptly, Moshe inserts a travel notice and recounts Aaron’s death:“From Beeroth-bene jaakan the Israelites marched to Moserah. Aaron died there and was buried there, and his son Eleazar became priest in his stead.” (Deuteronomy 10:6)Immediately following Aaron’s death, Moshe mentions the elevation of the tribe of Levi:“At that time the LORD set apart the tribe of Levi to carry the Ark of the Covenant of the LORD… therefore Levi has no portion or inheritance with his brothers; the LORD is his inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 10:8–9)בָּעֵת הַהִוא הִבְדִּיל ה׳ אֶת־שֵׁבֶט הַלֵּוִי לָשֵׂאת אֶת־אֲרוֹן בְּרִית ה׳…Only afterward does Moshe return to the subject of his time on the mountain:“I stayed on the mountain, as on the first occasion, forty days and forty nights; and the LORD heeded me once again.” (Deuteronomy 10:10)וְאָנֹכִי עָמַדְתִּי בָּהָר כַּיָּמִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה וַיִּשְׁמַע ה׳ אֵלַי גַּם בַּפַּעַם הַהִואThis chronology is puzzling. The second tablets were crafted very soon after Moshe broke the first tablets. It was only after the giving of the Torah entirely that God commands the building of the Mishkan, and has Moshe appoint the tribe of Levi as caretakers. Aaron, however, does not die until year forty, 38 years after the events at Har Sinai. This leads us to two questions about chapter 10: Why is Aaron’s death recounted here? And when exactly was this “second” forty day period on the mountain?Ibn Ezra explains that Moshe deliberately connects Aaron’s death to the sin of the Golden Calf. According to this view, Moshe was able to defer Aaron’s punishment for thirty eight years, but not eliminate it entirely. The Malbim adds that Moshe’s message is that while he successfully interceded on behalf of the people, he was unable to save Aaron. Aaron’s exclusion from the land, like Moshe’s own, ultimately traces back to the sin of the Golden Calf.As for the forty days and nights, Rashi explains that this verse simply supplies information missing from verse 2—namely, the duration of Moshe’s stay on the mountain. While Rashi’s explanation addresses the textual gap, it does not explain why this single stay is interrupted by references to Aaron’s death and the appointment of the Levites.Perhaps, taking Ibn Ezra and the Malbim together, one can conclude that this entire first section of the chapter forms a single thematic unit. Moshe’s ascent to receive the second tablets also included sustained prayer on behalf of both the people and his brother. The eventual death of Aaron thirty eight years later, the replacement of the firstborn by the tribe of Levi, and the preservation of the nation itself all flow from that same forty day and forty night period of intercession. Moshe’s prayer secured forgiveness for the people, the second tablets, the elevation of the Levites—and only a partial, delayed mitigation of the decree against Aaron.

Imagine the excitement as the people are about to enter the land, finally, after forty years of wandering. Moshe seems to throw some cold water on this excitement. He warns the people not to misunderstand why they are about to succeed:“When the LORD your God thrusts them from before you, do not say to yourself, ‘The LORD has enabled me to possess this land because of my virtue’; it is rather because of the wickedness of those nations that the LORD is dispossessing them before you.” (Deuteronomy 9:4)אַל־תֹּאמַר בִּלְבָבְךָ בַּהֲדֹף ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֹתָם מִלְּפָנֶיךָ לֵאמֹרבְּצִדְקָתִי הֱבִיאַנִי ה׳ לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת־הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאתוּבְרִשְׁעַת הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה ה׳ מוֹרִישָׁם מִפָּנֶיךָMoshe continues and clarifies that if virtue plays any role at all, it is only because of the forefathers:“It is not because of your virtue or your uprightness that you are coming to possess their land; rather, it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD your God is dispossessing them before you, and in order to fulfill the promise that the LORD made to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” (Deuteronomy 9:5)לֹא בְצִדְקָתְךָ וּבְיֹשֶׁר לְבָבְךָ אַתָּה בָא לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת־אַרְצָםכִּי בְּרִשְׁעַת הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ מוֹרִישָׁם מִפָּנֶיךָוּלְמַעַן הָקִים אֶת־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה׳ לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹבThe Ramban explains that Moshe is not trying to shame the people. Rather, this is a positive and stabilizing message. The seven nations were expelled because of their wickedness and had no merit to fall back on. Israel, by contrast, will always possess the merit of its forefathers as a spiritual safety net for remaining in the land.At the same time, Moshe’s words function as a warning. At this moment, the people themselves are not worthy of entering the land on their own merits. They are entering only because of God’s promise to the forefathers. But Moshe reminds them that the current inhabitants were removed for their behavior—and if Israel fails to improve, they too could be expelled.The Or HaChaim explains that Moshe is conveying two layered messages. First, the present situation depends on two conditions: the wickedness of the seven nations and the merit of the forefathers. If either factor were absent, Israel would not be able to enter the land. Second, Moshe offers a hopeful message. Although the people may not yet be worthy, their ancestral legacy demonstrates that they possess the capacity to rise to that level. Their history proves that they can become deserving of remaining in the land if they choose to live up to that legacy.

Food is the theme of chapter 8. Moshe tells the people that God intentionally challenged them in the desert by withholding food and water, in order to test them. God then brought the miracle of the mann to provide sustenance:“He subjected you to hardship and hunger, and then gave you manna to eat… in order to teach you that one does not live by bread alone, but by whatever the LORD decrees.” (Deuteronomy 8:3)וַיְעַנְּךָ וַיַּרְעִבֶךָ וַיַּאֲכִלְךָ אֶת־הַמָּן אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדַעְתָּ וְלֹא יָדְעוּן אֲבֹתֶיךָלְמַעַן הוֹדִיעֲךָ כִּי לֹא עַל־הַלֶּחֶם לְבַדּוֹ יִחְיֶה הָאָדָם כִּי עַל־כָּל־מוֹצָא פִי־ה׳ יִחְיֶה הָאָדָםBut after describing the trials of the wilderness, Moshe reassures the people about what awaits them:“For the LORD your God is bringing you into a good land, a land with streams and springs and fountains issuing from plain and hill; a land of wheat and barley, of vines, figs, and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey; a land where you may eat bread without scarcity, where you will lack nothing.” (Deuteronomy 8:7–9)כִּי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ מְבִיאֲךָ אֶל־אֶרֶץ טוֹבָהאֶרֶץ נַחֲלֵי מָיִם עֲיָנֹת וּתְהֹמוֹת יֹצְאִים בַּבִּקְעָה וּבָהָר׃אֶרֶץ חִטָּה וּשְׂעֹרָה וְגֶפֶן וּתְאֵנָה וְרִמּוֹןאֶרֶץ זֵית שֶׁמֶן וּדְבָשׁ׃אֶרֶץ אֲשֶׁר לֹא בְמִסְכֵּנוּת תֹּאכַל־בָּהּ לֶחֶם לֹא תֶחְסַר כֹּל בָּהּIn the desert, the people were fully reliant on God; without divine intervention they had no food. This was one of the reasons they kept complaining to Moshe and Hashem about their food sources. In Canaan, however, God promises them a climate capable of producing a wide variety of staples. There, God will provide the conditions, but it will be up to the people to do their part by planting and tilling and harvesting. Which situation is better? In the wilderness absolved the people of responsibility—God provided everything. In Canaan, the people will have to work the land, but God may not be as visible and apparent. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch explains that the desert functioned as a training ground. It was a place where God provided both the test and the solution. In the land, however, the people must apply what they learned to everyday life. God tells them that while He may no longer provide overt answers, He will place them in a land structured for success.Moshe concludes by warning the people not to forget this balance:“Take care lest you forget the LORD your God… and say in your heart, ‘My own power and the might of my own hand have won this wealth for me.’” (Deuteronomy 8:11, 17)הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן־תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת־ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ…וְאָמַרְתָּ בִּלְבָבֶךָ כֹּחִי וְעֹצֶם יָדִי עָשָׂה לִי אֶת־הַחַיִל הַזֶּהIn this chapter, God teaches the people that while He may no longer supply food directly, He will place them in an environment designed for blessing—and it will be their responsibility to recognize God’s role within their own effort.

During Moshe’s description of the Exodus and the miracles of the wilderness, he reminds the people that God will continue to assist them in conquering the land in unexpected ways:“Moreover, the LORD your God will send the tziʿirah among them, until those who remain and those in hiding perish before you.” (Deuteronomy 7:20)וְגַם אֶת־הַצִּרְעָה יְשַׁלַּח ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ בָּם עַד־אֲבֹד הַנִּשְׁאָרִים וְהַנִּסְתָּרִים מִפָּנֶיךָWhat is the tziʿirah? There are many approaches among the commentators.Ramban, believes it was more of a feeling of terror that would envelop the enemies of Israel not necessarily a physical thing or being. Chizkuni and Ibn Ezra explain that tziʿirah refers to a disease similar to tzara’at. This interpretation is likely motivated by the linguistic similarity between the terms, as well as by their assumption that the Torah would not introduce a completely new phenomenon that does not appear elsewhere. It therefore makes sense to understand tziʿirah as something already familiar from earlier biblical descriptions.Rashi, however, cites a striking explanation from the Talmud:“The tziʿirah was a kind of flying creature that would shoot venom at them, blinding their eyes and castrating them.” (Sotah 36a)According to this view, the tziʿirah were large venom spitting insects. They were not permitted to enter the land of Israel itself; rather, after Israel defeated the kingdom of Og, these creatures spat their venom across the Jordan River at the Canaanite nations, weakening them before Israel’s arrival.Rabbeinu Bachya offers a more restrained interpretation. He explains that the tziʿirah were not fantastical or uniquely miraculous beings, but simple swarms of hornets. This is also the translation given to the word in the Septuagint. Moshe mentions them here specifically to contrast them with the verse immediately prior, which describes the plagues of Egypt:“The great trials that your eyes saw, the signs and wonders, the mighty hand and the outstretched arm with which the LORD your God brought you out.” (Deuteronomy 7:19)הַמַּסֹּת הַגְּדֹלֹת אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ וְהָאֹתֹת וְהַמֹּפְתִים וְהַיָּד הַחֲזָקָה וְהַזְּרֹעַ הַנְּטוּיָה אֲשֶׁר הוֹצִאֲךָ ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָVerse 19 describes the dramatic, nature overturning miracles of Egypt—open displays of God’s mastery over creation. Verse 20, by contrast, describes a far subtler form of divine intervention. God does not suspend nature; instead, He directs an ordinary natural phenomenon toward a purposeful end. These hornet swarms represent hidden miracles rather than overt ones.This approach may be further supported by the Torah’s language. God says that He “will send (yeshallach) the tziʿirah”, employing the same verb used to describe one of the Egyptian plagues:“The LORD did so, and heavy swarms (arov) entered the house of Pharaoh and the houses of his courtiers.” (Exodus 8:17)וַיַּעַשׂ ה׳ כֵּן וַיָּבֹא עָרֹב כָּבֵד בֵּיתָה פַרְעֹה וּבֵית עֲבָדָיו וּבְכָל־אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִםThe plague of arov is commonly translated as wild animals, but Rashi is among the commentators who understand it as swarms of insects. If the Torah deliberately uses the same verb here as it did in Egypt, it strengthens the argument that tziʿirah, too, refers to insect swarms. In this way, Moshe teaches that just as God once sent overwhelming miracles to redeem Israel, He will now guide even mundane forces of nature to secure their future in the land.

Chapter six contains many important sections that correspond to essential elements of prayer: the Shema, the first paragraph of the Shema, and tefillin.ShemaMoshe begins with the defining declaration of Jewish faith:“Hear, O Israel: the LORD is our God, the LORD is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ ה׳ אֶחָדThe opening line of the Shema serves as a counterbalance to the first of the Ten Commandments:“I am the LORD your God.”Whereas the Ten Commandments begin with God introducing Himself to the people, the Shema is Moshe’s directive to the people. It is also explicitly communal. Rather than God proclaiming His identity, the Shema represents a collective declaration and shared consensus that God is unitary and that God is our God.The First Paragraph of the ShemaImmediately following this declaration comes the commandment to love God:“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.” (Deuteronomy 6:5)The commandment to love God stands in contrast to the commandment to fear God. The Me’am Lo’ez explains that one who serves God through love follows the commandments with joy, commitment, and inner desire. By contrast, a relationship built only on fear risks becoming burdensome, potentially pushing a person away rather than drawing them closer.The Ramban further explains the components of this verse:• “With all your heart” — love God with all emotional desire.• “With all your soul” — be willing, if necessary, to give one’s life for God.• “With all your might” — serve God even with one’s possessions and material resources when required.TefillinMoshe then commands that these words be physically embodied:“Bind them as a sign upon your hand, and let them be totafot between your eyes.” (Deuteronomy 6:8)The consensus of rabbinic tradition understands this verse as referring to the mitzvah of tefillin.• “Bind them as a sign upon your hand” refers to the tefillin worn on the arm.• “Totafot between your eyes” refers to the tefillin worn on the head.The Torah itself does not provide a physical description of tefillin, which led to differing interpretations. The term “totafot” is a unique word that does not appear elsewhere in the Torah. Rashi explains that the word reflects the number two in certain ancient languages, teaching that there are two distinct tefillin: one on the arm and one on the head.The Rav explains that tefillin symbolize two complementary dimensions of religious life. The tefillin on the head represent the thoughtful, reflective individual, while the tefillin on the arm represent the person of action. A complete servant of God must strive to integrate both modes—thought and action—into a unified religious identity. This dual symbolism of tefillin also aligns closely with the Rav’s reading of Adam I and Adam II. Adam I, described in the first creation narrative, is creative, assertive, and action oriented — charged with conquering the world and shaping it. Adam II, emerging from the second creation narrative, is relational, reflective, and inward facing — seeking meaning, covenant, and connection with God. The tefillin of the arm correspond to Adam I, the human being who acts in the world and transforms it. The tefillin of the head correspond to Adam II, the human being who thinks, reflects, and stands humbly before God.The Rav teaches that religious life cannot be authentic if it embraces only one of these modes. A Judaism of action without reflection becomes hollow ritual, while a Judaism of contemplation without action becomes detached and inert. The mitzvah of tefillin demands that both dimensions exist simultaneously: disciplined action guided by thoughtful commitment, and profound inner faith expressed through concrete deeds. In this way, the Shema and tefillin together train the Jew to integrate Adam I and Adam II — to build the world responsibly while remaining rooted in love, humility, and covenant with God.

There are a few differences between the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions of the Ten Commandments. The most striking differences appear in the fourth commandment, the commandment of Shabbat.1) “Remember” vs. “Keep”In Exodus, the commandment opens with:“Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.” (Exodus 20:8)זָכוֹר אֶת־יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹIn Deuteronomy, Moshe instead says:“Keep the Sabbath day holy, as the LORD your God commanded you.” (Deuteronomy 5:12)שָׁמוֹר אֶת־יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ“Remembering” (zachor) is usually associated with positive commandments, while “keeping” (shamor) is associated with prohibitions. The Midrash famously explains that God spoke both words simultaneously at Sinai.________________________________________2) Who Must Rest on ShabbatExodus lists those included in Shabbat rest as follows:“You shall not do any work—you, your son or daughter, your male or female slave, or your cattle, or the stranger who is within your settlements.” (Exodus 20:10)לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כָּל־מְלָאכָה אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתֶךָ וּבְהֶמְתֶּךָ וְגֵרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָDeuteronomy expands the list significantly:“You shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your ox or your ass, or any of your cattle, or the stranger in your settlements, so that your male and female slave may rest as you do.” (Deuteronomy 5:14)לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה כָל־מְלָאכָה אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתֶךָ וְשׁוֹרְךָ וַחֲמֹרְךָ וְכָל־בְּהֶמְתֶּךָ וְגֵרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ לְמַעַן יָנוּחַ עַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתֶךָ כָּמוֹךָExodus lists fewer members of the household. Deuteronomy adds more animals and emphasizes the rest of servants explicitly. At Sinai, the Israelites were nomadic, with few possessions beyond the gold they carried out of Egypt. As they prepare to enter the land, Moshe anticipates expanded households, wealth, and responsibility—and so he broadens the commandment accordingly.________________________________________3) Creation vs. Exodus as the Reason for ShabbatIn Exodus, Shabbat is grounded in creation:“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, and then rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it.” (Exodus 20:11)כִּי שֵׁשֶׁת־יָמִים עָשָׂה ה׳ אֶת־הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת־הָאָרֶץ אֶת־הַיָּם וְאֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁר בָּם וַיָּנַח בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי עַל־כֵּן בֵּרַךְ ה׳ אֶת־יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וַיְקַדְּשֵׁהוּIn Deuteronomy, Moshe gives a different reason altogether:“Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God freed you from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath day.” (Deuteronomy 5:15)Chronologically, creation is closer to the original giving of the Ten Commandments, while the Exodus from Egypt was the more immediate experience of the people at Sinai. It might have seemed more intuitive to swap the rationales—but Moshe deliberately does not. Why?The Rav explains that the two reasons for Shabbat together describe a partnership between God and the people. At Sinai, God reveals Shabbat as a reflection of divine creation—God rested, and therefore the day is sanctified. That is the declaration from heaven. But once Shabbat and the festivals are given at Sinai, the power shifts to the people. Their freedom from slavery enables them to act as partners in sanctifying time. That is why Moshe emphasizes the Exodus in Deuteronomy. God freed the people so that they would have the autonomy necessary to enter this partnership. As they prepare to enter the land, with newfound political and economic independence, Moshe reminds them that Shabbat now depends on their willingness to exercise that freedom responsibly in partnership with the Omnipresent.

Moshe also focuses a great deal on idol worship. He warns the people that they must not attempt to represent God through images, since God revealed Himself without any physical form at Horeb:“Since you saw no shape when the LORD your God spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire, take utmost care not to act corruptly and make for yourselves a sculptured image in any likeness whatever.” (Deuteronomy 4:15–16)וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּם מְאֹד לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם כִּי לֹא רְאִיתֶם כָּל־תְּמוּנָה בְּיוֹם דִּבֶּר ה׳ אֲלֵיכֶם בְּחֹרֵב מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ׃פֶּן־תַּשְׁחִתוּן וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לָכֶם פֶּסֶל תְּמוּנַת כָּל־סָמֶלMoshe then enumerates the specific forms the people must not recreate:“The form of a man or a woman; the form of any beast on earth; the form of any winged bird that flies in the sky; the form of anything that creeps on the ground; the form of any fish that is in the waters below the earth.” (Deuteronomy 4:16–18)תְּמוּנַת זָכָר אוֹ נְקֵבָה׃תְּמוּנַת כָּל־בְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר בָּאָרֶץ תְּמוּנַת כָּל־צִפּוֹר כָּנָף אֲשֶׁר תָּעוּף בַּשָּׁמָיִם׃תְּמוּנַת כָּל־רֶמֶשׂ בָּאֲדָמָה תְּמוּנַת כָּל־דָּגָה אֲשֶׁר בַּמַּיִם מִתַּחַת לָאָרֶץFinally, Moshe expands the warning to celestial bodies:“And when you look up to the sky and behold the sun and the moon and the stars, the whole heavenly host, you must not be lured into bowing down to them or serving them.” (Deuteronomy 4:19)וּפֶן־תִּשָּׂא עֵינֶיךָ הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וְרָאִיתָ אֶת־הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְאֶת־הַיָּרֵחַ וְאֶת־הַכּוֹכָבִים כֹּל צְבָא הַשָּׁמָיִם וְנִדַּחְתָּ וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתָ לָהֶם וַעֲבַדְתָּםThis warning operates on multiple levels. On the surface, it is straightforward: since God has no physical form, the people must not attempt to recreate God through images. On another level, the categories Moshe lists mirror the days of Creation in reverse chronological order: human beings and animals (day six), birds and fish (day five), and the heavenly bodies (day four). By invoking these categories, Moshe highlights a deeper warning: God created all of these entities, and therefore none of them can possibly represent God.On an even deeper level, Moshe may be warning that by fashioning idols in these forms, the people are attempting to imitate God’s creative act and present themselves as gods. Whether by misunderstanding God’s incorporeality, by confusing Creator and creation, or by implicitly claiming divine creative power, all three levels constitute an affront to God and explain why idol worship is so deeply detested.

At the end of Chapter 3, Moshe talks about his own punishment. He does not discuss the rock and the water here. Instead, he tells the people that it was because of them that God would not let him enter the land. Moshe recounts how he pleaded with God to cross the Jordan and see the land of Canaan:“I pleaded with the LORD at that time, saying… Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan.” (Deuteronomy 3:23–25)וָאֶתְחַנַּן אֶל־ה׳ בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֵאמֹר׃אֶעְבְּרָה־נָּא וְאֶרְאֶה אֶת־הָאָרֶץ הַטּוֹבָה אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן הָהָר הַטּוֹב הַזֶּה וְהַלְּבָנוֹןHe then adds God’s sharp response:“But the LORD was angry with me because of you, and He did not listen to me. The LORD said to me: ‘Enough! Never speak to Me of this matter again!’” (Deuteronomy 3:26)וַיִּתְעַבֵּר ה׳ בִּי לְמַעַנְכֶם וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֵלָי וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֵלַי רַב־לָךְ אַל־תּוֹסֶף דַּבֵּר אֵלַי עוֹד בַּדָּבָר הַזֶּהMoshe recalling God’s angry response is meant to show the people how fortunate they are to have the opportunity to enter the land that even Moshe himself is denied.There is also an interesting word choice in God’s response. The Hebrew phrase God uses is “רַב־לָךְ” (rav lecha). This is the same language used by Korach against Moshe earlier in the Torah. In Numbers, Korach and his followers confront Moshe and Aaron and say:“They gathered against Moses and Aaron and said to them, ‘You have gone too far!’” (Numbers 16:3)וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ עַל־מֹשֶׁה וְעַל־אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵהֶם רַב־לָכֶם כִּי כָל־הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים וּבְתוֹכָם ה׳Why would God use the same words against Moshe that Korach used against Moshe? Perhaps God is trying to teach Moshe a lesson. By deliberately echoing Korach’s language, God reminds Moshe of Korach’s rebellion. Korach’s rebellion was a direct attack on the authority of Moshe. God’s response to Moshe implies that Moshe’s continued pleas to enter the land amount to a challenge to divine authority. Just as Korach had no right to question Moshe’s authority, Moshe has no right to question God’s authority.

In the second chapter, Moshe continues his review of the nation’s travels. This chapter serves a double purpose. The first is to recount the travels, but the second is to provide background for how the people should act towards the nations that surround the land. The seven nations in the land are supposed to be wiped out. But what about those around the land? Here, God has a different plan.Three of the nations are given special protection—Ammon, Moav, and the sons of Esav. Esav is protected based on the blessing that Yitzchak granted Esav after Yaacov was given the firstborn blessing:“And Isaac answered and said to Esau… By your sword shall you live… but when you gain the upper hand, you shall throw his yoke from off your neck.” (Genesis 27:39–40)וַיַּעַן יִצְחָק אָבִיו וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הִנֵּה מִשְׁמַנֵּי הָאָרֶץ יִהְיֶה מוֹשָׁבֶךָ… וְעַל־חַרְבְּךָ תִחְיֶה וְאֶת־אָחִיךָ תַּעֲבֹד וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר תָּרִיד וּפָרַקְתָּ עֻלּוֹ מֵעַל צַוָּארֶךָAmmon and Moav are the descendants of Lot and his daughters. God protects their land because of Lot’s connection to Avraham:“Do not harass Moab or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land as a possession, for I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession.” (Deuteronomy 2:9)אַל־תָּצַר אֶת־מוֹאָב וְאַל־תִּתְגָּר בָּם מִלְחָמָה כִּי לֹא־אֶתֵּן לְךָ מֵאַרְצוֹ יְרֻשָּׁה כִּי לִבְנֵי־לוֹט נָתַתִּי אֶת־עָר יְרֻשָּׁהSimilarly, regarding Ammon:“When you approach the territory of the Ammonites, do not harass them or provoke them; for I will not give you any of the land of the Ammonites as a possession, because I have given it as a possession to the descendants of Lot.” (Deuteronomy 2:19)וְקָרַבְתָּ מוּל בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן אַל־תְּצֻרֵם וְאַל־תִּתְגָּר בָּם כִּי לֹא־אֶתֵּן מֵאֶרֶץ בְּנֵי־עַמּוֹן לְךָ יְרֻשָּׁה כִּי לִבְנֵי־לוֹט נְתַתִּיהָ יְרֻשָּׁהAll the other nations surrounding the land are fair game. God even pulls the old “harden his heart” trick from Pharaoh in Egypt to provoke a war between the Israelites and Sihon:“But King Sihon of Heshbon refused to let us pass through, for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and stiffened his heart in order to deliver him into your power.” (Deuteronomy 2:30)וְלֹא־אָבָה סִיחוֹן מֶלֶךְ־חֶשְׁבּוֹן הַעֲבִירֵנוּ בּוֹ כִּי־הִקְשָׁה ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת־רוּחוֹ וְאִמֵּץ אֶת־לְבָבוֹ לְמַעַן תִּתּוֹ בְיָדְךָ כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּהTwo interesting things about the familiar descendants. The first is that the promise to not provoke Moav at first seems out of place given what happened with Balaam and Balak, king of Moav. Moav’s Lot connction may explain why God demands revenge against Midian only, and not Moav:“‘Avenge the Israelite people on the Midianites; then you shall be gathered to your kin.’” (Numbers 31:2)Even though Moav was involved in the initial planning:“Moab was alarmed because the people were so numerous… and Moab said to the elders of Midian, ‘Now this horde will lick clean all that is about us…’” (Numbers 22:3–4)The second point is that the Israelites will not always remain peaceful with the descendants of Esav. The proclamation in this chapter by God that He will grant the sons of Esav the land of Seir also has a hidden warning:“Do not provoke them, for I will not give you any of their land, not even enough to set foot on, for I have given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession.” (Deuteronomy 2:5)Recall that Yitzchak’s blessing was that when one rises, the other will fall. At this point Israel is on the rise. They are powerful and have the ability to subdue the sons of Esav—but God says no. Instead, the sons of Esav will live on the borderlands as a constant reminder that if Israel begins to fall, that same blessing will come true and the sons of Esav will take over. Overall, however, the perek reads as a recap looking backward to strengthen the people's resolve to go forward-- you have encountered enemies and beat them in military battles. There are always issues but you will prevail.

The last book of the Torah takes place at the very end of Moshe’s life and is told from Moshe’s perspective. The book begins where Numbers left off. The nation is at the Jordan River poised to enter the land. The entire Exodus generation has died off except for Moshe, Calev, and Yehoshua. Moshe gathers the people and begins his farewell address. There are some new stories and laws, and there are repeated laws and stories as well. Deuteronomy presents these older stories from Moshe’s perspective.The book is similar to the books of Divrei HaYamim at the end of Ketuvim. Those books provide the “House of David” perspective on stories from Kings. (The books of Jeremiah and Isaiah provide a third perspective on some of those stories as well).The first chapter has a few examples of the Moshe perspective. Some of these fill in the blanks on the earlier stories. An example of this is the story of the spies: back in Numbers 13, the story opens with God telling Moshe “Send for you people to spy out the land.”שְׁלַח־לְךָ אֲנָשִׁים וְיָתֻרוּ אֶת־אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן(Numbers 13:2)It was unclear who had asked for the spies. Moshe? God? The people? Chapter one of Deuteronomy answers: “Then all of you came to me and said, ‘Let us send spies ahead to reconnoiter the land for us…’” (verse 22).וַתִּקְרְבוּן אֵלַי כֻּלְּכֶם וַתֹּאמְרוּ נִשְׁלְחָה אֲנָשִׁים לְפָנֵינוּ וְיַחְפְּרוּ־לָנוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ(Deuteronomy 1:22)But the spies story also demonstrates how Deuteronomy contains slightly different details of a story. Back in Numbers, when the spies come back with the twisted report, Moshe and Aaron fall on their faces. It is Calev who stands up and declares: “‘Let us by all means go up, and we shall gain possession of it, for we shall surely overcome it!’” (Numbers 13:30).וַיַּהַס כָּלֵב אֶת־הָעָם אֶל־מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר עָלֹה נַעֲלֶה וְיָרַשְׁנוּ אֹתָהּ כִּי־יָכוֹל נוּכַל לָהּBut here, Moshe says he declared: “have no fear or dread of them / None other than your God, who goes before you, will fight for you…” (verses 29–30).וָאֹמַר אֲלֵכֶם לֹא תַעַרְצוּן וְלֹא תִירְאוּן מֵהֶם׃ה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם הַהֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיכֶם הוּא יִלָּחֵם לָכֶם(Deuteronomy 1:29–30)Moshe then connects this incident with God’s decree that he is not allowed to enter the land (verses 37–39).גַּם־בִּי הִתְאַנַּף ה׳ בִּגְלַלְכֶם… גַּם־אַתָּה לֹא־תָבֹא שָׁם׃יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן… הוּא יָבוֹא שָׁמָּה(Deuteronomy 1:37–38)There is no mention of the incident at the rock. So which story is accurate? One could look at this as Moshe trying to spin the story so he looks good. The problem with this simplistic approach is that the two people who were very involved in this story—Yehoshua and Calev—are the only ones still alive. They could easily have countered Moshe’s retelling.The answer is more likely one that concerns the entire book. Like the books of Divrei HaYamim, there is an agenda here. Those books are told with the agenda of promoting the House of David. Moshe has an agenda here too—preparing the people to enter the land and to experience the first leadership handoff in their history. That means that not everything listed is necessarily “historically accurate.” If Moshe wanted to retell every fact from the past three books, he could simply have read them to the people. His message is for this new generation to avoid the pitfalls of the last.

The book of Numbers ends in a seemingly very odd way with the continuation of the very personal story of the Tzelofchad sisters. The rest of the tribe comes to Moshe to complain about God’s decree that the daughters of Tzelofchad are granted their father’s inheritance. They are afraid that that may allow their tribal lands to be diluted.“The clan heads of the descendants of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh… came forward and spoke before Moses… saying… if they marry outside the tribe… their inheritance will be taken from the ancestral holding of our fathers” (Numbers 36:1–4).וַיִּקְרְבוּ רָאשֵׁי הָאָבוֹת לְמִשְׁפְּחֹת בְּנֵי־גִלְעָד בֶּן־מָכִיר בֶּן־מְנַשֶּׁה… וַיֹּאמְרוּ … וְנִגְרְעָה נַחֲלָתָם מִנַּחֲלַת אֲבֹתֵינוּThe story does bring up a main theme of the book, namely, the delineation of the borders in the new land. That is the essence of the argument. But, the ultimate argument is very technical. Why would a book that covers 38 years of history with a devastating decree, personal tragedies for Moshe, and mass death matched with grandiose planning for the entry in the land end like this? Perhaps, after the major issues that plagued the people at the start of the book of Numbers, this is a welcome relief. These are the types of disputes that Moshe and God want: technical legalistic arguments over the land. There is no plague or grand curse. This is a purely “in the eyes of heaven” argument. In this way, the book ends on a perfect note. As the people enter the land, these are the types of disputes that God wants.The context of the story itself seems regressive. The original story was a triumph for these women, only to have this group of men work to use their victory as an excuse to lock them down. Even the Rabbis were troubled. The Talmud in Ta’anit 30b explains that the holiday of the 15th of Av was the day that the restriction was reversed leading to a great day of celebration. The decree of chapter 36 was only for the initial period of settlement in the land.One last thing; the book of Numbers ends with an almost identical verse as Leviticus.“These are the commandments and regulations that God enjoined upon the Israelites, through Moses, on the steppes of Moab, at the Jordan near Jericho.” (Numbers 36:13)אֵלֶּה הַמִּצְוֹת וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁה אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעַרְבֹת מוֹאָב עַל־יַרְדֵּן יְרֵחוֹ“These are the commandments that God gave Moses for the Israelite people on Mount Sinai.” (Leviticus 27:34)אֵלֶּה הַמִּצְוֹת אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה׳ אֶת־מֹשֶׁה אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהַר סִינָיThe only difference between the two is the location. Leviticus was at the foot of Mt. Sinai, and Numbers is at the entrance to the land. New location, same Moshe. No matter where Moshe is, he will be there to pass on God’s laws.Compare this to the end of Exodus:“For over the Tabernacle a cloud of God rested by day, and fire would appear in it by night, in the view of all the house of Israel throughout their journeys.” (Exodus 40:38)כִּי עֲנַן ה׳ עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן יוֹמָם וְאֵשׁ תִּהְיֶה לַיְלָה בּוֹ לְעֵינֵי כָּל־בֵּית־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל־מַסְעֵיהֶםDuring the journey in the wilderness, God protected the people with the cloud and the fire. Along the way, Moshe dispensed another code of protection—the law of God. The laws will be the cloud and fire as the people enter the land. It will guide them and protect them along the way.

The arai miklat were special cities for the Leviim who did not have a tribal portion in Canaan. These cities doubled as a place of refuge for individuals who committed unintentional murder. The Torah first hinted at these cities in Exodus. “One who fatally strikes another party shall be put to death / If a man did so but not by design—it came about by an act of God—I will assign you a place to which he can flee” (Exodus 21:12 13).מַכֵּה אִישׁ וָמֵת מוֹת יוּמָת׃וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא צָדָה וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ וְשַׂמְתִּי לְךָ מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יָנוּס שָׁמָּה׃The three cities that Moshe established in the future tribal lands of Reuven, Gad, and half of Manasseh would not “function” until the people set up the three in the land itself. Nonetheless, although Moshe is not able to enter the land, God granted him the opportunity to establish something that only exists in the land itself. In this way, when the people set up the three cities inside the land, Moshe would get the credit for establishing a part of the holy land. The Arizal brings another reason why Moshe was asked to set them up. Moshe himself was the perpetrator of an accidental murder. Back at the beginning of Exodus, Moshe witnessed an Egyptian taskmaster striking an Israelite slave. He struck the taskmaster and killed him and then hid him in the sand. The next day when two slaves threatened to out Moshe as the killer, Moshe fled. Although the text reads that Moshe intentionally killed the taskmaster, the Arizal connects the arai miklat to the incident to show that Moshe killed unintentionally.Honor killings have existed for centuries in all cultures and are still practiced in many parts of the world today. Most of these honor killings concern family slights for sexual indiscretions, not unintentional murder. The arai miklat were most likely a way to balance the local tradition of honor killings with a Torah desire for law and order. Therefore, the Torah is very careful to distinguish between a straight murder and an unintentional one, even going as far as listing the type of weapons and force that would fall into each category. The arai miklat have a very narrow purpose under certain circumstances. By allowing for protection against an honor killing, the Torah is also implicitly recognizing the existence of honor based vengeance while sharply limiting it. Anything that falls outside of this narrow framework must be adjudicated by a court of law. American criminal law distinguishes between multiple degrees of homicide—such as first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter—based primarily on intent, premeditation, and recklessness. This graduated system mirrors the Torah’s distinction between intentional murder and accidental killing, where only the latter qualifies for protection within an ir miklat. In both legal frameworks, the goal is to calibrate punishment and protection to moral culpability, ensuring that justice responds not only to the outcome of death but to the actor’s intent and responsibility.The organization, known as Arei Miklat, was established in California by members of the Jewish community—including mental health professionals—who recognized a lack of emotional and spiritual support for individuals involved in accidental deaths. It was founded in the early twenty first century with the explicit goal of offering trauma informed counseling and guided recovery, drawing inspiration from the Torah’s model of refuge as a space for responsibility, reflection, and healing rather than punishment.

Chapter 34 is split into two parts. The first is the delineation of the borders of the land of Israel and the second is the list of the new princes. This chapter follows a simple A/B/B/A structure with the beginning of the book. Numbers began 38 years ago at Mt. Sinai. Following the giving of the Ten Commandments, God tells Moshe to appoint 12 princes to lead the people. These 12 princes are listed in chapter 1 of Numbers. Chapter 2 of Numbers described the set up of the camp in the desert. Each of the four sides of the Mishkan had three tribes. In the middle was the Mishkan surrounded by the Leviim and kohanim. Chapter 34 discusses the same two ideas but in reverse order. The beginning of chapter 34 discusses the borders of the land of Israel. This matches the encampment structure in chapter 2. The second part of chapter 34 discusses the new princes appointed from the “second generation”. This part parallels chapter 1’s listing of the princes. If this AB/ BA structure exists then what is the centra “C” elements. There are many possibilities in the book of Bamidbar- the spies, the transition of leadership to Joshua, the rebellions, etc. Perhaps the Torah uses this same structure to explain that this was a reset of the same time after the giving of the Torah when the sin of the spies was a horrible nightmare in the future and the people were on their way to enter the land. Now, 38 years later, a new generation eagerly awaits their turn to enter the land.

As Numbers comes to a close, the Torah goes back and lists all the journeys that the Israelites made from the time they left Egypt.“These are the marches of the Israelites who started out from the land of Egypt, troop by troop, under the leadership of Moses and Aaron.”אֵלֶּה מַסְעֵי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָצְאוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לְצִבְאֹתָם בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן׃(Numbers 33:1)“Moses recorded their departures, stage by stage, as directed by ה׳.”וַיִּכְתֹּב מֹשֶׁה אֶת־מוֹצָאֵיהֶם לְמַסְעֵיהֶם עַל־פִּי ה׳(Numbers 33:2)Why list this now? The simple answer is that the people are finally ready to enter the land after 40 years of wandering. This is a good time to review where they have been. One can look at it like the bar mitzvah montage.Rashi provides two answers. The first is that the Torah is trying to show that the forty years were not really forty years of wandering. Doing a little back of the napkin math, Rashi shows that during the 38 year period in between the giving of the Torah and Aaron’s death, the Israelites only traveled to 20 places. This means that they spent at least a year in most places. The second answer is akin to the parable of a person who travels a long way to find a cure for their child. Once they reach the final destination, the person recounts every part of the journey to recall the difficulty. So too here, the people are prepared to enter the land and they are reminded of the difficult journey that led them to this place.Ramban argues that the very obscurity of the locations grounds the Exodus in real history rather than myth which is why there are places listed here that do not appear elsewhere in the torah. Rambam explains that Moshe wanted the people to understand that it was a miracle that God sustained them during the forty years. Yes, it was a hard slog and the people were punished, but overall it was a great miracle that the nation survived these years of wandering. Sforno does not focus on the miraculous part. He explains that this is not about the people needing to thank God, but for God to thank the people. Despite all of the trials and tribulations of the 40 years the people continued to have faith in and follow God. The Malbim offers a mystical interpretation. When the nation was in Egypt, they were at a low state of impurity. In order for the nation to reach the spiritual level they needed to enter the land, they had to wander for forty years. This list, therefore, is a gradual list of increasing spiritual growth. At each stage, the people grew closer and closer to God.There is also a sad bookend to the list of places for Moshe as well. The list begins with the Egyptians burying their dead first borns:“The Egyptians were burying those whom ה׳ had struck down among them, all their first born.”וּמִצְרַיִם מְקַבְּרִים אֵת אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה ה׳ בָּהֶם כָּל־בְּכוֹר(Numbers 33:4)and ends with the death of Aaron:“Aaron the priest ascended Mount Hor at the command of ה׳ and died there, in the fortieth year after the Israelites had left the land of Egypt.”וַיַּעַל אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֶל־הֹר הָהָר עַל־פִּי ה׳ וַיָּמָת שָׁם בִּשְׁנַת הָאַרְבָּעִים לְצֵאת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם(Numbers 33:38)For Moshe these travels began with the firstborn Egyptians—his adopted family—burying their first borns, and ended with his older brother—also a firstborn—being buried.

Earlier, God decreed that each tribe would receive a proportional part of the Land. As the nation makes its way around the Jordan river to enter the land, they have been conquering the local peripheral populations. The tribes of Reuven and Gad see this borderlands and decide that they do not want to enter the land. They approach Moshe and ask if they can live in the trans Jordan area because of their large flocks and the fertile land. This conversation is reminiscent of Lot’s conversations with Avraham in Genesis.Compare: “The Reubenites and the Gadites owned cattle in very great numbers. Noting that the lands of Jazer and Gilead were a region suitable for cattle” (verse 1)וּמִקְנֶה רַב הָיָה לִבְנֵי־רְאוּבֵן וְלִבְנֵי־גָד עָצוּם מְאֹד וַיִּרְאוּ אֶת־אֶרֶץ יַעְזֵר וְאֶת־אֶרֶץ גִּלְעָד וְהִנֵּה הַמָּקוֹם מְקוֹם מִקְנֶה(Numbers 32:1)and “Lot, who went with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents / so that the land could not support them staying together; for their possessions were so great that they could not remain together / Lot looked about him and saw how well watered was the whole plain of the Jordan, all of it…” (Genesis 13:8–10).וְגַם־לְלוֹט הַהֹלֵךְ אֶת־אַבְרָם הָיָה צֹאן וּבָקָר וְאֹהָלִים׃וְלֹא־נָשָׂא אֹתָם הָאָרֶץ לָשֶׁבֶת יַחְדָּו כִּי־הָיָה רְכוּשָׁם רָב וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לָשֶׁבֶת יַחְדָּו׃וַיִּשָּׂא־לוֹט אֶת־עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת־כָּל־כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן כִּי כֻלָּהּ מַשְׁקֶה(Genesis 13:6–10)Moshe is not happy with the request. Possibly there was a sense of frustration considering Moshe would not be able to enter the land and now these tribes are asking to stay outside the land. Moshe makes the tribes promise that they will enter the land and help the rest of the tribes conquer the land before then returning to their new lands across the Jordan river. “The Gadites and the Reubenites answered Moses, ‘Your servants will do as my lord commands.’” (verse 25)וַיֹּאמֶר בְּנֵי־גָד וּבְנֵי־רְאוּבֵן אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵאמֹר עֲבָדֶיךָ יַעֲשׂוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר אֲדֹנִי מְצַוֶּה(Numbers 32:25)The two tribes promise two more times. Satisfied with their promises “Moshe assigned to them—to the Gadites, the Reubenites, and the half tribe of Manasseh son of Joseph—the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites and the kingdom of King Og of Bashan, the land with its various cities and the territories of their surrounding towns” (verse 33).וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם מֹשֶׁה לִבְנֵי־גָד וְלִבְנֵי־רְאוּבֵן וְלַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט מְנַשֶּׁה בֶן־יוֹסֵף אֶת־מַמְלֶכֶת סִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִי וְאֶת־מַמְלֶכֶת עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן הָאָרֶץ לְעָרֶיהָ בִּגְבֻלֹת עָרֵי הָאָרֶץ סָבִיב(Numbers 32:33)Thirty three verses into the chapter half the tribe of Manasseh appears out of nowhere. Only Gad and Reuven asked to relocate. Why does Moshe split Manasseh? One answer is that Moshe was concerned that having Gad and Reuven on the other side of the Jordan would separate them from their brethren. He therefore had the tribe of Manasseh split over the Jordan river in order to link the two tribes to those in the land. But why Manasseh?The simple answer could be that Manasseh was the largest tribe. The problem is that Manasseh was not the largest tribe. Manasseh only had around 53,000. Issachar, Zebulun, and Judah were all larger. Judah had the most with 76,000. Why didn’t Moshe split Judah?Perhaps this was a political move. Judah by itself was the most numerous, but Manasseh and Ephraim together were over 85,000. This would put the sons of Joseph as the largest bloc over Judah, the eventual ruling tribe. To mitigate this, Moshe splits Manasseh. This allows Judah to remain the largest tribe in Israel while also connecting Reuven and Gad to the tribes inside the land.

Chapter 31 returns to the previous story of the Midyanite woman and Baal Peor. God has not forgotten the evil plot to seduce the population and cause them to sin. Were it not for the heroics of Pinchas, the plot would have succeeded. This is why God tells Pinchas to lead the army into battle against the Midyanites.“Moses sent them to the campaign—one thousand from each tribe—together with Phinehas son of Eleazar the priest, with the sacred vessels and the trumpets for sounding the blasts.”וַיִּשְׁלַח אֹתָם מֹשֶׁה אֶל־הַצָּבָא אֶלֶף לַמַּטֶּה אֹתָם וְאֶת־פִּינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן לַצָּבָא וּכְלֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ וַחֲצֹצְרוֹת הַתְּרוּעָה בְּיָדוֹ(Numbers 31:6)In this chapter we find out that the people killed Balaam in their attack on Midyan.“They put Balaam son of Beor to the sword.”וְאֵת בִּלְעָם בֶּן־בְּעוֹר הָרְגוּ בֶּחָרֶב(Numbers 31:8)Later, when Moshe chastises the people for keeping the women alive he admonishes the people: “Yet they are the very ones who, at the bidding of Balaam, induced the Israelites to trespass against God” (verse 31:16).הֵן הֵנָּה הָיוּ לִבְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּדְבַר בִּלְעָם לִמְסֹר מַעַל בַּה׳ עַל־דְּבַר פְּעוֹר(Numbers 31:16)On a side note, this is the source for reading into the Balaam story that Balaam was really an evil person. In fact, Balaam is probably more complex. The Balaam story showed that he was loyal to the word of God, but here the text reveals that he also was able to scheme another way to harm the Israelites. More importantly this verse begs a larger question—when did the people find out about the Balaam story? Moshe does not instruct them to kill Balaam at the beginning. So they may have only found out about it in verse 16.The story of Balaam is the only time from the beginning of the Abraham narrative where the story has no major Israelite character involved. (Two other possible stories—the story of Eliezer is directed by Avraham, and Rivkah is there; and the story of the cupbearer and Pharaoh’s dreams involves Yosef). This chapter reminds me of the articles that one often reads about the IDF thwarting a terrorist attack. Everyone is going about their lives as if nothing is happening. Everything seems fine. However, behind the scenes, the IDF is working tirelessly to keep everyone safe. It also explains why the story of Balaam appears now. It is yet another example of the effort of God to prepare the people for entry into the land and become self reliant. No one was involved in the Balaam story except for God. God’s message with the Balaam story is that the people should not rest on their laurels. Everything may seem to be calm, but God is always in the background trying to thwart efforts to harm the Israelites.

Chapter 30 can be a difficult read from a more modern standpoint. The chapter offers various scenarios in which a father has the ability to nullify the vows of his wife and daughter. The Torah takes vows very seriously. The prohibition against taking God’s name in vain is one of the Ten Commandments. Vows for sacrifices, property, and even oneself were discussed in Leviticus. Earlier in Numbers, the Torah discussed the laws of the Nazir vow. Like all of these previous chapters, this one is filled with interesting halachot.For example: How long does a father have to annul a vow? There is a disagreement in the Talmud Nedarim 76b. Verse 6 states: “But if her father restrains her on the day he finds out, none of her vows or self imposed obligations shall stand.”וְאִם־הֵנִיא אָבִיהָ אֹתָהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ כָּל־נְדָרֶיהָ וֶאֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל־נַפְשָׁהּ לֹא יָקוּם(Numbers 30:6)One opinion is that the father has until the end of the day that he hears the vow to annul it. Another opinion is that the father has one day from when he hears the vow to annul it. The second opinion seems to contradict the Mishnah that only referenced the “day of” opinion. The Mishnah also provided two examples to demonstrate the extremes of the “day of” opinion. If the daughter makes a vow on Friday evening right after nightfall, then the vow can be annulled until the next nightfall giving a full 24 hour period. However, if she made the vow just before nightfall, then the father only has a few moments to annul the vow before nightfall comes and with it the next day.The first opinion is from verse 6. However, the second opinion comes from verse 15: “If her husband offers no objection from that day to the next, he has upheld all the vows or obligations she has assumed.”וְאִם־הַחֲרֵשׁ יַחֲרִישׁ לָהּ אִישָׁהּ מִיּוֹם אֶל־יוֹם וְהֵקִים אֶת־כָּל־נְדָרֶיהָ אוֹ אֶת־כָּל־אֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ(Numbers 30:15)The phrase “day to day” implies that the father has a 24 hour period that could last from one day to the next. The halacha is that the father can only nullify the vow the day that he hears it.What kind of vows can a husband nullify? At first the Torah states that if a woman makes a vow her husband can nullify it but if “her husband learns of it, yet offers no objection—thus failing to restrain her—all her vows shall stand and all her self imposed obligations shall stand” (verse 12).וְאִם־הַחֲרֵשׁ יַחֲרִישׁ לָהּ אִישָׁהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ כָּל־נְדָרֶיהָ יָקוּמוּ וְכָל־אֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ יָקוּמוּ כִּי־הֶחֱרִישׁ לָהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ(Numbers 30:12)This seems to imply that he can nullify all of her vows, like a father to daughter. But later the Torah states: “Every vow and every sworn obligation of self denial may be upheld by her husband or annulled by her husband” (verse 14).כָּל־נֵדֶר וְכָל־שְׁבוּעַת אִסָּר לְעַנֹּת נָפֶשׁ אִישָׁהּ יְקִימֶנּוּ וְאִישָׁהּ יְפֵרֶנּוּ(Numbers 30:14)The Talmud in Nedarim 79b points out that the second verse limits the first verse. The halacha is that the husband can only nullify vows that a wife makes that involve self denial and that will cause friction in their interpersonal relationship.

“On the eighth day you shall hold an atzeret; you shall not work at your occupations” (verse 35).בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי עֲצֶרֶת תִּהְיֶה לָכֶם כָּל־מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ׃(Numbers 29:35)The Gemara Sukkah 47a–48a gives a mnemonic to capture Shemini Atzeret’s dual status: פזר קש״ב Each letter represents a criterion in which Shemini Atzeret is separate from Sukkot: פ – פיס (Lottery): The priestly lottery for sacrifices is redone; it does not continue the Sukkot rotation. ז – זמן (Shehecheyanu): A new Shehecheyanu is recited (in Eretz Yisrael).ר – רגל (Festival): It is called a separate regel. ק – קרבן (Sacrifices): Different sacrifice structure (one bull instead of the Sukkot series). ש – שיר (Song): different Levi’im song in the Temple. ב – ברכה (Blessing): Different mention in Birkat HaMazon (“Shemini Chag HaAtzeret” vs. “Chag HaSukkot”).Gemara Sukkah 47a Despite PZKŠB, the Gemara still requires: Sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret (in the Diaspora), But without a beracha.Let’s look at a few argument points and see if they are for it being a separate holiday or against? 1) Number of sacrificesAgainst: The sacrifices of Sukkot start at 13 and go down by one every day until they are at seven. The 8th day is one sacrifice, so it follows the descending number.For: Sukkot stops at 7, and the 8th day jumps to 1, showing it is a separate holiday. Homiletically Sukkot sacrifices number 70 corresponding to the 70 nations of the world. Shmini Atzeret is one sacrifice symbolizing the Israelites. This could signify that the day is separate from Sukkot even if it is thematically related.2) The Name of the Holidayagainst: The holiday seems to be introduced as a different day in verse 35. It is also called something different in Leviticus:“On the eighth day you shall observe an atzeret and bring an offering by fire to God.”בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי מִקְרָא־קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיֶה לָכֶם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם אִשֶּׁה לַה׳ עֲצֶרֶת הִוא כָּל־מְלֶאכֶת עֲבֹדָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ׃(Leviticus 23:36)No other day of Sukkot has a special name, yet here God says this day is an atzeret.for : later in Devarim, the seventh day of Passover is also called atzeret:“After eating unleavened bread six days, you shall hold an Atzeret for your God on the seventh day; you shall do no work.”שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים תֹּאכַל מַצּוֹת וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי עֲצֶרֶת לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מְלָאכָה׃(Deuteronomy 16:8)3) Historical“He read from the scroll of the Teaching of God each day, from the first to the last day. They celebrated the festival seven days, and there was an atzeret the eighth, as prescribed.”וַיִּקְרָא בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת הָאֱלֹהִים יוֹם בְּיוֹם מִן־הַיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן עַד־הַיּוֹם הָאַחֲרוֹן וַיַּעֲשׂוּ־חָג שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי עֲצֶרֶת כַּמִּשְׁפָּט׃(Nehemiah 8:18)For : It says they celebrated the festival for seven days and then the 8th day is called something different.Against: The “last day” is the 8th day.“At that time Solomon kept the Feast for seven days—all Israel with him—a great assemblage from Lebo hamath to the Wadi of Egypt. On the eighth day they held an atzeret; they observed the dedication of the altar seven days, and the Feast seven days.”בָּעֵת הַהִיא עָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת־הֶחָג שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמּוֹ קָהָל גָּדוֹל מִלְּבוֹא חֲמָת עַד־נַחַל מִצְרָיִם׃וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי עָשׂוּ עֲצֶרֶת כִּי חֲנֻכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ עָשׂוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים וְהֶחָג שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃(II Chronicles 7:8–9)For: It says Solomon had the feast seven days, and then the eighth day is called something different.Against: It is still called the 8th day.This ambiguity makes its way into halachic questions. Does one eat in the sukkah on Shmini Atzeret? Many people have the custom to eat in the sukkah without a blessing, but others will specifically not eat in the sukkah on Shmini Atzeret. Is there a different bracha for Shmini Atzeret? There is a separate bracha during kiddush and Shemoneh Esrei.

Sit in most shuls during the Passover holiday and you probably experienced this phenomena. After the initial reading, the second Torah scroll is opened up for maftir reading. The reading is from chapter 28 in Numbers. Everything seems normal until the reader finishes verse 23, and suddenly, everyone in the room yells out the notation of the first word of verse 24: “KAELEH!!” Jewish Whatsapp and Facebook groups are also full of “KAELEH!” memes. What does this word mean and why does it appear here in the discussion of the Passover holiday? Chizkuni compares chapter 28 of Numbers with chapter 23 of Leviticus. In chapter 23 of Leviticus, God detailed the rules of the holidays as they related to the land. In this chapter, God provides the details of the offerings. Therefore, the word kaeleh (like these) is meant to modify the previous listing to explain the offerings like these are given. Chizkuni’s answer does not explain why kaeleh only appears with the rules for Passover. It also only connects to chapter 23 of Leviticus, but not the other times that the holidays are mentioned. Rashi addresses the Passover question by explaining that kaeleh is meant to modify the offerings of Passover with the offerings of Sukkot discussed in chapter 29. The Sukkot offerings gradually decrease in number over the holiday, while the Passover ones stay constant. The issue with Rashi is that Passover is discussed before Sukkot. Why would the Torah need to modify something that it has not yet mentioned? Malbim modifies Rashi slightly and explains that kaelah is meant to emphasize that these are the specific sacrifices given on that day to avoid any confusion. Perhaps kaeleh is meant to distinguish these Passover rules from the previous Passover. The only holiday celebrated so far is Passover and each of them has been slightly different. The Torah, therefore, needs to clarify that these specific Passover sacrifices are the ones that will apply to every Passover going forward.

Chapter 26 discussed the census that would set the boundaries of the land of Canaan. Everything seemed to make sense. The land would be apportioned by the size of the tribes. “The land, moreover, is to be apportioned by lot; and the allotment shall be made according to the listings of their ancestral tribes” (Numbers 26:55).אַךְ בְּגוֹרָל יֵחָלֵק אֶת־הָאָרֶץ לִשְׁמוֹת מַטּוֹת אֲבֹתָם יִנְחָלוּBut five daughters saw a problem. They had no brothers and their father died. Why should they not get their father’s inheritance? So, they petitioned Moshe.“The daughters of Zelophehad… came forward and stood before Moses.”וַתִּקְרַבְנָה בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד… וַתַּעֲמֹדְנָה לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה(Numbers 27:1–2)Moshe asked God, and God agreed—mandating that in a family of only daughters, the daughters would inherit.“The daughters of Zelophehad speak rightly; you shall surely give them a hereditary holding.”כֵּן בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד דֹּבְרֹת נָתֹן תִּתֵּן לָהֶן אֲחֻזַּת נַחֲלָה(Numbers 27:7)When the daughters of Tzelofchad approached Moshe they explained that “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah’s faction, which banded together against God, but he died for his own sin” (verse 3).אָבִינוּ מֵת בַּמִּדְבָּר וְהוּא לֹא־הָיָה בְּתוֹךְ הָעֵדָה הַנּוֹעָדִים עַל־ה׳ בַּעֲדַת־קֹרַח כִּי בְחֶטְאוֹ מֵת וּבָנִים לֹא־הָיוּ לוֹ(Numbers 27:3)Why was it important to say that he was not one of Korach’s followers and that he died from his own sin? According to Rashi, the daughters are distinguishing him from those individuals who rabble roused and enticed others to complain. He only sinned on his own and did not take anyone down with him. He then brings two opinions that Tzelofchad could have been the person who gathered sticks on Shabbat in chapter 15“They found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.”וַיִּמְצְאוּ אִישׁ מְקֹשֵׁשׁ עֵצִים בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת(Numbers 15:32)or one of the people who tried to enter the land without God’s approval in chapter 14.“They defiantly marched toward the hill country.”וַיַּעְפִּלוּ לַעֲלוֹת אֶל־רֹאשׁ הָהָר(Numbers 14:44)Ibn Ezra splits the two. The daughters believed that those who were in Korach’s cohort would be cut out from inheriting so they first distinguished their father from that group. Then, quoting Rabbi Yehudah Ha Levi, he shows that the daughters explained that their father died prematurely of his own sin which was why he did not have sons.Ramban does not like either of these interpretations. He believes that the daughters were concerned that Moshe had a vendetta against the descendants of Korach because they had directly questioned Moshe’s authority. Instead, they emphasized to Moshe that their father died “in his own sin”, meaning because of the sin of everyone in that generation who did not believe that God would take them into the land.Perhaps the answer also lies in the second half of the chapter. Moshe is told to look at the land on the horizon knowing he will not be able to enter.“Ascend this mountain of Abarim and view the land… but you shall not enter it.”עֲלֵה אֶל־הַר הָעֲבָרִים הַזֶּה וּרְאֵה אֶת־הָאָרֶץ… וְלֹא תָבֹא אֶל־הָאָרֶץ(Numbers 27:12)In response, he asks God to appoint someone in his stead.“Let ה׳ appoint someone over the community.”יִפְקֹד ה׳ אֱלֹהֵי הָרוּחֹת לְכָל־בָּשָׂר אִישׁ עַל־הָעֵדָה(Numbers 27:16)God chooses Joshua to lead the people.“Take Joshua son of Nun, a man of spirit, and lay your hand upon him.”קַח־לְךָ אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־רוּחַ בּוֹ וְסָמַכְתָּ אֶת־יָדְךָ עָלָיו(Numbers 27:18)Moshe had two sons, but neither were in the running. Moshe was concerned that his efforts would go for naught in the new land. He was not allowed to enter due to his own sin, but would his legacy continue? Just like the daughters of Tzelofchad, God responds that there is a way for his legacy to continue even if not in the “normal” way. Moshe’s legacy can also continue through his disciple, Joshua.

Why is there yet another census in chapter 26? This census happens after the plague in chapter 25. After another mass death, God wants another census. There are a few unique features about this counting. This counting is done by families and there are four stories mixed within the names. These four stories are: Datan and Aviram who were swallowed up by the ground during Korach’s rebellion, Korach himself and the 250 leaders who were burned to death (although Korach’s sons survived), Er and Onan who died back in Bereishit, and Nadab and Avihu who died in Vayikra.Datan and Aviram are mentioned explicitly:“Datan and Abiram… who strove against Moses and against Aaron… and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them.”דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם קְרִאֵי הָעֵדָה אֲשֶׁר הִצּוּ עַל־מֹשֶׁה וְעַל־אַהֲרֹן… וַתִּפְתַּח הָאָרֶץ אֶת־פִּיהָ וַתִּבְלַע אֹתָם(Numbers 26:9–10)Korach is mentioned with an important caveat:“But the sons of Korach did not die.”וּבְנֵי־קֹרַח לֹא־מֵתוּ(Numbers 26:11)Er and Onan are recalled earlier in the census:“Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan.”וַיָּמָת עֵר וְאוֹנָן בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן(Numbers 26:19)Nadav and Avihu are recalled at the end of the chapter:“Nadav and Avihu died when they offered foreign fire before ה׳.”וַיָּמָת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּ בְּהַקְרִיבָם אֵשׁ זָרָה לִפְנֵי ה׳(Numbers 26:61)Why are these stories included? There were plenty of other deaths over the many years. Perhaps the answer comes at the end of the chapter:“Among these there was not one of those enrolled by Moses and Aaron the priest when they recorded the Israelites in the wilderness of Sinai. For ה׳ had said of them, ‘They shall die in the wilderness.’ Not one of them survived, except Caleb son of Jephunneh and Joshua son of Nun.”וּבָאֵלֶּה לֹא־הָיָה אִישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵי מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר פָּקְדוּ אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי׃כִּי־אָמַר ה׳ לָהֶם מוֹת יָמֻתוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וְלֹא־נוֹתַר מֵהֶם אִישׁ כִּי אִם־כָּלֵב בֶּן־יְפֻנֶּה וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן(Numbers 26:64–65)Each one of the stories listed is a lesson about questioning God’s authority and leadership. Datan, Aviram, Korach, and the 250 directly confronted Moshe and Aaron and questioned their authority. Nadav and Avihu decided to go against the commandment of Moshe and Aaron by bringing a foreign fire into the Mishkan. And Er and Onan refused to continue the leadership lineage of their father. Finally, the generation in the desert questioned God’s ability to bring them into Canaan.This chapter is the first count of just the individuals that will be able to enter the land. God promises that “the land, moreover, is to be apportioned by lot; and the allotment shall be made according to the listings of their ancestral tribes” (verse 55).אַךְ בְּגוֹרָל יֵחָלֵק אֶת־הָאָרֶץ לִשְׁמוֹת מַטּוֹת אֲבֹתָם יִנְחָלוּ(Numbers 26:55)But in order for the people to be ready to enter the land they must remember why their parents were not able to enter the land. God’s authority cannot be questioned. This is also why in the next chapter, God commands Moshe to appoint Joshua as the new leader. The older rebellious generations have died out, and now it is time for the new generations to accept God’s authority.

After the brief interlude to the story of Balaam and Balak, the story returns to the Israelite camp. Chaos reigns again, as the people are consumed by the orgiastic worship if the Moabite god Baal-Peor. Moshe and the elders (again) have fallen on their faces unable to respond. A grandson of Aaron takes things into his own hands, literally. Pinchas takes a spear and impales a prince of the tribe of Shimon and a princess of Moab mid-coitus. The people snap out of their trance and calm is restored to the camp following a massive plague. In return for his heroic vigilantism, God promises Pinchas “his Covenant of Shalom” (verse 12). What exactly is the Covenant of Shalom? Rashi believes this is simply God being grateful to Pinchas and offering him a friendly “shalom” greeting. This is a nice gesture, but why is it called a covenant of peace? Ibn Ezra focuses on the word Shalom as peace. He believes that God is promising Pinchas that he will continue to have peace and should not fear retribution from Zimri’s family even though Zimri was a prince. This opinion brings in a whole layer of political connections and legal fairness. It implies that Pinchas- still a grandson of the high priest, should have to worry about the political implications of killing a corrupt prince. The halakhic category of rodef permits stopping—if necessary, even killing—someone who is actively pursuing another person in a way that will lead to loss of life. In the Pinchas episode, Zimri’s public act is understood by Chazal as placing the entire community in mortal danger by provoking divine wrath, making him a rodef not of an individual but of the nation. Pinchas’s intervention, therefore, is not framed as vigilante violence but as an emergency act to halt an ongoing threat. Chizkuni explains that Pinchas not only did not have to worry about Zimri’s family, but he also didn’t have to worry about his own heritage as a priest. Because it was forbidden for a priest to come in contact with a dead body, Pinchas was concerned he would lose his priestly status. God promised him that he would not. Sfrono expands even further. The covenant of peace is not just for safety from Zimri’s family, but a general peace with the angel of death. God promises Pinchas a long life with some sources showing that he lived as much as 300 years through the ages of the Judges. Malbim extends this even further. He brings the midrashic opinion that Pinchas was actually the prophet Elijah. Both characters have a similar zeal for God that causes them to act in extra-legal manner. Because the Midrash also holds that Elijah never died, Pinchas is given eternal life. The Rav explains that God is trying to teach an important lesson. The Covenant of Shalom means a promise of peace. This is ironic. Pinchas was responsible for a violent act of murder to stop a religious rebellion. Such an act is the exact opposite of peaceful! God’s message is that sometimes peaceful means cannot be achieved by pacifism and crying at the doorway like Moshe and the other leaders. The example the Rav gives is Nevelle Chamberlain’s infamous attempt to pacify Hitler. Sometimes to achieve peace, one must be willing to go to war for one’s beliefs. This is an important and topical conflict that many people feel to this day. One wants to be anti-war, but to what extent does that belief go when there are other nations and people out there who are the exact opposite.

Chapter 24 opens with Balaam understanding that he no longer needed to seek God. He knows what God wanted. So instead, he turns to see the Israelites and proclaims the famous line: “How goodly are your tents O Jacob, your dwelling places O Israel!” (verse 5).מַה־טֹּבוּ אֹהָלֶיךָ יַעֲקֹב מִשְׁכְּנֹתֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ (Numbers 24:5)This prophecy utilizes flora and fauna themes that will appear in prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Looking to paint Balaam as evil, many commentators focus on God telling Balaam what to say in previous chapters, implying that Balaam really wanted to say something else, but God had to change his words. That reading does not fit with the beginning of this chapter. Balaam saw that God wanted to bless the people, and so he did. He completely disregarded the attempts of Balak to try out different ways of making the curses work. Balak pounds his fists in fury, but Balaam has a response for him. “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not of my own accord do anything good or bad contrary to God’s command” (verse 13).אִם־יִתֶּן־לִי בָלָק מְלֹא בֵיתוֹ כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבֹר אֶת־פִּי ה׳ לַעֲשׂוֹת טוֹבָה אוֹ רָעָה מִלִּבִּי אֵת אֲשֶׁר־יְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֹתוֹ אֲדַבֵּר׃ (Numbers 24:13)Back in Genesis, Lavan, twice makes a similar pronouncement: “Then Laban and Bethuel answered, ‘The matter was decreed by God; we cannot speak to you bad or good’” (Genesis 24:50),וַיַּעַן לָבָן וּבְתוּאֵל וַיֹּאמְרוּ מֵה׳ יָצָא הַדָּבָר לֹא נוּכַל דַּבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ רַע אוֹ טוֹב׃and “I have it in my power to do you harm; but the God of your father’s [house] said to me last night, ‘Beware of attempting anything with Jacob, good or bad’” (Genesis 31:29).יֶשׁ־לְאֵל יָדִי לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמָּכֶם רָע וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבִיכֶם אֶמֶשׁ אָמַר אֵלַי לֵאמֹר הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ מִדַּבֵּר עִם־יַעֲקֹב מִטּוֹב עַד־רָע׃Balaam does not wait for Balak to respond, instead he curses the people of Amon and Moav and foretells of their destruction. Again, if Balaam was so evil and was forced to bless the people, why would he voluntarily curse his own people? He then turns toward the Amalak and curses them and the Kenites as well. The chapter ends with the two frenemies parting ways: “Then Balaam set out and returned back home; and Balak also went his way” (verse 25).וַיָּקָם בִּלְעָם וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיָּשָׁב לִמְקֹמוֹ וְגַם־בָּלָק הָלַךְ לְדַרְכּוֹ׃ (Numbers 24:25)This final verse of the story mimic the final verse of the Lavan saga—“then Laban set out and returned homeward. / Jacob went on his way, and messengers of God encountered him” (Genesis 32:1–2).וַיַּשְׁכֵּם לָבָן בַּבֹּקֶר וַיְנַשֵּׁק לְבָנָיו וְלִבְנוֹתָיו וַיְבָרֶךְ אֶתְהֶם וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיָּשָׁב לָבָן לִמְקֹמוֹ׃וְיַעֲקֹב הָלַךְ לְדַרְכּוֹ וַיִּפְגְּעוּ־בוֹ מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים׃The link between the two figures is interesting as both are considered major enemies of the Israelites, yet the text itself paints them as more sympathetic characters, with Lavan protective of his family, and Balaam faithful to God’s command. Commentators would argue that the torah links them to show that both have a second layer beyond the plain reading. But if these two figures were so bad, why wasn’t the text clear? Perhaps the stories of Lavan and Balaam are meant to juxtapose the main characters with the stories around them. Lavan is the person who was fiercely protective of his family yet listened to the word of God even if it meant losing everything. Balaam is someone who was loyal to God even if that cost him great wealth and renown with Balak. Both of these characters sacrifice something they hold dear in order to listen to God.

Chapter 23 begins with Balaam preparing to say whatever God commands. He tells Balak: “Stay here besides your offerings while I am gone. Perhaps God will grant me a manifestation, and whatever is revealed to me I will tell you” (verse 2).עֲמֹד כֹּה עַל־עֹלָתֶיךָ וְאֵלְכָה אוּלַי יִקָּרֶה ה׳ לִקְרָאתִי וּדְבַר מַה־יַּרְאֵנִי וְהִגַּדְתִּי לָךְ׃ (Numbers 23:3)Right off the bat, Balaam reminds Balak that he is at the mercy of God. God could appear to him or not and God will tell him what to say. This again shows deference to the almighty and no nefarious intentions. When God appears to Balaam, Balaam explains that he set up the proper sacrifices of bulls and rams. It seems as if Balaam is responding to an earlier directive from God as to how Balaam can connect with God. Balaam returns and recites the first of his praising poems towards Israel. Note that he even uses a similar metaphor to the grains of sand that God promised Avraham.Balak is incensed. He demanded a curse and got a blessing. Balaam calmly responds “I can only repeat faithfully what God puts in my mouth” (verse 12).הֲלֹא אֵת אֲשֶׁר־יָשִׂים ה׳ בְּפִי אֹתוֹ אֶשְׁמֹר לְדַבֵּר׃ (Numbers 23:12)Again, Balaam faithfully defers to God. In the face of an angry king, Balaam repeats his mantra. He does not even say “I tried to curse them!” He simply follows what God tells him. Notice how it is Balak who demands that they move to a different location to try to change the vision. Balaam does not suggest it.In this next song, Balaam repeats his mantra: “My message was to bless: When [God] blesses, I cannot reverse it” (verse 20).הִנֵּה בָרֵךְ לָקָחְתִּי וּבֵרֵךְ וְלֹא אָשִׁיבֶנָּה׃ (Numbers 23:20)Balak again is furious and tells Balaam to not bless the people or curse them, hoping for a different outcome. Balaam responds, yet again, “But I told you: Whatever God says I will do” (verse 26).הֲלוֹא דִּבַּרְתִּי אֵלֶיךָ לֵאמֹר כָּל־אֲשֶׁר־יְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֹתוֹ אֶעֱשֶׂה׃ (Numbers 23:26)Four times in this chapter. Balaam tells Balak that he can only follow what God tells him. A plain reading of the text again shows a faithful Balaam. Balak is the instigator here, and Balaam only repeats that God is in control.

According to the Midrash, Balaam was a prophet almost on the level of “Moshe” for the other nations. Balaam is also universally regarded as a villain of the Torah on par with Lavan in Genesis. But like Lavan, a careful reading of the text paints a different picture. The story opens with Balak, the king of Moab gathering his cousins in Amon to brainstorm how to defeat the Israelites after their recent resounding victories. They decide to try to hire Balaam to curse the Israelites. A delegation arrives and requests Balaam’s assistance. Balaam responds: “Spend the night here, and I shall reply to you as God tells me” (verse 8).לִינוּ פֹה הַלַּיְלָה וַהֲשִׁבֹתִי אֶתְכֶם דָּבָר כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֵלָי׃ (Numbers 22:8)Asking God for advice before agreeing to the offer does not seem like something a villain would do. God appears to Balaam that night and instructs Balaam to decline the invitation. So what does the villain of the Torah do!? He listens to God and declines the invitation. “Go back to your own country, for God will not let me go with you” (verse 13).לְכוּ אֶל־אַרְצְכֶם כִּי־מֵאֵן ה׳ לְתִתִּי לָלֶכֶת עִמָּכֶם׃ (Numbers 22:13)Balak is upset. He resends the delegation this time offering a big reward. With money on the table Balaam…declines again. “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not do anything, big or little, contrary to the command of my God” (verse 18).אִם־יִתֶּן־לִי בָלָק מְלֹא בֵיתוֹ כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲבֹר אֶת־פִּי ה׳ אֱלֹהָי לַעֲשׂוֹת קְטַנָּה אוֹ גְדוֹלָה׃ (Numbers 22:18)God appears to him yet again. This time God tells Balaam that he can go with the delegation, but he must follow God’s command. וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל־בִּלְעָם לָיְלָה וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם־לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם וְאַךְ אֶת־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה׃“God came to Balaam at night and said to him: If the men have come to call you, rise and go with them; but only the thing that I speak to you—that you shall do.” (verse 20). Balaam listens to God and agrees to travel with the delegation. The commentators try to parse every word in this opening section to show that Balaam was bad. Pointing out that Balaam does not outright say no, or that after the delegation came the second time and offered money, Balaam tried to ask God a second time even though God had said no, or that Balaam hitched his own donkey to follow the delegation because he was excited to be able to curse the Israelites. Verse 22 may be the source of the desire to add on to what the plain text indicates: “But God was incensed at his going” (verse 22).וַיִּחַר־אַף ה׳ כִּי־הוֹלֵךְ הוּא (Numbers 22:22)If God was so angry that Balaam went, then clearly Balaam did something wrong. The better question though is why was God angry at Balaam for going when God just told him to go? The answer is unclear, but after the “talking donkey” portion of the story, Balaam again defers to God. “I erred because I did not know that you were standing in my way. If you still disapprove, I will turn back” (verse 34).חָטָאתִי כִּי לֹא יָדַעְתִּי כִּי־אַתָּה נִצָּב לִקְרָאתִי בַּדָּרֶךְ וְעַתָּה אִם־רַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ אָשׁוּבָה לִּי׃ (Numbers 22:34)Not only does Balaam defer to God, but he apologizes to God thinking that he had misunderstood what God wanted! God allows him to proceed reminding him again that he can only say what God allows. Balaam repeats this to Balak when the two meet. וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל־בָּלָק הֲבֹא־בָאתִי אֵלֶיךָ עַתָּה הֲיָכוֹל אוּכַל דַּבֵּר מְאוּמָה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־יָשִׂים ה׳ בְּפִי אֹתוֹ אֲדַבֵּר׃“Balaam said to Balak, ‘Behold, I have come to you now, but am I able to say anything on my own? The word that God puts in my mouth—that is what I shall speak.’”Again, Balaam defers to what God commands. To be continued…

Last chapter saw the decree that Moshe would not lead the people into Canaan. Abarbanel’s explanation followed Moshe’s growing impatience with the people and ultimately God’s decision that Moshe was not the leader the people needed to enter Canaan. Besides Abarbanel’s opinion that Moshe was at his wits end, there may be another reason why God decided that Moshe was not the leader the people needed. Perhaps God felt that the people were too reliant on Moshe. From the very beginning of the exodus story, there have small nudges from God to transition the people from a slave mentality of dependance to a free people mentality of independence. It started with the pronouncement that the people will be responsible for certifying the new moon as the very first mitzvah to the people. The problem was the people became too reliant on Moshe. When things went bad, they complained, Moshe prayed on their behalf, but the people showed no remorse. Moshe led them into battle or had some miraculous hand in a fight. Moshe even led the people in song on after the splitting of the sea. But what would happen if Moshe was no longer in the picture? Following chapter 20, God took the risk of removing the safety net and seeing if the people could learn to fly on their own. Would the people be able to fly? In chapter 21, the people responded with a resounding yes. Right off the bat Arad attacks the people and takes POWs. Notice how Moshe is not involved here. The people make a vow to God and God makes the people successful in battle. Next, the people complain again, and God punishes them with snakes. But this time, they go to Moshe and admit they did something wrong. During the battle of Amalek, God has Moshe raise his hands to provide support for the people and to direct their eyes to God. This time, God has Moshe build a snake to focus their thoughts not on Moshe. At the end of the chapter, the people again collectively take the lead against Sichon. Notice how the word “Yisrael” appears over and over again. The greatest contrast comes before the battle with Sichon. When the people crossed the Sea of Reeds, Moshe lead the people in song, “Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to God” (Exodus 15:1). This time around, the people do not need Moshe to lead them. They can do it themselves. “Then Israel sang this song: Spring up, O well—sing to it—." Moshe is not completely out of the picture. They need him at the end of the chapter to defeat the giant warriors of Og. But if chapter 20 ended with the question of can they do it? Chapter 21 answered yes, they can.

Why was Moshe not allowed to enter Canaan? The simple answer is that God commanded Moshe to speak to the rock and instead not only did he hit the rock like he did in Exodus 17, but this time Moshe to hit the rock twice. Water eventually flows, but God tells Moshe “Because you did not trust Me enough to affirm My sanctity in the sight of the Israelite people, therefore you shall not lead this congregation into the land” (verse 12).The classic interpretation is that Moshe was so holy, even this small sin was enough to doom him. This explanation is lacking, and many commentators look at what else went wrong.Rashi adds that God had a special message he wanted to send the people. That just like the rock would listen to God and bring forth water, so too the people should listen to God. By hitting the rock, Moshe deprived God of this message.Ramban focuses on verse 10: “Listen, you rebels, shall we get water for you out of this rock?” The implication is that Moshe would make the miracle happen, not God. Rambam looks at Moshe’s anger calling them rebels. This disrespect causes Moshe’s downfall. Ibn Ezra also points to Moshe’s anger, not in his words, but Moshe hitting the rock twice. This made God look weak and incapable with the miracle.The Rav looks at the three times Moshe discusses his punishments. In Deuteronomy 1:37 — “Because of you God was incensed with me too, saying: You shall not enter it either” 3:25–26 — “Let me, I pray, cross over… But God was angry with me on your account” and Psalm 106:32 — “They provoked wrath at the waters of Meribah and Moses suffered on their account” (These sources show that the people were at fault. Every time they crossed God in the desert, Moshe prayed for them. The one-time Moshe is punished the people were silent. Because they did not try to protect Moshe, God sealed his verdict.The Abarbanel has a different take all together. He does not look at this story in a vacuum. Abarbanel lists ten reasons: They fell on their faces in despair instead of confidently turning to God as leaders should, displaying excessive fear rather than faith-driven initiative. They did not immediately pray for the people, doing so only after collapse, showing a lapse in their usual compassion and advocacy. They expressed frustration by calling Israel “rebels” (morim), an unnecessary verbal outburst inappropriate for their lofty role. Moshe acted with anger, and leadership rooted in anger cannot guide the people into the Land. Moshe hit the rock twice, displaying impatience rather than calm obedience. They failed to sanctify God publicly, because the miracle—had Moshe spoken to the rock—would have dramatically demonstrated God’s power. They took credit by saying “shall we bring water…?”, introducing ambiguity about who performs miracles. They didn’t clarify God’s kindness to the people, missing an educational moment about divine mercy. They showed insufficient gratitude for the people, reacting with frustration instead of empathy after Miriam’s death and the loss of the well. Their overall behavior reflected diminished leadership capacity, and God judged that this level of emotional strain made them unfit to lead the next stage of Israel’s destiny.This story is culmination of a decline in Moshe’s leadership abilities. At the first Moshe was able to lead the people, sometimes with God’s help. As time passed, he grew more and more impatient with them. As a man who spoke directly to God, Moshe was unable to connect with the unruly base population. In the past few chapters, every time the people complained, Moshe fell on his face. He just could not take it anymore. The rock was the final straw. God had seen enough. Moshe was the right person to lead the people out of Egypt, but he was the wrong person to lead the people into the land. This answer provides a more complete look at the heroic yet tragic life of Moshe. Different circumstances require different leadership skills.

“This is a chok that God has commanded: Instruct the Israelite people to bring you a red cow without blemish, in which there is no defect and on which no yoke has been laid.” (verse 1 — זֹאת חֻקַּת ה' אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה ה' לֵאמֹר דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין־בָּהּ מוּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָלָה עָלֶיהָ עֹל).The rabbis instituted extraordinary safeguards to ensure absolute purity in the parah adumah ritual, including raising children from birth in specially built courtyards over hollowed rock to prevent any possibility of tum’at met (impurity from a corpse) (Mishnah Parah 3:2). These children drew the water for the ashes using only utensils made of stone—materials that cannot contract impurity—to avoid even the smallest halachic risk (Mishnah Parah 3:2–3). The Sages also required that all participants undergo immersion and be handled as if potentially impure even when no impurity was known, a unique stringency applied only to this mitzvah (Rambam, Hilchot Parah Adumah 2:2–3). To reinforce the gravity of maintaining purity, even minimal rabbinic impurities were treated as disqualifying for the process, reflecting a level of precaution unmatched in any other Temple procedure (Mishnah Parah 4:4; Rambam ibid. 15:1).The Red Heifer is the quintessential example of a chok. According to Rashi, a chok has no reason so that from the outset, there is no need to explain it. A chok is a chok and that’s that. The idea of a chok does not stop us from trying to figure out the reasons behind aspects of the chok. One interesting part of the Red Heifer is that it is sacrificed outside the Mishkan. Another similar chok that is sacrificed outside the camp is the Azazel Goat. The two have another connection- the color red. The Red Heifer must be entirely red, without a single non-red hair. The Azazel Goat has a red strig tied to its horns before it is thrown over the cliff. Sforno explains that the color red is used to connect a passage in Isaiah “Be your sins like crimson, They can turn snow-white; Be they red as dyed wool, They can become like fleece” (Isaiah 1:18 — אִם־יִהְיוּ חֲטָאֵיכֶם כַּשָּׁנִים כַּשֶּׁלֶג יַלְבִּינוּ אִם־יַאְדִּימוּ כַתּוֹלָע כַּצֶּמֶר יִהְיוּ).This makes sense in connection with the Azazel Goat. The red crimson thread had a matching one hanging in the Temple. If God had forgiven the people, the red thread would turn white. But what is the connection to the Red Heifer? A person who required the use of the Red Heifer did not commit a sin. It is simply for one who came in contact with a dead body- for any reason. Perhaps the answer lies in the use of another unique ingredient- the hyssop. The only other time the hyssop is used is part of the ceremony for the person with tzaraat. That ceremony occurs in the Mishkan. When someone encounters death, their life is forever changed. It can be hard to move forward. The person may feel responsible for the death- as if they committed a sin- even that is not the case. The person can also feel depressed and low like the hyssop. Perhaps, the Red Heifer borrows two symbols from the tzaraat ceremony and the Azazel Goat as a way to remind the person that they are not condemned as a sinner and are in fact absolved like the Azazel Goat. They are also encouraged to be lifted up from their depressed state like the hyssop.