Month: June 2026

The Parashah of Chukat presents one of the most tragic and foundational moments in the Bible: the sin of the waters of strife. After Miriam’s death, the people are left without water and begin to complain.
God commands Moses and Aaron to take the staff, gather the people, and speak to the rock before their eyes. However, Moses, deep in mourning and exhausted by the constant complaints, turns to the people in anger:
"Listen now, you rebels, shall we bring forth water for you from this rock?" Instead of speaking, Moses strikes the rock twice. The water does come out, but the punishment is ruthless: Moses and Aaron will not merit leading the people to the promised land.
Rabbi Sacks explains that this was not a petty punishment, but rather a change of generations and a revolution in the concept of leadership. The generation born in the desert, the generation of freedom that was about to enter the land and build an independent society,
He no longer needed leadership of coercion, fear, and brute force (symbolized by whipping). He needed leadership of speech, persuasion, education, and patience.
The Torah here sets up an eternal warning sign against tyrannical leadership, teaching that even when a leader acts with good intentions, the use of coercion and anger disqualifies his leadership.
The historical irony is that thousands of years later, in 1611, King James I of England tried to use the Bible to achieve the exact opposite.
King James, who firmly believed in the "divine right of kings" to rule without limits, detested previous translations (like the Geneva Bible) that included marginal notes justifying rebellion against tyrants. He initiated the "King James Version" (KJV) with a clear political objective: to produce a text that would teach blind obedience to authority.
The translators were instructed to soften the text, and even diligently deleted the word "tyrant" from the Bible so that the people would not associate royal rule with tyranny.
A striking example of how this political move received a "reverse message" can be found in our case, in the chapter about the king in Deuteronomy (Chapter 17),
The Torah sets strict limitations on the king in Israel, intended to prevent the king from becoming a military and economic tyrant.
King James wanted the English people to read these verses and see them as evidence of the centrality and sacredness of the monarchy – a position of an absolute ruler who must be obeyed.
He hoped the people would understand the leader's role as one who holds the "rod of correction" and supreme authority. But he forgot that the biblical text is stronger than any translator or king.
English readers, and later the Puritans who emigrated to America, read the King James translation with critical eyes. They did not see justification for tyranny there, but precisely the opposite:
They saw that the King of Israel was limited in his power, that the Torah demanded humility from him, and that the greatest rulers (like Moses) were severely punished when they exceeded their authority and used force.
The parashah of Chukat and additional parashot reminded them that divinity is not found in royal might, but in justice and righteousness. In the end, the very text that was supposed to create obedient subjects,
Became the greatest manifesto of freedom and revolution against tyranny.
I believe this lesson from the foundational and important book of Jewish tradition is particularly important for us as Israelis these days.
The surprise that was prepared for King James attests to how politically significant and relevant the Bible is.
On the way to elections in Israel, the message of the constitutional case indicates that changing leadership is not just a matter of replacing the leader but a change in the style of leadership.
The time comes when even the leadership of a revered figure like Moses requires adaptation to a new generation of freedom rising to independent life in the Land of Israel – "to be a free nation in our land.".
In those days, in this time.

Shabbat Shalom!
Rani

I'll start with a personal confession,
The parashah 'Korach' is perhaps my least favorite parashah in the entire Torah.
This is a portion that denounces independent, critical thinking, and the right to criticize the leader, the chosen of God.,
And indeed, there are many leaders who claim to be God's chosen.
The parashah speaks out against the right of rebellion, "and they rose up before Moses" (Num. 16:2), the right of assembly: "and they gathered together against Moses" (Num. 16:3), and the right of protest.
And the text emphasizes that these are not marginal figures, but "two hundred and fifty heads of the Karaite community, men of renown" (16:2).
Moses" initial reaction: "And Moses heard, and fell on his face" (16:4).
Some commentators explain that he did so out of distress, while according to another opinion, he prostrated himself before God to ask Him to reveal to him what he should answer and what he should do. In my critical reading,
And in the spirit of current slang, Moshe's reaction was "the worst.".
However, later in the incident, when God informs Moses and Aaron of the punishment He intends to inflict upon the rebels, "they shall be separated from this community,",
"and will consume them right now" (Num. 16:22), Moses and Aaron gather themselves and this time their response is: "God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin and You be wrathful with the entire community?" (Num. 16:22).
This response echoes Abraham's response in his argument with God, in his attempt to save Sodom from destruction. In Moses' case, his claim against divine judgment,
 Here is evidence of a sense of responsibility for the entire community, a collective responsibility, unlike his initial reaction, which stemmed from personal insult and selfish motives.
And Moses, in order to emphasize before the people that he is not motivated by personal reasons, says, "Hereby you shall know that the Lord has sent me to do all these deeds,
 For it is written (TLBZ 28), and it even adds, "And you shall know that these men have rejected the LORD" (TLBZ 30). The rebellion is presented as a rebellion against the LORD, and not just against the chosen of the LORD, Moses and Aaron.
And despite the terrible punishment of Korah and his company, and the divine intervention – the acceptance of Aaron's offering – the protest did not subside and even spread and intensified.
 "All the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron, saying, 'You have killed the people of the Lord."" (Num. 17:6).
God is angry with the people and a plague breaks out, which Aaron manages to stop with the incense. But the lesson is that neither the incense gives life nor the incense causes death, but rather the will of God.
The incense, which was an expression of Aaron's election by God, now functions to save the people from the plague. God's choice of the High Priest, Aaron, is a responsibility and obligation to act for the people.
The work of the Levites in the Tabernacle is defined by Moses as the separation of the Levites from the congregation of Israel: "to bring you near to Him, to do the service of the Tabernacle of the Lord, and to stand before the congregation to minister to them" (16:9).
The word "to sacrifice," which Moses uses, has a double meaning. The Levites were brought close to the service of God, brought close to the sanctuary. But this closeness is also a sacrifice, for they are servants of the community in the sanctuary.
This is a task and mission for generations to come.
An entire chapter at the end of the Torah portion is dedicated to describing the rights and obligations of the Levites and priests, emphasizing the fact that the Levites have no inheritance like the other tribes.
They are dedicated to sacred service; their existence depends on the tithe the people are commanded to set aside for them, and they too must set aside a tithe for God – for the priests.
"They shall not share in the inheritance of the Israelites. (18:23)" God's choice of the Levites and priests is not an advantage, but a sacrifice, a calling, and a commitment.
And the desert section to my right, here and now.
If we read the Parsha of 'Korach' as a continuation of the Parsha of 'Shlach Lecha' – the Parsha of the Spies – it emerges that a period of turmoil and uncertainty breeds factionalism, jealousy, and envy.
And one can hope that as reality changes, the disputes will be settled...
And from the lesson of the portion, since holding office is not a privilege, but a dedication to holiness, rises the hope that those who serve in "holiness" and those close to power,
This proximity will also be seen as a sacrifice, of working for the good of the people and the country.

The parashah "Shelach Lecha" (in the Book of Numbers, chapters 13-15) primarily deals with the sending of the twelve spies to scout the land of Canaan, and also includes the punishment of the one who gathered wood on Shabbat and the mitzvah of tzitzit.

The sin of the spies led to the decree of 40 years of wandering in the desert. According to Yona Bar-Maoz of Bar-Ilan University, the instruction to send spies to scout the land is attributed to God, and their careful selection as well, 'all of them chiefs among the children of Israel,' was "at the command of the Lord" (Numbers 13:3). Nevertheless, the outcome of the mission was very negative and unexpected; the spies did indeed begin with praise for the land: "We came to the land to which you sent us.'
"And also milk and honey it flows and this is its fruit' (Numbers 13:27), but immediately added and argued that its conquest would be problematic: 

For the people who live in the land are very strong and the cities are very large and fortified, and we saw the descendants of the giants there. Amalek dwells in the land of the Negev, and the Hittites, the Jebusites, and the Amorites dwell in the hill country. 

The sin of instilling fear in the people was not the main sin of the chosen spies, but another, surprising sin: 

and they brought up an evil report of the land The land that we passed through to explore is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people we saw in it were men of great size (Numbers 13:32). 

It seems that speaking ill of the land was particularly severe, as it could have affected the second generation of the Israelites leaving Egypt, not just the current generation, which naturally struggled to transition from a mental state of servitude to one of freedom. 

If the younger generation believes that the land is not good, as ten chosen men of good standing have said, they might even sin like their predecessors and wish to return to Egypt.

The swift death of all ten distinguished individuals, due to speaking ill of the land, convinced every listener that they had indeed lied, while Caleb and Joshua were correct in their claim: "The land is very, very good" (Numbers 14:7). 

The evil report about the land affected the spirit of the people and their sense of ability to fulfill the divine vision. Perhaps if all 12 spies, chosen by God, had returned with enthusiasm from the promised land,
And strengthening the divine promise made to them several times, that they were going to the "Land flowing with milk and honey," their listeners would have responded differently. They might have rushed enthusiastically toward the first destination that crossed their path, and the first victory would have strengthened their spirits and proven to them that conquering the entire land was possible with God's help. 

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks argued that the spies who instilled fear in the hearts of the people did so because of the difficulty of detaching themselves from the warm embrace of God, who was within the camp, protecting it through miracles, wonders, and signs, and providing them with manna. Their mentality was that of slaves who could not break free from their dependency and go to war, to human battles that would inevitably involve sacrifices. Therefore, it was necessary to eradicate the generation and raise a new generation, one that was not a generation of slaves.

And I thought about the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel, which took place on Friday, the 5th of Iyar, 5708, May 14, 1948. Ben-Gurion, a relatively old man who was already over 60, had to make a fateful decision against the backdrop of the threatening giants of his time: Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt, who threatened to invade and fight the young state. He had no divine promise, nor a promise of miracles. But he had a connection to the sources and a vision, and he made a historic decision despite the expected war with the giants.

Sovereignty in the Bible and in today's reality is not granted to a nation on a silver platter. Sovereignty requires the courage to make decisions, faith, and sacrifice.