Who Gets to Name Evil?

From Cain and Abel to the Third Anniversary of October 7

The first murder in the Bible takes place in the fourth chapter of Genesis. Cain kills his brother Abel, and God asks him a simple question: “Where is Abel your brother?”

God already knows the answer. The question gives Cain an opportunity to acknowledge his crime. Instead, Cain replies, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

With those words, the first murderer in human history also becomes the first to attempt to redirect the narrative away from his victim. God asks about Abel. Cain makes the conversation about himself, challenging the very notion that he bears responsibility for his brother.

God refuses to follow him.

“What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground.”

Abel is dead. He cannot describe his suffering, challenge Cain’s account, or defend his memory. Cain remains alive, free to explain himself and change the subject. But God insists that the victim’s blood speaks louder than the murderer’s words.

Cain and Abel by Marc Chagall (1960)

There is an extraordinary detail in the Hebrew. God refers to demei achikha, literally “your brother’s bloods,” in the plural. Rashi, drawing on rabbinic tradition, explains that the words encompass Abel’s blood and the blood of all his descendants who would never be born.

The first murder extinguished generations of possibilities. Children, grandchildren, families, and entire futures disappeared with Abel.

Combine these two ideas – the living control the narrative and the dead include generations – and one can see that the murderer will attempt to frame history for all time.

These opening chapters of Genesis offer a striking perspective on the third anniversary of the October 7 massacre.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorists invaded Israel, murdered 1,195 people, and abducted 251 hostages. Families were slaughtered in their homes, young people were murdered at a music festival, and entire communities were devastated.

Three years later, the struggle over how to commemorate the massacre has become a struggle over whose story is being told.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani acknowledged the Hamas killings in his anniversary statement before shifting substantial attention to Israel’s subsequent military campaign and Palestinian suffering. Several leading democratic politicians did the same.

And just two days after the October 7 massacre anniversary, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the United Nations’ Navi Pillay, the woman who helped spread the genocide libel about Israel’s defensive war against jihadi terrorists. Seen together, the world is establishing the narrative that will prevail into the future, where the Bibas babies’ descendants who will never be born, will not be able to counter the charge.

The Bibas brothers with their mother, slaughtered by Gazan terrorists

Cain asks, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” as a diversionary tactic to invert the subject.

God never answers that question directly. Instead, He demands, “What have you done?”

Three years after October 7, the United Nations and too many politicians have learned to answer questions about the murdered by changing the subject.

There is a Missing On Simchat Torah

This Simchat Torah, I keep thinking about what is missing.

For some families, the absence is unbearable and permanent. A child, a parent, a spouse, a friend who was alive on the last Simchat Torah before October 7 and is no longer here. Every holiday marks time, but an anniversary holiday also measures absence. Another year has passed. Another place at the table remains empty. Another circle forms with someone missing from it.

Aryeh Ziering with his parents, killed as he responded to the massacre by Gazans on October 7, 2023

Loss is embedded in Simchat Torah itself. We reach the end of the Torah and lose Moses.

The man who confronted Pharaoh, led us through the sea, brought down the commandments and carried an impossible people through the wilderness does not cross into the Jewish Promised Land. The Torah does not soften his death or pretend it did not happen. It records it and we read it aloud.

Moses seeing the Promised Land before he dies by James Tissot (1896-1902)

Over the past three years, other things have felt as though they have gone missing as well.

I have watched context disappear from too much of the media coverage of Israel and the Middle East. Iran can threaten Israel and the region through proxies, missiles and terrorism, yet somehow vanish from the frame through which individual events are reported.

I have watched the United Nations lose all credibility as an institution capable of treating Israel with the same standards it applies elsewhere. Its institutions can devote extraordinary attention to Israel while regimes and movements that openly threaten Jews and Israelis often recede into the background.

I have watched universities where “Globalize the Intifada” could become part of the vocabulary of protest after Jews had just experienced the deadliest day since the Holocaust. A recent report on American antisemitism could devote enormous attention to Israel, Palestinian Arabs, race and politics while ignoring the jihadist antisemitism that helped produce October 7 in the first place.

And increasingly, I wonder whether I am losing the Democratic Party I knew.

Senator Chris Coons is not someone I associated with the anti-Israel fringe. Yet he spearheaded legislation that would authorize American sanctions connected to construction in E1, including against foreign persons who simply submit bids for construction tenders. Threatening private parties with the force of the American financial system for bidding on residential construction near Jerusalem represents a place in that debate I never expected mainstream Democrats to reach.

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chris Coons threaten financial retribution against firms considering building residential homes in Jerusalem suburbs

Some losses happened in a morning. Others have accumulated slowly enough that it took me time to recognize them.

Judaism does not ask us to pretend that loss isn’t real. The Torah certainly doesn’t.

Moses dies. But then we do something remarkable.

We don’t pause to mourn Moses on Simchat Torah. We stand up, sing and dance. We lift the Torahs and our children. And when we have read the Torah’s final words, we refuse to leave the scroll there. We immediately return to Bereishit, to the beginning.

We don’t erase the loss or manufacture comforting explanations for it. We don’t avert our eyes from the people and institutions we have lost or from the lessons their loss may teach us. But neither do we build our lives around the empty spaces.

That may be the lesson I need most this Simchat Torah.

Notice who is missing. Remember them. Look clearly at what else we have lost since October 7 and understand why. Fight where something worth preserving can still be preserved.

Then look around the circle and see who is still there. Hold them a little closer.

And dance.

A Siddur on the Temple Mount Is Now a “Highly Dangerous Development”

A Jewish prayer book is now a “highly dangerous development” in the Middle East according to the region’s Muslim leaders.

That was the Arab League’s description Sunday of reports that Israeli police are testing allowing Jewish prayer books — siddurim — onto the Temple Mount. The League warned that allowing them could establish new Jewish religious practices and alter the “historical and legal status quo.”

It wasn’t the only alarm sounded during Sukkot.

Over 1,000 Jews visited the Temple Mount on Sunday, with some openly praying and carrying the Four Species.

For perspective, roughly 80,000 Muslims attended the first Friday prayers at Al-Aqsa during Ramadan earlier this year. In normal years, Ramadan Friday attendance can reach 200,000.

For the Muslim world, Muslims were “worshippers” while Jews were “extremist” Israelis conducting “Talmudic rituals.”

Jewish men covered in prayer shawls hold the Four Species as they take part in morning prayers during the holiday of Sukkot at the Cotton Merchant’s Gate entrance to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem’s Old City, September 27, 2026. (Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)

Palestinian Authority spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh warned that Israel risked transforming the political conflict into a “religious war.” He declared the entire 144 dunams of the Temple Mount an exclusively Muslim place of worship that cannot be divided or shared.

The reaction extends well beyond the Palestinian Authority.

Jordan condemned Sunday’s Jewish visits and again declared all 144 dunams exclusively Muslim. And Turkey, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have jointly used the same formulation: the entire compound is exclusively for Muslim worship and the Jordanian Waqf has exclusive jurisdiction to administer it and regulate entry.

Three weeks ago, I wrote about the effort to redefine the Temple Mount “status quo,” transforming restrictions on Jewish prayer into a broader claim that the entire compound is exclusively Muslim.

Sukkot takes the story further.

There is no question that Israel is changing its own practice. For decades, Israeli governments maintained the policy that Muslims prayed on the Temple Mount while non-Muslims visited. Israeli police restricted Jewish prayer and barred siddurim and other Jewish religious objects.

Israel observed those restrictions for decades. But it never enacted a permanent statutory ban on Jewish prayer or agreed that the entire Temple Mount would forever be exclusively Muslim.

Now Israel is allowing some Jews to worship at Judaism’s holiest site.

The response is not simply a demand that Israel return to its previous practice. Multiple Muslim governments are declaring that all 144 dunams are exclusively Muslim. The possibility of a Jew carrying a siddur is described as a “desecration of its sanctity,” and jihadi calls for a “religious war.”

And this is happening during Sukkot, one of Judaism’s three biblical pilgrimage festivals, historically centered on Jews traveling to Jerusalem and the Temple. Jews were making pilgrimage there during Sukkot more than a thousand years before Islam existed.

A small number of Jews praying peacefully at their holiest site during their pilgrimage holiday is used as incitement to jihad. And Muslim governments demanded that the “international community” take actions against the Jews.

Perhaps it is time for the international community to explain to radical Islamists what coexistence means.

Knowing What Time It Is

We are in the middle of the Jewish holiday season, and Judaism has demanded a lot from us.

Rosh Hashanah asked us to stand in judgment. The Ten Days of Repentance asked us to examine ourselves. Yom Kippur demanded confession, fasting and repentance.

And then Judaism tells us to be happy.

Sukkot is zman simchateinu — the time of our joy.

The pivot can feel jarring. The melodies of Yom Kippur are still in our heads when we leave the synagogue, eat, begin building the sukkah and prepare for a holiday explicitly defined by happiness.

Kohelet, which Jews read on Sukkot, provides an answer: “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens.”

A time to weep and a time to laugh. A time to mourn and a time to dance. A time to be silent and a time to speak. A time for war and a time for peace.

Kohelet does not suggest that human beings experience only one emotion at a time. We can mourn and feel gratitude. We can love and be angry. We can be frightened and hopeful.

But Kohelet points somewhere else: that emotions and activities do not only exist in time, but time is defined by emotion and activity.

Different moments call for different responses. The emotions we might personally carry do not relieve us of the obligation to recognize what the present moment demands.

Israel offers a powerful example today.

Israel has inflicted extraordinary damage on enemies that sought its destruction. Hamas and Hezbollah have been badly degraded, and Iran has suffered devastating blows. Israelis can feel enormous relief at what Israel has survived and accomplished.

At the same time, Israel faces extraordinary international hostility and diplomatic isolation. The image at the United Nations this week captured that reality starkly: as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took the podium, dozens of delegations walked out, leaving him addressing a largely empty chamber.

So what should Israelis feel today? Relief? Alarm? Both?

Kohelet does not require one feeling to vanquish the other. The challenge is recognizing which response the present moment calls for.

Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks captured something similar in describing the distinctive nature of joy: “Joy lives in the moment. It asks no questions about tomorrow. It celebrates the power of now.”

That may explain why Sukkot follows Yom Kippur so quickly. Judaism does not give us weeks to transition from solemnity to celebration. We finish fasting and begin building a sukkah. We do not need to resolve every worry before experiencing joy. As Rabbi Sacks continued, joy “knows that yesterday has gone and tomorrow is unknown.”

Tomorrow will bring whatever tomorrow brings. Kohelet asks us to recognize today.

Zman simchateinu. This is the time for joy.

The Wheel of Jewish History in Songs

Moses’ final message to the Jewish people was not another law but a song.

As Israel prepared to enter its land, Moses called heaven and earth as witnesses and described a future in which prosperity would lead to complacency, complacency to ingratitude and ingratitude to decline. The people who had depended upon God for water, food and protection in the desert would settle the land, enjoy its abundance and eventually mistake blessing for entitlement. “Jeshurun grew fat and kicked.” The danger Moses foresaw was not that hardship would break the Jews, but that success would cause them to forget who they were.

Haazinu was intended as protection against that forgetting. God instructed Moses to write the song, teach it to the Israelites and place it in their mouths so that it would remain a witness among them. The Torah had already been given, the commandments were known and the covenant had been renewed, yet one final safeguard was required. The people had to internalize a warning about themselves that prosperity would otherwise make easy to dismiss.

This makes Haazinu the mirror image of the Torah’s other great song. At the sea, the Israelites were trapped between Pharaoh’s army and the water, free from slavery but not yet able to imagine themselves as a free people. When the sea opened and they crossed on dry land, gratitude rose naturally from within them and was directed toward God. A miracle entered their hearts and emerged through their mouths as the Song of the Sea.

Haazinu travels in the opposite direction. It does not rise spontaneously from the Jewish people but comes from God through Moses and is placed into their mouths so that it may eventually enter their hearts. The Song of the Sea is the Jews expressing to God what they have just experienced; Haazinu is God telling the Jews what they must learn about themselves. One is exuberant and immediate, sung at the moment terror gives way to triumph. The other is measured and unsettling, looking beyond victory toward the temptations victory will create. One moves from the heart to the mouth. The other must move from the mouth into the heart.

That difference may explain why Moses’ final instruction takes the form of song rather than another commandment. Law can remain external to the person who possesses it. A scroll may be stored, honored and ignored, while a commandment may be studied without becoming instinct. A song enters through repetition, settles into memory and returns when the book is closed. Haazinu was written to remain inside the Jewish people as their circumstances changed, so that when later generations prospered and forgot, declined and wondered why, the warning would already be present in words they had learned to sing. The Torah was not insufficient as law, but it also had to become memory.

The two songs describe opposite movements of the wheel of Jewish history. At the sea, Israel stood at the bottom: former slaves, defenseless and pursued by the most powerful army they knew. The sea opened and the wheel turned upward, carrying them from slavery to freedom, terror to triumph. Haazinu addresses a people traveling in the other direction. Israel is about to possess a land, build a society and enjoy an abundance unavailable in the desert, but Moses warns that prosperity may produce forgetfulness and that the wheel can turn down as quickly as it turned up. The Song of the Sea gives hope to Jews trapped at the bottom; Haazinu gives warning to Jews comfortable at the top.

Song at the seaHa’azinu
Israelites to GodGod to Israelites
Internal expression outwardExternal message to be interlized
Heart to mouthMouth to heart
Deliverance already experiencedDanger not yet recognized
Spontaneous, grateful and triumphantDeliberate, cautionary and prophetic
From the bottom toward the topA warning that the top can become the bottom
Recited every morningRead primarily through the annual Torah cycle

For much of the postwar period, particularly in the United States, many Jews came to believe that the wheel had finally stopped turning. Legal barriers fell, universities and professions opened, and open antisemitism became disreputable. Each generation appeared more secure and integrated than the one before it, until the dangers of Jewish history remained vivid in memory but increasingly remote from daily experience. The central questions became how fully Jews could participate in the surrounding society and how little distinctiveness that participation required. The golden age was not merely enjoyed; its permanence was assumed.

That assumption has become harder to sustain. American Jewish life remains strong, but its direction no longer feels assured as hatreds thought driven to the margins return to streets, campuses, politics and culture. Crowds celebrate the murder of Jews, universities explain away their intimidation and public figures revive ancient accusations in the language of contemporary justice. None of this means that catastrophe is inevitable or that American Jewish life is ending. It does mean that uninterrupted progress can no longer be treated as a law of history, and that Jews who spent generations asking how much further they might rise must now consider whether the wheel has begun moving the other way.

There is something remarkable about the place of the two songs in Jewish life. The Song of the Sea, born as the spontaneous response of one generation, is recited every morning, while Haazinu, composed to warn future generations, is generally heard once a year. The upward song became daily prayer, while the warning from the top became an annual interruption.

Hanan Ben Ari concert in Jerusalem, dedicated to members of his crew who died on October 7, 2023 (photo: First One Through)

Perhaps that balance served a people that needed constant reassurance that redemption remained possible. It is less obviously sufficient for Jews who have known extraordinary acceptance and are only beginning to recognize its fragility. The danger is not that Jews have forgotten the Song of the Sea. It is that they have mistaken it for the entire story.

Hanan Ben Ari asks everyone who lost someone during the war to raise their cellphones – almost the entire audience does. He then begins to sing, and the camera turns to capture him and the thousands of lights from the crowd.

The Mayor Is Not the Audience

On Friday morning, students from SAR, Ramaz, Kehilath Jeshurun and other Jewish institutions will gather outside Gracie Mansion for Shacharit. They will pray, sing and speak about their love for New York, their love for Israel and their right to feel safe in the city where they were born.

Rabbi Binyamin Krauss, principal of SAR Academy, explains that the gathering is both prayer and statement. Its location is intentional: many Jewish New Yorkers believe that the mayor’s rhetoric about Israel and not condemning the phrase shouted at city universities “globalize the intifada” has made them easy targets. Prayer outside his residence ensures that the message cannot easily be ignored.

Yet Friday falls within the Ten Days of Repentance, when Jews should be especially clear about whom they are addressing. Gracie Mansion may be the location, but the mayor is not the audience. God is.

Prayer expresses the Jewish belief that political power is never the highest power. During these ten days, Jews repeatedly say Avinu Malkeinu – Our Father, Our King. They gather before God.

The Torah reading the following morning makes that message unmistakable. Haazinu is Moses’ final song, delivered as the Jewish people prepare to enter the Land of Israel. It calls heaven and earth as witnesses and describes the entire movement of Jewish history: God finds Israel in the wilderness, protects it, brings it to a fertile land and warns that prosperity can produce complacency.

Then comes one of the song’s most famous lines:

“Jeshurun grew fat and kicked.” – Deuteronomy 32:15

Jeshurun is an affectionate name for Israel. The warning is directed at successful Jews who have become so secure that they mistake comfort for permanence. They enjoy the land’s bounty, forget its source and abandon the Rock of their salvation.

The presence of Kehilath Jeshurun and Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz makes the verse impossible to miss. The very congregation joining the prayer bears the name invoked by Moses. This week, the children of Jeshurun will walk from their schools and shuls in one of the most prosperous Jewish neighborhoods in the world and pray in the public square.

Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz of Kehilat Jeshrun lighting Chanukah candles next to Gracie Mansion in December 2025 before a crowd and reporters, alluding to the new mayor’s anti-Jewish opinions and statements (photo: First One Through)

These Jews are heirs to what may have been one of the greatest Diaspora golden ages in Jewish history. New York Jews built synagogues, schools, hospitals, charities, businesses and cultural institutions. They rose to the highest levels of civic life and came to regard their acceptance as a permanent feature of the city. Their children could be openly Jewish, openly Zionist and fully American without perceiving any contradiction.

Recent attacks and an increasingly hostile public climate have shaken that confidence. Rabbi Krauss writes that students returned to school carrying both fear and a need to answer it. That answer should not be a plea for acceptance from a mayor. It should be a declaration that Jewish identity does not depend upon a mayor’s approval.

Haazinu does not teach that Jewish survival rests upon the favor of rulers. It teaches that the Jewish relationship with God, Torah and the Land of Israel survives the rise and fall of political powers. Moses delivers the song while standing outside the land he will never enter, yet he speaks of the connection between Israel and its land as something deeper than temporary possession or political recognition. Governments may contest it, enemies may attack it and Jews themselves may neglect it, but the covenant remains.

That should be the meaning of Friday’s public prayer. The students should not perform Judaism for the mayor. They should show New York what Judaism looks like: children praying openly, affirming their faith, facing Jerusalem and refusing to sever their attachment to Israel in exchange for political comfort.

The Temple Mount Status Quo Is Being Rewritten

The Palestinian Authority has declared the Temple Mount — the holiest site in Judaism — the “exclusive right of Muslims.”

That is not the historic status quo. It is an attempt to rewrite it.

After Israel took control of Jerusalem’s Old City in 1967, day-to-day religious administration of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif remained with the Islamic Waqf, while Israel retained responsibility for security and substantial control over access. The Waqf permitted Muslims to pray on the Mount, while non-Muslims could visit, prayer was restricted.

The arrangement governed administration, access and worship. It did not declare the Temple Mount the exclusive possession or religious entitlement of Muslims.

The Palestinian Authority’s Jerusalem Governorate crossed that line explicitly on September 6. It condemned Jews conducting “Talmudic rituals and prayers” as attempts to “alter its religious character,” declared the entire 144-dunam compound the “exclusive right of Muslims” and warned against changing its “identity.”

Those words matter.

Waqf administration is one thing. Restrictions on Jewish prayer are another. Declaring the site itself the “exclusive right” of Muslims is something else entirely.

The status quo regulates what Jews may do there. It never determined what the place is.

The First and Second Jewish Temples stood on the Temple Mount. Jewish prayer has faced Jerusalem for millennia. Jewish liturgy, mourning and hopes for redemption are bound to it. Many observant Jews have historically declined to walk upon portions of the Mount precisely because they consider the ground too holy to enter without the required ritual purity.

For some Jews, not ascending is itself an expression of the Mount’s extraordinary Jewish sanctity.

That makes the new language especially provocative. Jews visiting Judaism’s holiest place become “settlers” conducting “incursions.” Jewish prayer becomes threatening “Talmudic rituals.” A restriction accepted to preserve religious peace is transformed into evidence that Jewish religious expression does not belong there at all.

Jewish restraint was supposed to preserve coexistence. It cannot become a permission slip for Jewish erasure.

The international reaction sharpens that dynamic. The United Nations itself has called upon the parties to refrain from “provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric,” especially in places of “religious and cultural sensitivity.” In the very next paragraph, it demanded that Jerusalem’s historic status quo be respected “in word and practice” and urged “all sides” to halt provocations and incitement at the holy sites.

By the UN’s own standard, words can threaten the status quo. Yet when an official Palestinian governmental authority declares Judaism’s holiest site the “exclusive right of Muslims,” it is greeted with a silent nod of approval.

And this occurs as the anti-Israel horde discusses so-called “Jewish supremacy.” Zohran Mamdani has attacked privileging one religion over another (meaning Jews over Muslims). Hasan Piker denounces “ethnoreligious supremacist values.” At the Jewish Temple Mount, the principle stripped of abstraction: one religion claiming exclusive entitlement to the holiest site of another.

And that raises a more fundamental question about the status quo itself.

Perhaps placing religious administration of a multi-faith holy site exclusively in the hands of one of the religions claiming it was always structurally unstable.

The Waqf is not a neutral administrator. It is an Islamic religious institution representing one faith at a site sacred to several. That arrangement can function while custodianship means administration. It becomes difficult to justify when the authority entrusted with the site participates in or endorses a doctrine that denies another faith any legitimate claim to it.

The test should be remarkably simple: Can the authorities administering the Temple Mount state unambiguously that it is Judaism’s holiest site?

Acknowledging that fact surrenders nothing about Islam’s attachment to Al-Aqsa. But an administrator that cannot acknowledge the most basic religious identity of the people whose holiest site it administers has a profound conflict with the responsibilities of custodianship.

If the Waqf and Jordan cannot pass that test, their fitness to exercise exclusive administration should be questioned.

The logical alternative is administration by a political authority obligated to protect multiple religions rather than a religious authority representing one of them. Israel already bears responsibility for security at the compound and exercises substantial control over access. Any new arrangement would have to fully protect Muslim worship and Islamic holy places while recognizing rather than suppressing the religious attachments of others.

The status quo was built on the assumption that Islamic administration could coexist with Jewish restraint. The assertion of “Muslim exclusivity” is breaking that bargain.

If the Waqf cannot acknowledge Judaism at Judaism’s holiest site, it should no longer be entrusted to administer it.

Related:

US Embassy In Israel Only Invites Muslims To US To Study (September 2023)

When the Covenant Changes Tense

For most of the Torah, the covenant looks backward.

God remembers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Their children inherit promises made before they were born. The land before them was promised to their fathers.

Jewish history begins with memory.

Then, near the end of the Torah, the direction reverses.

Moses gathers the people on the edge of the Land of Israel and tells them:

“Not with you alone do I make this covenant… but with those who are standing here with us today before the Lord our God, and with those who are not here with us today.” (Deuteronomy 29:13–14)

The covenant changes tense. Until now, we are bound to people who came before us. Now people who do not yet exist are bound to us.

A Jewish father blesses his son at the Kotel in Jerusalem, as he puts on tefillin for the first time (photo: FirstOneThrough)

Abraham enters a covenant whose fulfillment he will never see. Generations later, his descendants stand together and accept a covenant for generations they will never see.

Genesis says: You are here because of those who came before you.
Nitzavim says: Those who come after you are part of what you do here.

And connecting them is the land.

Almost immediately after extending the covenant to generations yet unborn, Moses foretells that the Jewish people will be scattered among the nations. Then God will gather them and “bring you to the land that your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it.” (Deuteronomy 30:5)

The land comes from the fathers.
The covenant passes to the children.
Exile comes between them.
And still the chain holds.

It is a story that cannot begin at a convenient modern date. Jews do not suddenly appear in Europe, in Israel in 1948, or Jerusalem in 1967. Nitzavim describes a people moving through time, bound backward to its ancestors and forward to its descendants, with the land running through it all.

When Did Jews Become a People?

“This day you have become a people to the Lord your God.” (Deuteronomy 27:9)

It is a strange declaration in this week’s parsha, Ki Tavo.

Why now?

God had already called the Israelites “My people” while they were slaves in Egypt. They left Egypt together and crossed the sea together.

At Sinai, they received the Torah and entered a covenant with God. There, they were called “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Exodus 19:6)

Yet forty years later, as they prepare to enter Israel, Moses declares: “This day you have become a people.”

What changed?

Ki Tavo opens with the answer:

“When you enter the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, and you possess it and settle in it…” (Deuteronomy 26:1)

Only then begins the commandment of Bikkurim, bringing the first fruits. Standing on the Land with its produce in his hands, the farmer must recount Jewish history: the descent into Egypt, suffering, liberation and finally:

Palm trees in the Jordan Valley (photo: FirstOneThrough)

“He brought us to this place and gave us this land.” (Deuteronomy 26:9)

The Exodus was not simply about leaving Egypt. It was part of a journey toward somewhere.

Egypt gave us freedom. Sinai gave us the covenant. The Land gave us responsibility.

Israel was already a people in Egypt and a covenantal community at Sinai. But entering the Land changed the nature of that covenant.

Now Jews would have land, property, businesses, courts, borders, wealth and poverty. They would no longer simply receive God’s laws. They would be responsible for effectuating them through a society of their own.

That is why Bikkurim matters. Sovereignty does not permit the successful farmer to begin his story with himself. Holding what he grew on his own land, he must recite the history that put him there.

History creates the claim. Covenant creates the obligation. Sovereignty makes both real.

That gives “this day you have become a people” particular resonance after nearly two thousand years without Jewish sovereignty.

A people is not fully defined by what happened to it, what it believes or even the laws it accepts. It is also defined by what it takes responsibility for building.

Two Sets of Books

This week’s Torah portion, Ki Teitzei, contains a commandment that sounds remarkably modern:

“Thou shalt not have in thy bag diverse weights, a great and a small. Thou shalt not have in thy house diverse measures, a great and a small.” –Deuteronomy 25:13–14

The Torah is describing an ancient marketplace. A merchant cannot keep one weight for buying and another for selling, choosing whichever benefits him.

These spool-shaped weights from Tiryns, in Bronze Age Greece, weighed about the same as their counterparts in other parts of Europe and the Middle East.

But the commandment reaches far beyond stones and scales. It is about maintaining two versions of the truth.

Today, the second weight might be a spreadsheet, a rent roll, an appraisal, a tax return or a loan application. It might be one set of books showing how a business is actually performing and another presented to the bank. It might even be one transaction reflecting what was actually paid for a property and another showing the lender a different price.

The technology changes. The commandment does not.

That message has become uncomfortable in light of recent financial fraud cases involving members of Orthodox Jewish communities. The Real Deal has documented mortgage schemes involving inflated financial statements, false rents and properties represented at different transaction prices to lenders.

But those cases are only a contemporary illustration of a problem the Torah identified thousands of years ago.

“A perfect and just weight shalt thou have; a perfect and just measure shalt thou have” – Deuteronomy 25:15

The word “perfect” matters. Judaism demands extraordinary precision. We measure the dimensions of a sukkah. We calculate when Shabbat begins and ends. We examine the letters of a Torah scroll and mezuzah. We measure matzah and wine.

The Torah demands that same precision in business.

An observant Jew cannot be meticulous about measurements in the synagogue and casual about numbers in the office. An accurate set of books is also an expression of religious observance. So is an honest closing statement. So is giving the bank the same numbers that describe the actual business.

Perhaps that is why the Torah says not merely that we should not use two different weights. It says we should not have them. Neither outside the home nor inside.

Do not create the second ledger. Do not prepare the alternate transaction. Do not keep a different measure available for when it becomes convenient.

The Torah then uses unusually strong language:

“For all that do such things, even all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.” – Deuteronomy 25:16

There is no exemption because everyone does it, because the bank can afford it, because the loan will probably be repaid or because manipulating the numbers has become customary.

Ki Teitzei offers a simple accounting principle for a complicated financial world: integrity.

The Torah does not ask whether the numbers balance. It demands that they are true.