The covenant is complete: blessing and curse, prosperity and famine, exile and return. Bechukotai lays out the full drama of covenantal life and its consequences. The Torah even sounds like it is closing the book: “These are the statutes and laws and teachings that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel at Mount Sinai.”
It feels finished.
And then there is chapter 27. Vows. Valuations. Tithes. Cherem.
It feels almost out of place, like an appendix attached after the ending.
Until you realize it is answering a different question.
For twenty-six chapters, Leviticus has written the script of covenantal life. It teaches what must be done: the sacrifices to bring, the boundaries to keep, the sacred times to observe, the society to build. It is the architecture of obedience.
But a script alone does not create a performance.
A script tells you what must happen. It creates the structure. What it cannot provide is the actor.
That is chapter 27.
After all the commandments have been given, after the covenant is written, the Torah turns back to the individual and asks: what will you bring that was never required?
Will you make a vow? Will you dedicate your field? Will you sanctify what still feels like yours?
That is why the book ends with possessions. Because ownership is where devotion becomes real. Your produce, your livestock, your property, your word itself.
That question feels especially modern. Ours is a culture of minimums—minimum compliance, minimum obligation, minimum sacrifice. We measure success by how much we can retain, not by what we are willing to dedicate.
Obedience is fulfilling what is required. Devotion begins when a person chooses to give beyond the minimum, to consecrate what he could have kept, to bind himself by a word he never had to speak.
That is the final lesson of Leviticus. Holiness does not end with obedience.
Obedience follows the script. Devotion begins where the script ends.
The Torah can command obedience. Only people can choose devotion.
The menorah in the Mishkan was about the height of a person at that time. According to the rabbinic tradition in Babylonian Talmud, the menorah stood eighteen tefachim high, somewhere between four and a half and five and a half feet depending on the measure.
That is a strange choice. The Torah could have commanded a towering monument, a giant golden structure rising upward into sacred space. That is what the ancient world did. Temples were built to dwarf the worshipper. Gods were elevated into inaccessible heights, their homes designed to overwhelm and diminish those who approached. Yet when the Torah returns to the menorah in Leviticus in Parshat Emor, it commands to keep its lamps burning continually – at human scale.
The God of Israel does not seek awe; He seeks encounter. The menorah stood at eye level because holiness in Judaism is not built on distance but relationship.
Its form deepens the message. The menorah is shaped like a tree. Hammered from one piece of gold and adorned with almond blossoms, buds, and flowers, it evokes organic life, growth, and rootedness. Rashi and Nachmanides understood it as a symbol of divine wisdom and life itself. The imagery reaches backward to Eden and the Tree of Life standing at the center of creation. The menorah is that tree brought into history, planted in the center of Israel’s sacred life.
And it is more than a tree. It is time in the shape of a tree. Seven branches, seven flames, seven points of light. Like the seven days of creation, the menorah gathers into one object the architecture of existence itself. In Judaism, seven is the structure of the world. Creation unfolds in seven days. The land rests in the seventh year. Freedom resets in the seventh cycle of the jubilee. Sacred time is built in sevens, and the menorah gathers that pattern into gold.
Yet the number seven is only part of the symbolism. The structure itself carries the deeper lesson. The menorah has one central shaft, with three branches extending from one side and three from the other. Everything depends on the center. That center can be read as Shabbat itself, the seventh day that gives shape to the other six.
This is one of Judaism’s deepest interventions into human experience. Most people think of Shabbat as the end of the week, the point of collapse after six days of work. But the Torah’s vision runs in the opposite direction. Shabbat is not simply the conclusion of labor. It is the center of time. The six days are not meaningful because they arrive at rest; they are meaningful because they emerge from sanctity. The week is not six days of secular striving interrupted by a religious pause. It is six days of labor structured around a holy center.
Modern life has reversed that structure entirely. Modern man builds his life around work and treats rest as recovery. Judaism builds life around sanctity and treats work as extension. One organizes existence around productivity and squeezes meaning into the margins. The other organizes existence around holiness and allows labor to become part of that larger order. One produces burnout. The other produces orientation. The menorah, in that sense, is profoundly anti-modern. Its center is not productivity. Its center is sacred time.
The menorah’s design teaches the structure of the soul. Find the center first. Build outward second. The center is what gives coherence to everything else.
That is why the menorah stands at human height. Divine presence enters human dimensions. It stands face to face, and orients each of us to the life to lead.
When rabbis portray Israel as a moral problem instead of a Jewish inheritance
Two progressive rabbis – Sharon Brous and David Ingber – sat before a packed Jewish audience in San Diego for a taping of the podcast Being Jewish with Jonah Platt, to wrestle with a distinctly modern Jewish dilemma: how does a tradition forged in exile process the return of Jewish power?
The subject was the rabbinate and Israel, but the deeper argument was Judaism itself.
The language was familiar: fear, shame, democracy, moral crisis. The question underneath it was older than the state and older than Zionism itself. What exactly is Judaism when Jews are sovereign again – and what does that mean for diaspora Jews?
That question is increasingly dividing Jewish life.
For years the pattern has been visible in polling, synagogue life, philanthropy, and communal politics. The further left a Jew moves politically, the more likely that Jew is to become publicly critical of Israel. The less traditional the Jewish framework, the more likely that criticism expands beyond policy into discomfort with Jewish statehood itself. Orthodox Jews criticize Israeli governments all the time, often fiercely, but they rarely place Jewish national existence itself in the dock.
That difference is not merely political. It is theological. It is civilizational.
Because traditional Judaism has always answered the question of Jewish identity in integrated terms: God, Torah, peoplehood, and land. These are particular to the Jewish people. They embody one structure. Remove one and the architecture strains. Remove the land and Judaism survives, but in suspension.
Diaspora Judaism became one of history’s great civilizational achievements, but it was always an adaptation to rupture. The prayerbook points toward Jerusalem. The festivals move according to the agricultural rhythms of the Land of Israel. The fast days mourn national destruction. The closing line of the seder and of Yom Kippur pushes in one direction only: next year in Jerusalem.
That was never metaphor. It was memory preserved as architecture.
For traditional Jews, Jewish self-rule is not simply politics. It is Jewish history restored. Such belief does not make every Israeli government wise or righteous. Jews argue bitterly over borders, settlements, courts, wars, and coalitions. But beneath those arguments lies a premise that remains fixed: Jewish political agency is indispensable.
Progressive – and especially non-Orthodox – Judaism increasingly begins somewhere else.
Its center of gravity is ethical universalism. Its first question is increasingly not what preserves Jewish continuity, but what satisfies universal justice. That instinct has deep Jewish roots. The prophets placed moral obligation at the center of covenantal life. But prophets do not run borders.
States do.
States defend territory, absorb casualties, deter enemies, and make violent decisions under imperfect conditions. Sovereignty stains the hands. Once universal ethics become the supreme framework, the Jewish state itself becomes vulnerable to indictment.
That is what the Brous–Ingber exchange revealed with unusual clarity.
And it was revealing precisely because it did not end in one room.
Their first conversation exposed a tension neither side could settle. Sharon Brous spoke from the prophetic register of progressive Judaism, where Judaism is primarily moral witness, conscience, and justice. David Ingber, while sharing much of that moral vocabulary, kept returning to something older and deeper: peoplehood, continuity, solidarity, historical necessity.
The disagreement lingered.
Brous later acknowledged discomfort with how the exchange unfolded, and the conversation resumed in a second round on Jonah Platt’s podcast. That itself was revealing. One debate became two because the argument underneath it could not be resolved by clarifying policy or refining moral critique. The disagreement was structural.
And in that second conversation, the divide remained.
Brous continued pressing the prophetic burden, insisting that Jewish moral credibility depends on confronting Jewish power when it acts unjustly. Ingber continued defending something prior to critique itself: the necessity of Jewish collective power in a world that has repeatedly shown its appetite for Jewish vulnerability, especially in light of the widespread antisemitism today.
One critiques Israel primarily as a moral actor, the other defends Israel first as a historical necessity and only then wrestles with its conduct.
It is the difference between inheritance and indictment.
And this internal Jewish struggle is increasingly being exported into the wider world, where it is eagerly consumed.
This week in the United Kingdom, leading progressive rabbis warned that Israel’s political direction poses an existential threat to Judaism itself, tied to the publication of their new book. The phrase was startling.
Israel as an existential threat to Judaism.
For two thousand years, existential threats to Judaism had names: the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, the Crusades, the Inquisition, pogroms, the Holocaust, Soviet repression, the expulsions from Arab lands.
Statelessness itself was the existential condition.
Now, for growing sectors of progressive non-Orthodox Jewish leadership, the Jewish state itself is increasingly being cast as the danger.
That is more than criticism. That is inversion.
And notice who was eager to amplify it.
The Guardian, a British publication whose editorial posture toward Israel has long been sharply critical, gave the book and its thesis prominent space. That matters because internal Jewish dissent carries unique public utility in anti-Israel discourse. Criticism from outside can be dismissed as hostility. Criticism from inside acquires the authority of confession.
Progressive Jewish critique often assumes its audience shares its covenantal investment in Jewish survival. The wider world often hears something simpler: if even rabbis are indicting the Jewish state, the case against it must already be proven.
That is one of anti-Zionism’s most valuable currencies: Jewish testimony against Jewish power.
Not because Jewish dissent is illegitimate. Jewish argument is one of Judaism’s oldest arts. But once internal critique detaches from internal solidarity, it stops functioning as family argument and starts functioning as prosecutorial evidence.
The family dispute becomes public exhibit.
And this is where traditional Jewish memory diverges sharply from progressive Jewish moral instinct.
Traditional Jews remember something progressive Jewish politics often struggles to metabolize: the central danger of Jewish history was never Jewish power: It was Jewish powerlessness.
The Holocaust was not a lesson in the abuse of Jewish power. It was a lesson in the consequences of Jewish defenselessness.
Then came 1948 and Jewish agency returned.
And within years, the map of Jewish history changed. Ancient Jewish communities across Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, and Morocco collapsed into expulsion, flight, and dispossession. Hundreds of thousands found refuge in Israel.
That memory disciplines judgment. It teaches realism.
Progressive Jewish consciousness inherited a different lesson from modernity: nationalism corrupts, power must be constrained, minorities must maintain moral vigilance.
There is wisdom in that inheritance – as a modifier, not as a ruling ethos. A beleaguered minority does not have the luxury of abandoning all rights and power to satisfy the mob.
That is what Zionism answered, not abstractly but operationally.
German Jews once believed they had solved history. They were cultured, integrated, patriotic, indispensable.
History did not care.
American Jews should similarly be cautious with assumptions of permanence.
Because beneath every synagogue fight, every anguished podcast, every progressive Jewish book tour, lies the same civilizational argument: is Judaism an inheritance to preserve, or a moral vocabulary to deploy?
These have become competing theories of Jewish survival.
For two thousand years Jews prayed toward Zion because history taught them exile was fragile. Progressive Judaism increasingly asks whether Israel deserves that loyalty, while traditional Judaism believes the land is central to Judaism and disagreements are best managed internally.
Whether in public or private discussions, the policies of Israel are becoming an exhibit in the philosophical rift between progressive and traditional Judaism.
Claude Monet (1840-1926) spent his life chasing light.
He helped launch Impressionism by shifting painting away from fixed objects and toward the unstable conditions of the act of seeing itself. Through a variety of subjects – haystacks, cathedrals, train stations, coastlines – Monet returned again and again, capturing what never held still: morning light, evening shadow, fog, heat, atmosphere. The object remained. Perception changed.
And then, late in life, he turned almost entirely to water.
At Claude Monet’s House and Gardens in Giverny, France, Monet painted the pond in his garden more than 250 times, producing the vast Water Lilies series that consumed the final decades of his life. These were far more than decorative studies of flowers on water. They became his great final act, culminating in enormous panoramic canvases so large they stop functioning like ordinary paintings.
They become environments.
Stand inside the oval rooms at Musée de l’Orangerie in Paris and something unusual happens: you lose orientation.
Musée de l’Orangerie in Paris
There is no horizon line to stabilize the eye. No clear beginning or end. Water stretches outward without boundary. Sky descends into the pond as reflection. Trees fracture into color and light. Surface and depth collapse into one another.
You are no longer looking at a pond. You are inside a field of undifferentiated perception.
That is what makes the late Water Lilies so unsettling. And beautiful.
Monet strips away the architecture of the ordinary. In most painting, the world arrives in layers: foreground, middle ground, background. Here, those distinctions dissolve. What is above enters below. What is solid becomes liquid. What seems stable flickers and shifts.
The eye searches for boundaries and cannot quite find them. One is left with colors, sometimes sharp and other times diffuse, as solid and liquid vie for primacy.
And that is where the Bible begins. In tohu va-vohu.
The phrase describes a world before distinction. Existence is present, but unformed. Darkness over the deep. Water everywhere. No stable land, no horizon, no orienting line for human perception in the world before humans.
A world new and present, but unreadable.
Genesis begins in the same visual condition Monet creates: immersion in undifferentiated reality.
In the Bible, God focuses on creation through separation. Light from darkness. Waters above from waters below. Sea from dry land. Creation is manifest by distinction. Reality becomes intelligible because boundaries emerge.
This is the radical claim of Genesis: the natural world emerged from chaos, from the topsy-turvy world of tohu va-vohu. And Monet performs the reverse. He takes the natural world and loosens its boundaries, dissolving it back into its primal elements: light, water, color, reflection.
And yet it remains nature. That is the wonder of the Water Lilies.
They allow us to see the natural world as if it were returning to its chaotic first condition, before edges hardened, before boundaries settled, before the eye could fully distinguish one thing from another.
Monet, at the end of his life, took the simple beauty of his backyard garden and let humanity imagine the entire natural world at the moment of creation, before there were objects, before perception was even possible.
It was a remarkable end of a career for the gifted painter who chased light throughout his days, to conclude at the very First Day.
At the center of Achrei Mot, on Yom Kippur, two goats stand side by side. Both identical and indistinguishable. Then, a lottery is cast.
If all you wanted was forgiveness for sins, one goat would be enough. Yet the Torah insists on two.
Forgiveness is easy. Change is not.
We like to believe wrongdoing is a series of isolated acts. You did something wrong, you regret it, you fix it, you move on. Clean, contained, manageable. It is how legal systems work and how people prefer to understand themselves.
It is also incomplete.
Most failure is not a moment. It is a pattern. It accumulates, settles in, becomes familiar, then invisible.
The altar can address the act. It cannot address the drift.
Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik drew a distinction that cuts through the ritual with precision. There is kapparah, atonement, and there is taharah, purification. A person can be forgiven and still remain unchanged. The ledger is cleared, but the self is not.
The first goat is about repair. Something was broken and must be restored. There is acknowledgment, cost, and a return toward the center. Without that, nothing holds.
But even after the offering, something remains unresolved. What about the part of you that made the act possible in the first place? What about the force that will bring you back to the same place again?
The second goat answers without pretending to solve. It is not elevated nor transformed. It is taken and removed, sent beyond the camp into a space outside structure and control. The Torah does something more honest than erasure. It refuses to let that force sit at the center.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks drew the line just as sharply. The Torah distinguishes between what you did and who you are. The act can be real, heavy, even defining in its moment, and still not be allowed to define you going forward.
That distinction is fragile. Without it, people fall into two familiar traps. One is denial, the instinct to send everything away, to blame, to project, to say the problem lives somewhere else. The other is paralysis, the belief that failure is permanent, that the stain cannot be lifted, that there is no meaningful way forward.
Two goats, not one, because one would allow the situation to settle in a bad place.
The first says you are responsible. The second says you are not reducible to what you did. Hold only the first and you collapse under your past. Hold only the second and you lose accountability.
Together they force something far less comfortable.
You are forgiven, but the forces that led you there still exist.
There is no promise here that the internal engine disappears. No claim that a single day resets human nature. The ritual does not erase memory or capacity. It offers something more restrained and more demanding. The sin is acknowledged, gathered, and pushed to the margins. No longer central, no longer defining, but not imaginary either.
You walk forward without it at your core. You do not pretend it was never there.
Two goats, identical at the start, divided by fate. One ascends, one disappears, and between them stands a person who has to live with both truths at once.
You can be restored. You are still capable of returning.
In a world where scapegoats have become the rage, let us all relearn and teach the world that the just path forward requires both atonement and purification of self.
The laws in Parshat Shemini do something unusual. They take holiness out of the abstract and force it into the body. This is permitted; that is not. Eat this; reject that. The categories are exact, and they carry consequences.
Kashrut is not belief. It is execution.
It depends on classification, preparation, and one decisive act: a method of slaughter. Remove any part of that sequence and the system collapses into theory.
For centuries, it did not collapse. It moved intact into daily life, into kitchens and markets, into habits that required no defense because they were simply practiced. By the 19th century, that system was functioning inside modern Europe. Jews in Frankfurt, Vienna, and Budapest were citizens, participants, integrated—and still able to keep kosher.
The paintings of Moritz Daniel Oppenheim and Isidor Kaufmann quietly confirm that reality. They show a world where nothing needs to be argued. The system works. The meal appears. The law reaches the plate.
Oppenheim’s Friday Evening Blessing (1867)
That is the baseline: not tolerance of identity, but permission of practice.
The modern shift begins where the system is most exposed—at the knife.
Kosher meat depends on shechita, a method of slaughter that prohibits pre-stunning. Increasingly, that is where democratic states have drawn a line. Across Europe, bans or effective prohibitions have taken hold:
Belgium
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
Iceland
Switzerland
New Zealand
Others—Germany, France, Netherlands—permit it only through narrowing exemptions.
The language used is procedural. They argue that animal welfare requires stunning the animal before slaughter. It sounds neutral but it ends kashrut.
That pressure has forced a new response. Not abandonment, but adaptation. Across Europe and Israel, efforts are underway to reconcile halachic requirements with regulatory demands:
Post-cut stunning, applied immediately after the kosher slaughter
Reversible stunning technologies, designed to preserve the animal’s halachic status at the moment of the cut
Greater integration of veterinary oversight with rabbinic supervision
None of this is settled. Many rabbinic authorities resist any modification that risks invalidating the historic process. Regulators resist exceptions that fragment uniform standards. The space for compromise is narrow and technical.
But the direction is unmistakable. The debate has moved from theology to engineering.
Liberal democracies pride themselves on protecting religious freedom. Yet during ritual slaughter for kosher meat, they are testing a boundary: whether they will protect belief while constraining the mechanisms required to live it.
There is something striking about Parshat Vayikra.
Just weeks after the drama of Exodus – splitting seas, revelation at Sinai, a nation coming into being – the Torah seemingly turns inward. The focus shifts to offerings, detail, repetition, and discipline. It feels quieter, but far more demanding.
Because the Torah is no longer telling the story of a history of a people. It is shaping the inner life of a person and framing a community.
Korban: The Work of Drawing Close
The word korban comes from the Hebrew word karov, to draw close.
This is the Torah’s language for repairing distance. Every lapse in judgment, every compromise, every moment we fall short creates space between who we are and who we are meant to be. That distance accumulates. It dulls awareness. It reshapes identity over time.
Korban is the act of closing that gap through deliberate engagement.
The Offering as Mirror
The individual places hands on the offering before it is brought forward. The gesture is direct and personal.
The animal reflects the instinctive layer of the self: of impulse, appetite, anger, ego. The act forces recognition: this energy exists within me. It must be directed, refined, elevated.
The fire on the altar becomes the mechanism of transformation. What is raw is lifted. What is uncontrolled is shaped into something purposeful.
Responsibility leads to possibility.
Atonement Requires Engagement
Vayikra establishes a system built on participation. Atonement unfolds through action, awareness, and presence.
A person must recognize the failure, step toward it, and engage with it. That process creates movement. It slows the instinct to gloss over mistakes and replaces it with something more durable: change that is earned.
The Hidden Becomes Visible
As important, korbanot were not private moments.
They took place in the open, at the center of the community. A person brought an offering in full view; sometimes for something no one else knew, a failure that could have remained hidden.
That public act carries a dual force. It is a form of confession. It acknowledges that private actions shape a public self.
It also reshapes how we see each other. Everyone comes forward. The composed, the successful, the admired, all stand at the same altar. They, too, confront failure. They, too, seek repair.
The system dismantles the illusion of perfection and replaces it with something far more stable: a community built on shared imperfection and ongoing effort.
The World We Built Instead
Today, we have constructed the opposite system.
Our lives are increasingly public, yet carefully edited. Success is broadcast. Struggle is concealed. Identity becomes something managed rather than lived.
Platforms reward the appearance of control, clarity, and achievement. Failure is filtered out. Weakness is reframed or hidden entirely.
The result is a quiet distortion.
People begin to believe that others are living more complete, more resolved lives. The gap between appearance and reality widens. Struggle becomes isolating rather than connective.
In a world like this, growth becomes harder. Without visibility, there is less accountability. Without shared imperfection, there is less permission to confront what is broken.
The Measure Is Intent
The mincha, the simple grain offering, carries the same weight as more elaborate offerings.
A handful of flour stands beside an animal offering because the Torah measures sincerity. The system resists performance and centers intention, reinforcing that what matters is the internal work, not the external display.
The Real Offering
At the center of Vayikra is a simple idea: the offering is the self, refined over time.
The challenge today is not understanding that idea. It is living it in a world that encourages concealment over confrontation.
Vayikra describes a life where people engage their shortcomings directly and are willing to be seen in that effort. The question that remains is whether we can build lives that allow for that kind of honesty again.
This week’s parsha, Vayakhel, introduces one of the Torah’s most overlooked symbols: mirrors. The bronze basin used by the priests in the Mishkan was fashioned from the mirrors donated by Israelite women. Before performing sacred service, the priests had to wash there as a ritual reminder that moral authority begins with reflection.
Rashi (1040-1105) says these mirrors carried a deeper story. They were not instruments of vanity. In Egypt, when slavery crushed hope and dignity, the women used those mirrors to encourage their husbands and restore their spirit, and thereby build families that would become the nation of Israel. What appeared to be self-reflection was in fact an act of national responsibility.
Now Moses was about to reject them [mirrors] since they were made to pander to their vanity, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “Accept them; these are dearer to Me than all the other contributions, because through them the women reared those huge hosts in Egypt!” For when their husbands were tired through the crushing labor they used to bring them food and drink and induced them to eat. Then they would take the mirrors, and each gazed at herself in her mirror together with her husband, saying endearingly to him, “See, I am handsomer than you!” Thus they awakened their husbands’ affection and subsequently became the mothers of many children, – Rashi on Exodus 38:8
Egyptian copper mirror
The Torah’s insight is timeless: using a mirror as a tool for the greater good. Individuals often avoid doing so. Nations, virtually never.
Spain today offers a vivid example of what happens when a country replaces the mirror with a flattering portrait of itself.
Spain presents itself as a moral voice on the international stage, particularly when it comes to Israel. Spanish officials speak the language of humanitarian principle and international law, portraying their stance as the product of ethical clarity.
But when viewed through the mirror the Torah describes, Spain’s posture looks far less like moral leadership and far more like moral performance.
The issue is not disagreement with Israeli policy. Democracies criticize one another all the time. The issue is the enormous gap between Spain’s self-image and its conduct. Spain condemns Israel in sweeping moral terms while maintaining quiet relationships with regimes like the Islamic Republic of Iran whose human rights records make Israel’s conflicts look restrained by comparison. It speaks loudly about justice in the Middle East while applying far less scrutiny elsewhere.
The mirror reveals something uncomfortable: a country congratulating itself for moral courage while directing its harshest condemnation toward the world’s only Jewish state.
This pattern does not arise in a vacuum. Spain’s relationship with Jews carries a long and painful history, culminating in the Alhambra Decree. The ease with which moral outrage is directed toward Jews while harsher regimes escape similar condemnation raises an uncomfortable question about whether some old instincts still linger beneath the surface.
The mirrors of Vayakhel represent the opposite instinct. The women of Israel used mirrors not to flatter themselves but to build a future. Their reflection demanded responsibility, not self-congratulation. That is why those mirrors became the basin in which priests purified themselves before entering sacred service.
The Torah’s message is simple: before claiming moral authority, look honestly into the mirror.
Spain seems to have replaced the mirror with a portrait of itself as a defender of justice. But to many observers the reflection looks different: moral preening, selective outrage, and criticism of the Jewish state so disproportionate that it begins to resemble something older and much uglier.
The basin in the Mishkan stood at the entrance to sacred service. Every priest had to wash there before speaking in the name of holiness.
There are many forms of antisemitism. This review is about religious antisemitism, specifically from Christians and Muslims.
As a clear disclaimer, not all Muslims or Christians hate Jews. Or the Jewish State. But there are undeniable fundamental differences in how religions perceive each other which are sometimes caustic.
The world often describes the three great monotheistic religions together: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But lumping Jews with the other two faiths leads people to falsely put the three on the same plane. There are roughly 2.2 billion Christians and 2.0 billion Muslims today, compare to only 15 million Jews. To give the scale some perspective, if people of the three faiths were in a stadium, all the levels of half the stadium would be Christians while the other half would be Muslim, with Jews only wrapping the entrance portals for the players.
Christianity and Islam are global religions – they have brought their faith to the far corners of the world by sword and missionaries. But Judaism is more akin to a local tribal religion in Africa or South America. The faith is tied to a specific piece of land – the land of Israel. Jews do not seek to convert people or believe non-Jews are destined to eternal damnation unless they follow the same belief system.
When Muslims and Christians conquered / invaded / colonized the Americas and Africa, they believed they were helping people by spreading a faith the locals had never heard of. One cannot blame an Amazonian tribe for not believing in Jesus when they never heard of him. One cannot immediately hate the local African tribe for not believing in Mohammed when the name and faith were brand new.
But Christians and Muslims cannot say the same of Jews. Their faiths share a common history.
Jesus was a Jew who lived in the land of Israel. Mohammed was an Arab, a descendant of the same forefather Abraham who is also the forefather of Judaism.
For devout Christians and Muslims who feel that spreading their faith is integral to their belief – a form of religious supremacy – Jews are forever a stiff-necked people who refuse to join the global masses and appreciate the true prophets.
So how, when and why did the Jews become so stubborn?
In the biblical parsha of Ki Tisa, the Jewish nation was called a stiff-necked people several times – by God. When the people became worried that Moses had disappeared and made themselves a golden calf idol, God said to Moses:
“I have seen these people,” the Lord said to Moses, “and they are a stiff-necked people.” – Exodus 32:9
The Adoration of the Golden Calf by Nicolas Poussin (1594-1665)
The phrase is meant as a criticism that Jews cannot get out of their old habits and will not be able to adopt the new laws that God has set out for the nation. The phrase appears repeatedly, including:
“Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way.” – Exodus 33:3
For the Lord had said to Moses, “Tell the Israelites, ‘You are a stiff-necked people. If I were to go with you even for a moment, I might destroy you. Now take off your ornaments and I will decide what to do with you.’ – Exodus 33:5
“Lord,” he said, “if I have found favor in your eyes, then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance.” – Exodus 34:9
The last quote is from Moses to God, in which he uses the same language God invoked. But Moses argues that the trait should be and will be their salvation. He argues that they need more of God’s compassion than others because of their nature, and once they know God and learn the commandments, they will become affixed forever.
Just as the Jews were becoming a nation, God was worried about their stubborn nature, but Moses assured God that the same trait will make them a holy nation forever that deserved forgiveness and the promise of internal inheritance. That same stubborn trait has kept the Jews alive, distinct, and small, for thousands of years, an easy group to ignore or appreciate on a global scale, or a perpetual irritant for those who cannot enjoy humble faith, and demand religious superiority over this small ancient people.
Parshat Terumah introduces the Mishkan, a sanctuary built in the wilderness, precise in measurements and portable by design. It moved as the people moved. God’s presence rested among a nation without a permanent home.
For nearly two thousand years, Jewish life functioned in Mishkan mode.
Without sovereignty and without a Temple, Jewish law became the architecture that traveled. Halacha, Jewish law, created sacred space wherever Jews settled. The synagogue stood in place of the courtyard and the Shabbat table carried echoes of the altar. Study sustained covenant across continents.
Judaism survived in the diaspora because it was built to move.
But the Mishkan was never meant to be the final form. It pointed toward the Mikdash, the Temple that was ultimately built 3,000 years ago in Jerusalem, enduring and anchored in sovereignty. The Mishkan belongs to wandering. The Mikdash assumes a people settled in its land.
Exile required portability. The State of Israel reintroduces permanence.
The Old City of Jerusalem including the Jewish Temple Mount/ Al Aqsa Compound
That shift changes the demands of Jewish life. Law still shapes the individual and the community, but it now encounters public power. Covenant enters the arena of governance.
The wilderness sanctuary rose from voluntary gifts. The Temple required national structure and responsibility. Now, sovereignty requires the same. While a portable faith sustains survival, a rooted nation must translate that faith into courts, policy, defense, and public ethics.
Jewish history has moved from dispersion to statehood. Yet the deeper challenge is spiritual: whether a tradition perfected in exile can shape a society in power without losing its moral clarity.
Terumah begins with a traveling sanctuary. It gestures toward something fixed and enduring.
The journey from Mishkan to Mikdash continues in our own time.
First One Through 