Category: Torah portions of the Week

The High Priest's special garments are described in detail in the chapter called Tetzaveh. A fascinating ornament he wore was the interspersed golden bells and material pomegranates he wore on his hem. The Torah explains that he was to wear these so as to make a sound when he entered the Sanctuary. If he does so, he will not die. The implication being, if he fails to wear these bells that make the noise, he will die if he thus enters the Sanctuary.

That's a pretty unusual arrangement! According to the Sages, this was to avoid the jealousy of the angels, who are jealous that man has such a Sanctuary. Why do bells help?

A further question is asked by the Netziv of Volozhin: The other Kohanim (priests) entered the Sanctuary on a daily basis as well, yet they do not have bells on their hems. Why is this danger specifically for the Kohen Gadol, the High Priest?

Oznaim Latorah explains the principle that whomever is more holy or great, has a bigger evil inclination. Thus, an ordinary Kohen is not in the same danger that the High Priest is. How so? What is the danger? And how do the bells alleviate it?

I believe the danger is the most destructive of all character traits: Pride. A great person is easily tempted to become prideful, and, as King Solomon said, "Pride comes before the fall."

It is like a ladder. The higher up one goes, the less forgiving a fall becomes. From the top of the ladder, the fall can be fatal. From one step up, it's nothing. The High Priest, as the title implies, is high up on the ladder. Thus me must remember that he is on a ladder to begin with. If he keeps that in mind, he will be careful to not take chances. He will remember where he is, and act and think accordingly. God is the "Yodea Machshavot," the Knower of Thoughts.

It also reminds me of a dog's collar, where the jingling of the bells lets the master know where the animal is a any time. It symbolizes subservience, and that is exactly what is more demanded from the greater person.

So as we strive for greatness, let us remember to couple it with ever greater humility. We may be smarter, faster, richer and so forth than our neighbors, but we are no more important than them. Let us never forget that. Each soul is created in the image of God and is holy. A person's holiness cannot be measured, thus it must not be treated with disrespect.

At the beginning of the section of "Pekudei" in Exodus, there is a precise accounting of the materials donated for the Tabernacle. Such an amount of gold was used for this, and so much silver was used for that, etc... Moses made this accounting so he shouldn't be a headline in the newspaper. He did not want the slightest doubt to his honesty, and made sure that the accounting was very public and very accurate.

Which is what the people demanded. And yet, by contrast, they demanded no such accounting for all the gold and silver that they had given for the Golden Calf!!! On the surface, this is an indictment! It seems they were more generous for that tragic sin than for the Holy Sanctuary! How can this be?

The answer lies in two Hebrew terms used for the creative work in the sanctuary: avodah and melacha. The former means "labor". The latter means "artistic labor". What is the difference?

My teacher, Rav Ahron Soloveichik, explains it as follows. Avodah-Labor is fulfilling the technical requirements of a job, in a manner where the work is mechanical and extraneous to the personality of the doer. Melacha-Artistic Labor is where the doer invests their personality, their soul into the work.

In practical business terms, it is a tale of two salesmen. Both have a sheet of leads to call. The avodah laborer will call the numbers, read the sales script, and probably not sell too much. It is extraneous to him, his soul is not in it. The melacha-laborer will also call the leads, but will have an enthusiasm about him that will close many sales.

With this explanation, we now see how, indeed, the demand for accounting from Moses when the people donated to the Sanctuary, and the lack of such a demand when they donated for the Calf is a great merit. Rav Sorotzkin, in his work Oznaim Latorah, explains the difference:

The people did not really connect to the Calf with their souls. It was an extraneous act that they temporarily fell into. Thus, they really didn't care where the money went. Subconsciously, they would have been happy if the Calf never happened. But the Sanctuary was dear to them, was part of their very being. Therefore, they wanted to be absolutely certain that every penny was used for its intended purpose.

Perhaps this is why the term for idolatry is "Avodah zara," a foreign Labor, as opposed to "melacha zara."

So how about the minute? When a person prays, or performs any commandment, do they do it "to fulfill the obligation?" Are they meeting the technical requirements without thyat soul connection? The test is in the minute before. If the person pauses, gathers their concentration, recites a prayer that the commandment they are about to fulfill should find favor in God's eyes, then odds are that they connect personally to this good deed.

But if they rush in, hurry to get it over with and their mind is elsewhere, they have missed a chance to grow tremendously as a spiritual person. All it takes is a minute, and a minute, and a minute.

A gnawing question. The Canaanites were not good people. Their societies practiced serious abominations, including human sacrifice and orgiastic religious ceremonies. They were warlike and, simply, barbaric. Compared to the Israelites, Jacob and his family, they were simply evil. Jacob espoused humanity and dignity. When his sons committed acts of war against Shechem, he sternly rebuked them and the crime was not repeated.

So it is puzzling that these Canaanite nations gained Divine merit at the direct expense of the Israelites. It happened when Joseph, his brothers and an Egyptian honor guard came to Canaan in order to bury their patriarch, Jacob. The procession stopped at a place called Goren HaAtad, and there a tremendous mourning took place. According to the sages, the Canaanite kings had come out in a belligerent mood, intending to destroy the rerurnin Israelites,

But when they saw the intensity of the mourning, they hung their crowns above Jacob's coffin. They showed him respect. According to our sages, he was respected because the famine in Egypt ceased when Jacob arrived their, and resumed when he passed away. Thus, he became revered. When the Canaanites became aware of this, they, too, showed him respect and hung the crowns.

All is fine so far. The problem starts with the aftermath of this display of respect for the Tzaddik, the righteous one. The Canaanites were granted another long period of time in the soon-to-be Holy Land, while the Israelites went back to Egypt, eventually to suffer the worst of oppression and slavery. Is that fair? So they showed some respect, but they didn't change their basic ways! Why do they get a free pass at the expense of the far-more-moral Israelites?

In a sense, this was the question that lead the prophet Jonah to run away on a ship rather than preach to the gentiles of Nineveh. Jonah knew that the Assyrians of Nineveh would threaten his kingdom in the future, so he felt it would be better for Israel if they don't receive God's message of repentance and thus merit destruction. If it's us or them, better them, thought Jonah. After all, even if they repent (from the sin of lawlessness and theft), they will still not be nearly as righteous as Israel! They will still be idolaters.

God eventually forces Jonah to fulfill the mission, and Jonah succeeds in motivating all Ninevenians to repentance, thus saving them from God's threatened destruction. Jonah is now despondent, and he places himself on the ground outside the city. God will now teach him a lesson, and answer the gnawing question.

Overnight, God causes a beautiful tree to grow, giving Jonah shade. Just as Jonah enjoys it, a worm eats its roots and the tree instantly withers and dies. Jonah is even more despondent. He wants to die. Then God gives him the core message: You had mercy on this tree that came overnight and disappeared overnight. Shall I not have mercy on such a large city as Nineveh and all the humanity and animals therein?

In the words of the Radak, a Biblical commentator, Jonah was upset because his pleasure, in the shade of the tree, was taken away. God says to Jonah that His glory is present in ALL mankind, and thus if they sin and are destroyed, God's glory is diminished.

I believe that this is the core message of what God wants in the world. He wants perfection, to be sure, but is teaching us that the way to get there is through Tikun, through fixing. We do not fix that which is already fixed, but that which is broken. That being the case, Tikun is far more important than anything else. Fixing the Ninevenians, fixing the pagan Canaanites, takes precedence over the "already fixed" Israelites. Or, one could say, by fixing the Ninevenians and Canaanites, God is preparing the tools to further fix the Israelites. After all, Assyria will chastise Israel, and the Egyptian slavery will forge them into an even holier nation.

In either case, the emphasis is on fixing. Even a small fix, which may or may not last, carries great weight with God.

The lecturer I heard suggested that the route to achieving goals runs through focusing on all the potential blocks, obstacles and problems. If, instead of simply planning to reach my goal, I plan to surmount all of the obstacles to my success, I will end up with a far better plan.

My teacher, Rav Ahron Soloveichik, stressed the importance of educating mentally handicapped children. Why, society may ask, focus on that? They won't become great scholars. Maybe all the resources should be put into elite education!

Rav Ahron gave a resounding "no". We are a chain, and a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. By strengthening the weak link, the whole chain will hold better. The Haggadah urges us to engage the "Child who cannot ask," which Rav Ahron identifies as a child with disabilities. One famous Talmudic sage would teach such a student a simple lesson 400 times! It is that important, because God's glory is in ALL humanity. Therefore, by pursuing Tikun - Fixing, we enhance God's glory and move toward the universal goals of the messianic era far more effectively.

Abraham, on the day he was to sacrifice Isaac, "Rose early in the morning." Interestingly, there is one other "early arising" in this very same Torah reading. On the day when Abraham was to expel Hagar and their son Ishmael, Abraham arose early in the morning to give her bread and water for the journey. Later on that journey, Hagar lost her way in the desert, and they ran out of water. She put young Ishmael under a bush so she should not see him die, and sat down to cry.

As she did so, an angel appeared and assured her that God had heard the child's crying "where he is," and would be with him. The angel pointed out a spring, and they were saved.

Significantly, the phrase "where he is," is interpreted to mean that, even though Ishmael would later become a violent person of bad character, he is now is an innocent and pure youth, worthy of saving. God judges people based on their current behavior, not what will become of them. (A discussion of the wayward son is beyond the scope of this post.)

Now, was Ishmael so pure at that moment? Sarah, who insisted he be expelled from their home with his mother, did so because of his character. She had seen him "mocking." The sages interpret that Hebrew word for mocking, "metzachek," to imply that Ishmael was already dabbling in idolatry, illicit sexual relations and bloodshed. Doesn't sound so pure to me!

Abraham is not thrilled to kick his son out, to be sure. Yet, according to Rashi, when he gives him just bread and water for the journey, and not any more significant gifts (jewels, money?), it is because he hates Ishmael for his misdeeds. He resents that his son has not followed in the path of God and has gone down a bad road in life. God confirms Sarah's contention that Ishmael could corrupt Isaac, and instructs Abraham to do as he is told by his wife. Apparently, when that message is internalized by Abraham, his mercy turns to bitterness towards his son.

Now, both the sending out of Ishmael and the binding of Isaac were acts that demonstrated a breaking of the bond between Abraham and his sons. In both cases, it nearly cost them their lives (Isaac, in the end, was not killed. Instead, the angel appeared and told Abraham to sacrifice a ram instead. The whole episode was to test Abraham's willingness, which he demonstrated.)

So how do we understand these two acts? What is the connection teaching us? How did things come to a state where such traumatic tests were necessary? And perhaps the biggest question for me is, how could Abraham have ever hated his son Ishmael? Abraham was the paradigm of kindness! It is so completely out of character for him to hate anyone, certainly his own child.

And that is the point. How many parents do we know who behave one way with the outside word, and another way with their family? Abraham had himself invested in Ishmael, and in Isaac as well. Those kids lived under a microscope, and Abraham, like so many fathers, could not forgive in his son what he could easily accept in others. Ishmael had to live a higher life, he could not "mock", could not be attracted to idolatry, lewdness or violence.

So I believe that, pardon the pun, it is all relative. I don't think Ishmael actually did all those terrible things in his youth, but he was tempted by them. He joked about them, talked about them. That, for Sarah, was dangerous spiritually for Isaac, who was younger and much more innocent. Talk like that could certainly corrupt, and Abraham was justified in sending them away.

But for Abraham to resent Ishmael for this, and to rise early in the morning and give him the basics and nothing more, was wrong. Abraham needed to sacrifice Ishmael, in the sense of no longer relating to him as a son, but as a stranger needing inspiration. He needed to treat him like all the people he brought close to God, who were certainly not tzadikim (righteous) before Abraham got to them. For this reason, God repeatedly refers to Ishmael as "the youth" or "the son of your maidservant", while pointedly not referring to him as Abraham's son.

For this very same reason, and to prevent the same thing from happening to Isaac, Abraham needed to sacrifice Isaac his son, in order to let Isaac the independent person live. The sages say that Isaac's ashes remained on the altar, and were used by the sages to locate the spot of the altar for the Holy Temple. What? Isaac was never sacrificed, so what ashes are they talking about?

It is a parable. The altar was the spot where the sacrifices were brought, and where Israel reconciled with God. It was the place of ultimate mercy, where God overlooks sin and sees us "where we are" at that moment. We are in the Temple, the synagogue, praying, connecting to God. We are pure ones worthy of saving. Sometimes, a parent can't see that purity, because they are too connected, and have unfair and unrealistic expectations.

Thus, when Abraham was ready to slaughter his son, that was enough. Emotionally it had taken place, and now Isaac was free to be Isaac, and Abraham was free to love and respect him "where he was." Every parent needs to be able to see their children as independent people, worthy of respect and appreciation.

I contrast two types of parents. One I saw personally. His son was a 14 year old athletic prodigy, excelling in tennis and ranked 4th in the country for his age group. His father, at practices, would sit near the court and berate his kid for every mistake he made. It was painful to see. No wonder the kid have up tennis quickly. This father needed to "bind" his son and see him "where he was," not where he wanted him to be.

The other was Rav Moshe Soloveichik. He was the father of the great Rav Joseph Soloveichik. It is told that Rav Moshe had such respect for his son that he would stand up when he entered the room (a sign of respect for a Torah scholar). Normally, it is the opposite, that the son must stand for the father. In fact, Rav Joseph was uncomfortable with his father standing for him and would try to sneak in without being noticed (some say through the window!). Rav Moshe felt that the biological bond was secondary to the basic respect for the human being, and therefore, son or not, Rav Joseph was worthy of the honor of being stood for.

May all parents be able to see their children "where they are," and love and appreciate the good in them. And may that love nurture fine character in their children, so they should live lives of harmony and holiness.

I contrast this week's reading with the portion of "Lech Lecha", where Abraham is told to leave his birthplace and go to a land that God will show him. Abraham follows, not even knowing where he is going. His faith is strong enough to tell him that if God is guiding him, his destination can be nothing but successful.

The Israelites were promised the land of Canaan. This promise was given to Abraham and repeated to each of the patriarchs. It was repeated again to Moses and the people at Mount Sinai. There was no doubt, there was no question.

There was no need for spies. With our perfect hindsight, we can say that the people should have gone as Abraham went, with faith and confidence.

Why, then, did Moses agree to send the spies? The plot thickens when we consider that Moses had an inkling that the spies would not do good. He prays that Joshua be spared "the plotting of the spies". This happens before they are sent. If he had a gut feeling that something was amiss, why did he send them anyway?

One could answer that his prayer for Joshua was not that the spies were going to speak ill of the land. It was rather that they would be jealous of Joshua, who was Moses's protege. These spies were princes in their own right, and may have felt inclined to violence against Joshua in a sort of coup. There is an echo of the story of Joseph and his brothers, who were jealous of his status in his father's eyes and wanted to kill him before they sold them into slavery.

According to that answer, Moses didn't fear the spies as far as the land goes, only as far as Joshua goes.

I think, though, there is another explanation. According to Jewish law, a judge must be completely free of influenced by litigants. A litigant who gives a gift to a judge, even if it is to judge fairly, has eliminated that judge from eligibility in his case. Judges are human beings, and even though the gift was to be objective, they can no longer be objective.

So too with the spies. They needed to be objective, not with a personal agenda. I feel they have a personal agenda, perhaps against Joshua, perhaps a need to demonstrate their own independence and leadership. Maybe they needed to go against Moses in order to state their claim to leadership. Thus, Moses prays that Joshua maintain his objectivity. There is a lot more to say in this direction, which I hope to address in a future post.

With all that, the question is stronger. Why did Moses send them if it was so risky?

I believe it was because the people were hesitant. Moses knew they were afraid of the battles ahead. And he knew that psychologically, the best way to proceed is in small steps. Therefore, the first step would be to send advance scouts. He specifically gives them military and strategic instructions, including what roads to take, what the fruits are like so they will know how much provisions they will need and so forth. They are NOT to evaluate whether or not the project is worthwhile. They are only to give logistical details.

If the people had been on the level of faith of Abraham, Moses would've never sent spies. He felt that the approach of reality was necessary here.

If Moses made such an error, what can we ever say? The best we can do is try to learn from what the Torah tells us. And what the Torah is telling us is to follow God's Word without hesitation and fear. If God is with us, we can proceed on faith. If God is not with us, no amount of reality action will help. The sequel of the spies episode is the story of the "ones who jumped the gun".

They decided, after God decreed 40 years in the desert as punishment for the spies, to go immediately into the land of Israel. Moses warns them that God will not be with them, and they have no chance of success. They go anyway, and are soundly defeated in their first military encounter.

If God is with us, we can proceed on faith. If God is not with us, no amount of reality action will help.

The Jewish people in the state of Israel is at a crisis of faith. We are being asked to follow the path of "reality" in our relations with the Palestinian Arabs, Iran and the other existential threats of our day. On the face of it, the state of Israel exists in defiance of the laws of nature and reality. If God is not with us, none of this could exist. If God is not with us, no amount of land-for-peace or other peace process concessions will make us more secure.

Our job is to bring God with us. "And it was when the Ark traveled, Moses said 'Rise up oh Lord and let Your enemies scatter before Thee...'". If God walks with us, we need do nothing more than show up. What is needed is an awakening of faith in the Jewish people, and in God's promise to Abraham, "to thee and thy seed will I give this Land".

The book of Exodus is not written in the proper order. We would expect it to follow chronological sequence, but in one extraordinary case, it is completely out of sequence. According to some commentaries, the commandment to build the Tabernacle was given as a reaction to the sin of the Golden calf. If so, the section called Terumah, which outlines all of these laws, should be written after the section of Ki Tisa, where the tragedy of the Golden Calf is retold. And yet it is written before. Why?

One explanation is that the commandment was, indeed, given before the Golden Calf sin, but Moses did not tell it to the people until afterwards. The Torah is written according to when God spoke to Moses, and not when Moses spoke to the people. By this explanation, everything is in proper sequence.

But another explanation occurs to me. If the command to build the Tabernacle was, as stated, a reaction to the sin of the Golden calf, for the Tabernacle would forever be compromised. If God gave the people the Tabernacle as an atonement and correction for the sin of the calf, the Tabernacle becomes a permanent reminder of that sin.

This is why it is not written after the story of the Golden calf. A powerful life message is delivered to us through this positioning of the chapters. By writing the section of Terumah before the Golden calf, the Torah is treating it as if this is life as it should be lived. The Tabernacle is not a compromise, is the fulfilled center of the Jewish people. True, had they not sinned it would not have been necessary to build a Tabernacle. Nonetheless, now that they sinned, THIS IS THE IDEAL WAY OF LIFE.

In other words, we are where we are, and yesterday cannot be erased. Whatever life choices we make become the completely fulfilled life. Regrets must be thrown out the door.

In a similar vein, there is a Medrash, a rabbinical commentary which embellishes this thought. When God said to Moses, "build me a sanctuary that I may dwell therein," Moses wondered how human beings could ever build such a large structure. After all, "even the heavens cannot contain" God's Glory. God responds to Moses, I am only asking you to construct a structure with 20 boards on the north, 20 boards on the south, and eight boards on the west.

The commentary continues, when God asked Moses to bring a sacrifice there, Moses wondered how humans could ever bring an adequate sacrifice? God answers that all they need to bring is the daily offering in the morning, and the daily offering of the afternoon.

The great Chofetz Chaim explains the underlying message here. God wants man do the best he can with the limitations that he has. The athlete who was injured must find a new way of life that will allow him to be the best that he can, and he must never look back. The people need to accept that the world changed when they worshiped the Golden calf, and do the most glorious thing that they can: build a beautiful Tabernacle.

So instead of looking back at our promising youth, and regretting that the dreams we had then have become impossible, we should discover what new, glorious Tabernacle we can each create in our lives. Only look forward, only find the most fulfilling new dreams to guide us in our lives.

A slave becomes so by either selling himself or being sold by the court. In all cases, it is an economic necessity that forces the sale. Once enslaved, the person has many rights, and the owner has many responsibilities. He may not maltreat his slave, and he is held responsible to fully provide for him and his family.

Without going into detail, I will allow the following Talmudic quote to suffice: He who buys a slave has acquired a master for himself.

And yet, the Torah indicates that this institution, even in the humane and relatively dignified form of the Bible, is a negative one. Where do we see this? With regard to the ear-piercing ceremony.

The what?

You see, by Biblical law, all slaves are freed at the Sabbatical year. A slave may choose to NOT go free, and remain a slave. This makes sense, after all, since Bible slavery isn't a bad deal. The only responsibilities are to work for the master, and then he has to provide food, health, everything. Some may prefer that kind of life, especially if the master is a nice guy.

So when a slave chooses to remain so, he is taken to the court and they then pierce his ear. What is the meaning of this strange ceremony? Rashi, the Midieval Bible commentator, sees a rebuke to the slave in this: "The ear which heard 'You are all slaves to Me - God' yet has chosen a human master, deserves to be pierced."

In other words, God does not want us to be slaves. He wants us to be independent, responsible human beings. We must take care of our own world.

In stronger terms, what Rashi is telling us is that we are working for the Divine Master, at his business. What is his business? Fixing the world. He doesn't want us working for anyone with a lesser mission than that.

There was a person in the Tora who is regarded as being "complete." It is none other than the patriarch Jacob. That seems an odd choice, considering how very human and, seemingly imperfect, he was. After all, he tells the most brazen lie in the entire book of Genesis when he says to his father, "I am Esau, thy firstborn."

We see him taking advantage of his brother, we see him losing his temper with his wife. We see him fighting with the angel, and we see him making the cardinal parenting error, showing favoritism to one particular son.

What's more, his life was one big torment! From the moment he had to run away from his brother, who wanted to kill him, he had troubles. He was fooled by Laban into marrying a woman he did not want, he worked for many years, always protecting himself against being taken advantage of. Later, he spent many years believing his beloved son Joseph was dead. His life ended in exile, in Egypt.

Is that the complete life of a perfect person?

Yes, it is. Judaism does not define completeness and perfection as "success." Our modern definition, which usually includes a nice house, a nice family, some good cars and a membership in the synagogue or church, does not match what Judaism teaches. Those things are all good, but they are not all.

Think about this. Jacob was in love with Rachel. He worked seven years in order to marry her. On the wedding night, Laban, the father-in-law, pulled a switch. He sent his oldest daughter, Leah, to be with Jacob in disguise. How it was that Jacob didn't recognize her, we can talk about some other time! Nonetheless, it happened, and Jacob wasn't very happy in the morning. He found out that he had married the "wrong" woman, Leah, when he really wanted Rachel! He had been tricked, and he had a right to be angry.

And he was, and even said so to his surprise wife. According to the commentaries, he criticized her having pretended to be Rachel in order to get him. But Leah was no fool. These commentaries have her respond to Jacob with a very sharp comment, "And are you Jacob and not Esau?" In other words, you live in a glass house. Don't throw stones. You deceived your father to get something no less important, his legacy and blessing.

What a powerful commentary! To me, the most astounding fact of this story is that Jacob kept Leah as his wife! He had every right to opt out. This had been a false business deal, he had been tricked. Was it reasonable to expect him to remain married to a woman he did not want? And yet, he stayed.

And a good thing he did! Leah became the mother of six of the tribes of Israel. At the end of the day, God's judgment was that this marriage was a great thing.

This is the secret of Jacob's completeness. Jacob is described as having dreamt of a "ladder planted in the earth whose top reaches to the heavens, with angels ascending and descending upon it." I believe those angels represent Jacob himself. There are times in life when he is ascending, doing good works and rising up high. There are also times when he descends, when he makes mistakes and finds himself in trouble. The thing that is crucial to Jacob, however, is that he always remains on that ladder. Jacob accepts the consequences of his actions, and when he feels himself descending the ladder, he always finds the way to turn around and go up again.

Jacob accepted that he was now married to Leah. True, he could've gotten out of it. Nonetheless, he felt that she was the corrective that God sent him. And from his acceptance, the children of Israel were born. The complete person stays on the ladder, accepts what God sends him and never gives up until he reaches that pinnacle.

In the book of Numbers, the Israelites are to be counted by tribes and family. We are given a detailed list of the exact numbers. That, by the way, is the source for the name of the book! The census was conducted by illustrious men, the leaders of their tribes. Why was all of this necessary?

The commentaries say that it was preparation for battle. The Israelites were going to enter into the land, and needed to have a proper army. They were to face two challenges: the danger of battle, and the ethical challenges of warfare. In order to meet both of these challenges, family was critical. The family background of each soldier made all the difference. How?

Firstly, we all need the "merit of our forefathers." By counting the individuals and acknowledging their family heritage, the merit of their forefathers is being stressed. Does this mean that having a righteous ancestry means that I will be OK in every case?

I don't think so. Merit of the forefathers is not the same as a monetary inheritance, for example. It's not that we get a bank account filled with money. It's more like getting a safe filled with money, that we can only access if we know the combination. If we have forgotten it, if we don't live according to the ethics of our ancestors, their merit is inaccessible to us.

So to start with, each soldier must examine their values and learn from the role models of his upbringing. Then, if his ancestors were worthy, he will gain extra reward for following in their footsteps. This may be what he needs to be protected from the dangers of battle.

The second aspect is extremely relevant, especially in today's world. It relates to war crimes. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains that the leaders of the tribes were to exclude from the Army anyone who came from a dysfunctional family background. The concern was that they would commit war crimes and atrocities. When you put someone with a violent and unstable nature in the extremes of battle, they can morally self-destruct.

The historian Richard Ambrose contrasts the way American soldiers treated the Europeans they conquered at the end of the second war, with the way the Germans did. The Germans, as we know, were brutal and barbaric. The Americans, by and large, were exceptionally civil and decent. Why?

Because they were fighting for a value, and that value was human rights and dignity. That value was freedom. The German was fighting for power and conquest, and once he had it, he allowed every base instinct to express itself in brutality. The American saw himself as a liberator, and treated the people, even the Germans, as beneficiaries of freedom. He treated them decently.

Israel has the most ethical army in the world. That is not to say that there aren't soldiers who commit crimes. Unlike any other army, Israel investigates, and prosecutes when these things happen. The codes of combat, and the basic values of the Israeli soldier, are so high that no other army in the world can compare it to them. That is why it is the height of hypocrisy for some of the world's greatest human rights violators to accuse Israel of war crimes.

They might as well revive the blood libel of the Middle Ages. These accusations are completely false, and are not coming from those who support Israel and its right to defend itself.

A Jewish army must be holy. It must let the values of their ancestors guide them and protect them, both from their enemies and from their own struggles. We are proud of the IDF.