Dvar Torah: Shared Graves, Shared Grief

Over fifteen years ago, some Jewish activists launched an initiative they called Project Chayei Sarah. The idea was simple and uncomfortable. They wanted rabbis and rabbinical students to speak honestly with their communities, on this Shabbat, about the on-the-ground realities in the city of Hevron, in the West Bank.

The link between this week’s parashah and that project is clear. After Sarah dies, Avraham seeks a place to bury her. He ends up purchasing a cave from the Hittites, Me’arat haMachpelah. The text says: “Sarah died in Kiriath Arba, now Hevron, in the land of Canaan.” [1] At the end of the parashah, Avraham himself dies and is buried there by his sons, Yitzchak and Ishmael. This small piece of land becomes a shared family burial place, a place that binds together a deeply fractured family.

But that was then. What is the reality in Hevron now?

To answer that, we need to talk briefly about what happened in that area in the past century.

In 1929, during a period of growing tension between Jews and Arabs, sixty-nine Jews were murdered in what became known as the Hevron massacre. A few years later, the British authorities decided to remove all Jews from the city, in order, as they saw it, to prevent further massacres. After more than a thousand years of continuous Jewish presence, Hevron became a place where Jews were forbidden to live.

When Israel conquered the West Bank in the Six Day War of 1967, Jews began returning to the area, first to the settlement of Kiryat Arba, then into the centre of Hevron itself.

When I lived in Israel in 2010, I visited Hevron with a group of former Israeli soldiers called Breaking the Silence. In a city of roughly 250,000 Palestinians, there are fewer than a thousand Jews. The number is small, but the measures adopted to protect them are enormous. To defend this tiny population of settlers, the Israeli army has imposed rules that have closed the main commercial street, sealed the entrances to shops and residential buildings and forced Palestinian residents to improvise new, often humiliating ways of entering and leaving their own homes.

At the heart of the city stands the site that is so central to our parashah, the place we call Me’arat haMachpelah, known today as the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, and as the Ibrahimi Mosque. Jews and Muslims follow a very choreographed and carefully negotiated script. On some days, Jews may pray in certain sections and Muslims are excluded. On other days, Muslims pray and Jews are excluded. It is a place that should speak of shared ancestors, yet it has also become a site of terrible violence. During Purim in 1994, an American-born Israeli Jew, dressed in Israeli army uniform, opened fire with an assault rifle and killed twenty-nine people, including children as young as twelve, and wounded one hundred and twenty-five others. [2]

These were the kinds of realities the organisers of Project Chayei Sarah wanted rabbis to speak about on this Shabbat. Until now, I have never really engaged with that invitation, because I recognise how divisive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become in Jewish communities around the world. I know that in any room there will be people whose hearts, histories and politics are very different from one another.

This week, though, following a significant increase in terror brought about by far-right Israeli activists against Palestinian civilians in the West Bank, I began to feel that remaining silent on this is also a choice, and not a neutral one. For the first time, I decided to speak about it directly from the bimah.

Let me share how one Israeli journalist recently described what is happening. An article in the newspaper Yediot Acharonot reported it like this:

Once or twice a day, sometimes more, a notification buzzes in the Hilltop Youth Telegram group. The wording is always similar. “Arabs report that Jews attacked the village of Raba, in the Jenin district,” with a photo of masked men from Palestinian media outlets. The day before: “Arabs report that Jews attacked Arabs near Hevron,” or “Arabs report that Jews set fire to several vehicles in the village of Mukhmas, east of Ramallah,” with a video of burnt-out cars.

The asterisks are interesting: attacked. set fire to. The wording “Arabs report” is there to make sure the messages cannot be understood as accepting legal responsibility. It is only a report. By “Arabs”. From time to time there are messages of support for detainees, those held for questioning and then released.

This week, footage was released that stirred reactions: dozens of masked Jews torching a factory, a sheep pen and trucks in the Palestinian industrial zone at Beit Lid and in the village of Deir Sharaf. The sheer scale of the terrorist act managed to break into the news cycle. Yet, as the Hilltop Youth forums show, the attacks are a daily occurrence. They stretch from the Jenin area in the north all the way to Hevron. [3]

There was also a short video I saw on Instagram, in which Gilad Kariv, a personal friend, a Reform rabbi and a member of the Knesset, complains about Minister Itamar Ben Gvir handing out baklava in the Knesset plenary to celebrate these attacks. [4] This is an imitation of a practice we know from radical Palestinian militants, who sometimes hand out sweets to celebrate when terror attacks kill Israeli Jews. For many of us, that has always been one of the most painful and offensive images. To see a Jewish minister of internal security now mirroring that behaviour, rejoicing in Jewish violence against Palestinians, is profoundly shocking.

The dehumanisation of the other, which used to belong only to the radical margins of Israeli society and of Jewish communities in the Diaspora, is, tragically, moving closer to the centre. It is becoming, for many, the default way of thinking about how Palestinians should be treated.

I know some will ask why I'm speaking about Jewish violence when Israelis continue to face existential threats. The answer is simple: we are responsible for what is done in our name, under the auspices of our religious tradition. That responsibility doesn't diminish with the reality of threats we face, it is intensified by it.

Rabbi Waskow of blessed memory points to a curious moment in our story. After Avraham dies, the two sons he had set against each other, Yitzchak and Ishmael, come together to bury him. The Torah calls them "Avraham’s sons" only then, as if, Waskow teaches, "they became truly his sons... only by joining in their grief." It was only after mourning the father who had threatened both their lives that they could, as the prophecy says, "live face to face with each other."

Waskow then asks the question that we must ask today:

What does this weave of text and midrash have to say (…) about the lethal violence between the two families of Avraham in our own generation? (…) We might draw a lesson from the shared grief of Yitzchak and Ishmael. (…) Can Jews and Palestinians together share feelings of grief about the deaths of members of our two peoples at the hands of the other? (…) When either community mourns the deaths only of those on “its side”... the outcome is often more rage, more hatred, and more death. If we can share the grief for those dead on both “sides,” we are more likely to see each other as human beings and move toward ending the violence. [5]

Rabbi Waskow’s invitation is not a political programme. It is a spiritual practice. It begins with something deeply Jewish and deeply human and very difficult, the willingness to allow our hearts to break, not only for our own dead, but also for the dead of those who are counted as “the enemy”.

What we are witnessing is not just a political crisis; it is a spiritual sickness. The violence in Hevron and the West Bank, the celebration of it with baklava, is not just killing Palestinians; it is killing the Jewish soul. Our task, as Jews who love our tradition, is to reclaim it from those who would twist it into a weapon.

Yitzchak and Ishmael only become, in the Torah’s words, “Avraham’s sons” when they stand together at their father’s grave. They do not resolve every argument. They do not erase the past. They do not undo the harm that has been done. They simply show up, side by side, in grief.

I do not know if Jews and Palestinians will be able, any time soon, to stand together at our many graves, in Hevron, in Gaza, in the kibbutzim and in the refugee camps. I do not know when there will be leaders on both sides with the courage and imagination to make that possible.

But I do know this. If we, as Jews, cannot even allow ourselves to feel sorrow for Palestinian children, women and men killed by Jewish hands, then we are walking away from the Torah of Chayei Sarah. We are walking away from Avraham. If we are unable to weep for Israeli victims of terror without immediately hardening our hearts against Palestinians, we are walking away from Yitzchak and Ishmael as well.

It is easy to hear these stories from Hevron, from the West Bank, from the Knesset plenary, and to feel paralysed. What can we do, from Johannesburg, faced with such entrenched violence and hatred?

Perhaps the answer of Chayei Sarah is modest, but real. Avraham cannot undo what happened between his sons. Yitzchak and Ishmael cannot undo what their father did to them. Yet, at the crucial moment, they choose to act as brothers, not enemies. They choose to walk together, to carry the same body, to face the same grave.

We cannot dictate policy in Jerusalem or Ramallah. We cannot stop the attacks in the West Bank or the bombardments in Gaza. What we can decide is how we will speak, here. Will we join the dehumanising chorus, in which “Arabs” or “settlers” become faceless categories, fit only for hatred or contempt? Or will we insist on speaking of human beings, created in the image of God, whose blood is equally precious?

My hope is that this community will be a place where we can hold complexity. A place where love for Israel and horror at Jewish violence against Palestinians are not mutually exclusive. A place where solidarity with Palestinians does not require erasing Jewish fear and trauma. A place where, week after week, our Torah pulls us back from easy slogans into the hard, holy work of seeing God’s image in all the children of Avraham.

So my prayer for us, on this Shabbat, is simple and impossibly hard. That we keep our hearts open. That we grieve for all who are killed and terrorized, Jews and Palestinians alike. That we resist every attempt, from whatever side, to teach us that the other is less than human. That, in our prayers, in our words, in the way we talk about Israel and Palestine at our Shabbat tables, we choose the path of Avraham’s two sons, not perfect agreement, not naïve harmony, but the courage to stand, at least in our hearts, side by side in shared grief.

And may that be our contribution, small but real, to healing a land that both peoples love. May we be worthy descendants of Avraham, Sarah, Yitzchak and Ishmael. And may the One who makes peace in the high places teach us how to make peace, at least in our words, our prayers and our hearts, here below.

[1] Gen 23:2

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre

[3] https://www.ynet.co.il/yedioth/article/yokra14579848– translation by ChatGPT

[4] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DQ6QWQUgJMm/

[5] Second comment on this post: https://jewschool.com/project-chayei-sarah-27372

From Idol-Breaking to Harm-Naming: What It Means to Be Ivri

What does it mean to be a "Hebrew"? Our tradition's answer is as much of an ethical challenge as an ethnic label. The name first appears in this week's parashah, Lech Lecha, when our ancestor is called "Avram ha-Ivri". [1]

While in modern Hebrew Ivri just means "Hebrew," the Sages saw something far more profound. In a famous midrash [2], they link the name to the word ever, which means "side" or "margin." Why was he called ha-Ivri? Because, they explain, "the whole world was on one side (ever), and he was on the other (ever)."

To be an Ivri, then, is to be an iconoclast, a spiritual contrarian. In a world steeped in polytheism, Avraham was willing to stand alone, to go against the entire world because he saw that the usual way of doing things was profoundly wrong. He challenged the status quo for the sake of truth.

And yet, this same iconoclast, this man of great faith and courage, has a profound and repeated moral failing. Almost immediately after arriving in the Promised Land, a famine drives him and Sarah to Egypt. Fearing the Egyptians will kill him to take his beautiful wife, Avraham devises a plan: "Please say that you are my sister". [3]

Let us be clear: he risks Sarah's autonomy and safety to secure his own. She is taken to Pharaoh's palace, and only a divine plague saves her, while Avraham is "treated well on her account". [4]

This is not a singular lapse in judgment. It is a disturbing pattern. Avraham and Sarah do it again, years later, with King Avimelech in Gerar. [5] The trauma is apparently so deep that their son, Itzchak, repeats the exact same behaviour with his wife, Rivka, and the same King Avimelech. [6]

These episodes are not footnotes; they are the Torah’s deliberate choice to preserve actions that place a woman at risk, even when the intention is self-protection. The text resists hagiography. It asks us to praise faith where it shines and to face harm where it occurs. This is one of the gifts of our tradition. We do not read our ancestors as flawless. We bless their courage and hospitality, and we also name their failures. That honesty is not a modern import. It belongs to a people in covenant, who tell the truth about harm in order to repair it. It trains us to examine our own habits, our own households, our own institutions, and to ask who is being protected, who is being exposed, and whose voice has not been heard.

This specific failing of our patriarchs—their willingness to endanger their wives for their own security—is not just an ancient story. It is a story about a blindness that persists today: the failure of men to truly grasp the risks that women face.

The global evidence is stark. UN Women summarises the prevalence plainly: worldwide, about one in three women have experienced physical or sexual violence at least once in their lifetime, most often at the hands of an intimate partner. [7] In South Africa, this is a matter of life and death. According to the World Population Review, South Africa ranks as the fifth worst country in the world for femicide, with a rate of 9 women killed per 100,000 women in the population. [8]

These are not just numbers. We, as a community, are the victims, but we are also the perpetrators. Until we have the courage to stand for what is right, to be the contrarian and point to Avraham’s conduct as unacceptable, to stop instinctively believing men we like over the victims of their harassment, and to realise that our community is not immune to the same dynamics that harm women elsewhere, then we will continue to be part of the problem.

What, then, does it mean to be an Ivri—an heir to Avraham—today?

Lech Lecha teaches us that being a "Hebrew" is not just about our theological inheritance. It is an ethical challenge. If Avraham was a contrarian who challenges the world's idolatries; we must be contrarians who challenge its injustices.

This parashah calls us to cross over, to stand where risk is greatest and safety is not assumed. For the men in our community, this is a clear call to action: to cross the divide of gender and privilege. It means actively listening to the stories and experiences of women, believing them, and seeing the world not just from our own perspective of safety, but from their perspective of risk.

Avraham's journey began when he left his father’s house. Our moral journey continues when we confront our ancestors’ and leaders’ failings and commit, in our own lives, our own homes, and our own society, never to repeat them.

Shabbat Shalom!

[1] Gen. 14:13.

[2] B’reshit Rabbah 42:8.

[3] Gen. 12:13.

[4] Gen. 12:16.

[5] Gen. 20:1–16.

[6] Gen. 26:1–33.

[7] https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/progress-on-the-sustainable-development-goals-the-gender-snapshot-2025-en.pdf

[8] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/femicide-rates-by-country

 

In the Divine Image: Judaism's Foundation for Human Rights

 (A previous version of this text was published on this blog in Portuguese under the title "Bebendo na fonte judaica dos Direitos Humanos")

It was John Locke who first defined the concept of ‘human rights’, a set of fundamental protections to which all human beings are entitled. Although the Hebrew term ‘זְכוּיוֹת הָאָדָם’, z’khuyot ha-adam, is even more recent as a label for this idea, Judaism had already developed the notion of the inalienable dignity of every human being long before John Locke formulated his theory.

In the classical Jewish perspective, the creation of the human being ‘in the Divine image’, an idea developed in this week’s parashah, Bereshit, grounds the concept that every human figure is endowed with dignity and deserving of respect. Nahum Sarna writes that the likeness of man to God reveals the infinite value of a human being and affirms the inviolability of the human person.[1] The same author notes that in other cultures it was not uncommon for the king alone to be considered created ‘in the Divine image’, whereas only in the Jewish tradition is this idea universalised, making every human being a reflection of God’s image. This concept, which might have remained an interesting curiosity without practical application, receives concrete implementation already in the next parashah, Noach, when, after the Flood, God prohibits murder, stating that ‘Whoever sheds the blood of a person, by a person shall that person’s blood be shed, for in the image of God humanity was made.’[2]

This fact, on its own, would already secure the centrality of these texts in constructing a Jewish view of human rights. Indeed, in rabbinic tradition, the expression ‘בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים’, b’tselem Elohim, ‘in the Divine image’, is used to refer to concepts that would later be included within the definition of ‘human rights’.

There is, however, an additional dimension in this week’s parashah that is not captured merely by the idea of creation in God’s image. During the process of Creation, every time God brings forth a new category of living beings, the category is expanded through the expression ‘לְמִינֵהוּ’, leminehu, ‘each according to its kind’. So it is with vegetation, seed-bearing plants, fruit trees, great sea creatures, all the living beings that swarm and fill the waters, domesticated animals, creeping things and wild animals.[3] When God created adam, the first human being, however, the expression ‘each according to its kind’ was not used. Our sages understood that the absence of this phrase indicated that all humanity belongs to the same kind, even though we display different physical characteristics.

A midrash, noticing that people born in different parts of the globe have different skin colours, relates that, when creating the first human, God gathered soils of different colours from the four corners of the earth. In this way, when a person dies, the soil of that place cannot say, ‘Return to the place from which you came, since your soil does not belong here.’ ‘On the contrary,’ says this midrash. ‘The human being belongs to every place to which they go, and to there they may return.’[4] What a powerful expression of a worldview that recognises the humanity of every person and the dignity of the stranger, wherever that person may be found.

Today, however, there are not a few circles in which the idea of human rights is presented in opposition to a worldview based on biblical values, in which racism and prejudice are given religious legitimacy. May we, on this first Shabbat of the Torah reading cycle of 5786, recover Jewish religious perspectives that are deeply committed to the dignity of every human being, and commit ourselves to public policies that give expression to this value.

Shabbat Shalom,

[1] Nahum Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, p. 12.
[2] Gen. 9:6.
[3] Gen. 1:11, 21, 24–25.
[4] Yalkut Shimoni, Bereshit 1:13.

Dvar Torah: Tohu va’vohu to simchah: Creating light in a world of flux | Simchat Torah 5786

The novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."

Today, I think we are all being asked to have a first-rate heart.

If you are anything like me, your feeling today is… complicated. We are here to celebrate Simchat Torah, the moment of greatest joy in our calendar. It is a day for unbridled happiness, for dancing with the Torah, for celebrating the unending cycle of our story. And there is real joy. Today we celebrate the return of all living hostages held by Hamas for agonizing 738 days. It is a moment of light we have prayed for, a cause for genuine, heartfelt Shehecheyanu.

And yet. How can we not feel the shadow? Today is a day of memory, the second yartzeit, the second Jewish anniversary of a horror that tore a hole in our world and in our hearts. We hold the joy of return alongside the searing pain for those we lost, and the collective trauma of a nation that is not yet whole.

So, how are we supposed to feel? Are we meant to put the grief in a box and force ourselves to dance? This tension feels unbearable. The demand to simultaneously hold so much grief in our hearts and be happy is, quite often, too much.

But I want to suggest today that this feeling of living in the simultaneous realities of joy and pain is not a modern confusion to be solved, but a sacred inheritance to be embraced. It is the very essence of these holy days of Shmini Atzeret and Simchat Torah. We are not doing it wrong. We are doing it exactly as our tradition taught us.

This holiday has duality built into its DNA. The great medieval commentator, Rashi, in his note on a verse in Leviticus that talks about Sukkot and Shmini Atzeret[1], captures the bitter-sweetness of this day with a beautiful parable. He imagines God as a king who has feasted with his children for seven days. As they prepare to leave, the king says, "קָשָׁה עָלַי פְּרֵדַתְכֶם”, "Your departure is difficult for me. Please, stay with me for just one more day." Think about that image. The great party is over. The crowds are gone. There is a sadness in the departure, a feeling of an ending. But in that sadness, there is a pull for one last, intimate moment of connection. It is both an ending and a precious extension. It is joy laced with the melancholy of parting.

This duality is also written directly into our Torah service today. In a few moments, we will reach the very end of the scroll. We will read of the death of Moshe, the greatest leader and prophet we have ever known. Midrash Tanchuma on the portion V’Zot haBerachah does not soften this blow. It describes Moshe’s final moments with heartbreaking detail: a leader who dedicated his entire life to bringing his people to the promised land, only to be told he can see it, but never enter. It is a moment of profound, national grief. It is an ending steeped in tragedy.

In response, we do not sit in mourning or reflect in silence. Instead, without pausing even for a breath, we roll the Torah back to its beginning (in our case, we will stake a second scroll). From the death of Moshe, we leap to the birth of the universe. From "in the sight of all Israel," we go to "In the beginning, God created…"

Why is this movement necessary? Sefer Yetzira teaches that the end is bound up with the beginning, and the beginning with the end. It is not a straight line from sorrow to joy, but a circle. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks notes that the Torah ends with a lamed and begins with a bet, spelling lev, the heart, when we join the end with the beginning. Our tradition physically forces the moment of greatest loss to touch the moment of greatest creation. It commands us to hold both realities—endings and beginnings, grief and hope, together in one heart.

This is the spiritual work of our time. We are being asked to live in that lev.

The father of Modern Orthodoxy in the United States, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, argued that this type of tension is core to the human condition. In his famous essay, Majesty and Humility,[2] he describes how we constantly oscillate between feeling powerful, creative and in control—and feeling frail, humbled and utterly dependent. We are, he taught, both at once. Today, we feel this with every fibre of our being. The majesty of our survival, our traditions, our resilience, our people dancing in shuls around the world. And the profound humility of our vulnerability, our pain, our brokenness. We do not have to choose which one is true. Both are true.

To demand anything else is to ask for a faith that is not fit for the world we live in. A robust, living faith makes space for the mess, for the contradictions, for the tears that fall as we sing. Today, our faith asks us to pay attention to everything, to the light and to the darkness.

And so, we begin again. Creation emerges from tohu va’vohu, a swirling chaos. A beginning is an act of courage, bringing light and order out of the mess.

That is our task. We are not starting again from a place of quiet and calm. We are being asked to begin again in the middle of the tohu va’vohu of our own time. We must create our future not in denial of the chaos, but directly from it.

Which brings us to the dancing. The dancing of Simchat Torah is not an expression of simple happiness. It is a declaration of faith. It is our ultimate act of defiance. Our enemies wished to write an ending to our story on October 7th. They brought darkness and chaos. And our response? We gather. We remember our greatest loss. We acknowledge our pain. And then, we pick up our story, our Torah, we hold it close, and we dance. We dance for the hostages who are home. We dance in memory of those who can no longer dance with us. We dance to declare, to the world and to ourselves, that the Jewish story, the story of life, will not have an ending written for it by our enemies.

So today, I ask you to embrace the impossible complexity of this moment. Let your heart be big enough to hold it all. Let the joy be real. Let the grief be real. Hold them together in the lev that connects the end to the beginning. And in that unstable, uncomfortable, holy space, let us find the strength to create, to begin again, and to dance.

Chazak, Chazak, v’Nitzchazek. From strength, to strength, may we all be strengthened. Amen.

[1] Lev. 23:36.

[2] https://traditiononline.org/majesty-and-humility/

Dvar Torah: The Courage to Mend

I want you to think, for a moment, about the last two years. Not about the headlines or the politics, but about the feeling in your own body. For two years, since the terrible attacks of October 7th, many of us have been living in a state of heightened alert. Psychologists call it the ‘fight or flight’ response. It is a state of chronic stress where our nervous systems are primed for threat. We become quicker to anger, faster to defend, our words sharpened into weapons before we have even had a chance to think.

Here at Bet David, we are a diverse community. Over these two years, each one of us has held and developed different positions and opinions regarding the conflict. Our anxieties have pulled us in different directions. But the one thing most of us have shared is that feeling of stress, that readiness to fight for what we believe, to protect what we hold dear. It has been exhausting. It has created distance between friends, tension across family tables, and cracks in relationships we once thought were solid.

But now, something is shifting. I fear to be too optimistic, but it seems there is a real, tangible prospect of a lasting peace on the horizon, and with it, the air is beginning to change. The constant alarm bell in our minds is quieting just a little. And this presents us with a new, and perhaps even harder, question. The question is no longer, ‘How do we fight?’. The question is now, ‘How do we rebuild?’. Not just the physical rebuilding of shattered towns and cities in Israel and in Gaza, but the delicate, intimate rebuilding of fractured relationships right here, in our own lives.

Our ancestors, standing at the foot of Mount Sinai in this week’s parashah, knew this moment. They were standing amidst the ruins of a shattered certainty. They had just committed the ultimate betrayal with the Golden Calf. In response, Moshe, in a fury of grief and rage, smashed the first set of tablets. Those tablets, the text tells us, were “the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets.” They were a top-down, pristine revelation. But they were brittle. They could not survive their first contact with messy, flawed, complicated human reality. They shattered.

And in the aftermath of that shattering, what does God command? Does God create another Divine-only set? No. The process for the second chance is entirely different. God says to Moshe, “Pesal lekha, Carve for yourself two tablets of stone like the first.” Moshe, the human being, must hew the raw material. He has to do the difficult, physical work of preparing the vessel. Only then will God write the words.

This is the Torah’s model for repair. It is not a magical return to an unbroken, pristine past. It is a partnership. The second covenant, the second chance, is stronger and more resilient precisely because it has human effort, human struggle, and the memory of failure baked into it from the very start. It is made for the real world.

This idea, that what is repaired can be even more precious than what was never broken, is captured with breathtaking beauty by the late poet, Chana Bloch, in her poem, “The Joins,” which I have already quoted in another drashah a few weeks ago, when we read about the shattering of the tablets in the book of D’varim, Deuteronomy. The poem introduces us to the Japanese art of kintsugi, where broken pottery is mended with lacquer dusted with powdered gold. The philosophy is that the breakage and repair are part of the history of an object, not something to hide. The cracks are illuminated, turned into a source of beauty. The “scar tissue is visible history,” and it is magnificent. She writes:

What's between us

seems flexible as the webbing

between forefinger and thumb.

Seems flexible but isn’t;

what's between us

is made of clay

like any cup on the shelf.

It shatters easily. Repair

becomes the task.

We glue the wounded edges

with tentative fingers.

Scar tissue is visible history

and the cup is precious to us

because

we saved it.

In the art of kintsugi

a potter repairing a broken cup

would sprinkle the resin

with powdered gold.

Sometimes the joins

are so exquisite

they say the potter

may have broken the cup

just so he could mend it. [1]

“Repair becomes the task.” That is where we are now. For two years, our task was to endure. Now, repair becomes the task. Like Bloch’s cup, the relationships in our lives are made of clay. Many have developed cracks under the immense pressure. Some have shattered. And now, with tentative fingers, we are being asked to glue the wounded edges.

This is our challenge today. Can we become artisans of kintsugi? This is not a theoretical question. This difficult, sacred work is happening right now. I was listening recently to a Ha'aretz podcast about a powerful short documentary called The Path Forward. [2] The film showcases duos of Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel who refuse to succumb to the cycle of hatred. It features people like Maoz Inon, whose parents were murdered on October 7th, yet who immediately chose to channel his grief into building bridges with Palestinian peace activist Aziz Abu Sarah. Aziz’s own brother died of internal injuries after being released from an Israeli jail, where he had been detained for a year for stone-throwing.

These are people who have every reason to retreat into their pain, to build walls of anger. Instead, they are choosing to become artisans of repair. Their work sends a powerful message to us, right here. If they, who have suffered the ultimate loss, can reach across that immense divide to begin gluing the wounded edges, then surely, we can find the courage to do the same, each of us in our own context. Can we, like Moshe, take on the hard work of carving the stone, of initiating the difficult conversations, of reaching out across the divides that have grown between us and those to whom we were once close?

And can we find the powdered gold to sprinkle on the joins? In our tradition, that gold has many names, quite a few of them named directly in this week’s reading. They are known as the Thirteen Attributes of Divine Mercy, and you may recall them, since they were repeated multiple times during Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur: El Rachum (compassionate God), ve Chanun (gracious), Erech Apayim (slow to anger), verav chessed (abundant in kindness), veEmet (and truth), notzer chesed la-alafim (keeping kindness to the thousandth generation), nosse avon va-fesha (forgiving iniquity, transgression), ve-chata ve-nake (and cleansing sin). [3] These are not abstractions. They are a curriculum for how to mend. Compassion in tone. Patience in timing. Kindness in assumption. Truth that does not flatten people. Forgiveness that does not erase accountability. The gold is also in acknowledging the shared pain of the last two years, even with people with whom we have disagreed on fundamental aspects of what was happening.

This Shabbat, we sit in our sukkah, a structure that is, by design, fragile. The sukkah reminds us, as Chana Bloch’s poem does, that what is most sacred is often what is most breakable. But it does not leave us there. This week’s Torah reading gives us the blueprint for what comes next.

Our task is not to pretend the cracks do not exist. It is not to erase the painful history of these past two years. Our task is to find the courage of Moshe and the vision of the kintsugi artist: to see in the breaks an opportunity, to illuminate our scars with the gold of compassion, and to build a second tablet, a renewed community, stronger and more beautiful precisely because we had the courage to mend it.

Mo’adim le-simcha. May we all be blessed with the strength for the sacred work of repair.

Shabbat Shalom.

[1] https://www.versedaily.org/2015/thejoins.shtml

[2] https://open.spotify.com/episode/4dZj1h9wVYi1BZMDCVT1Yi?si=b9806fde36a543bf

[3] Ex. 34:6-7.

Hidden Face, Open Heart

This Shabbat finds us in a place of tender and complex memory. We are nestled between two solemn anniversaries of the 7th of October attacks: the secular date which has just passed, and the Jewish date which arrives on Simchat Torah, this coming Tuesday. For so many, the emotional landscape is still fragile. The trauma of that day remains close to the surface. Yet, two years later, as the slow and difficult work towards peace in Israel continues, the first hints of solace may finally be emerging.

It is into this very space of fragility and yearning that our Torah reading for Shabbat Chol haMoed Sukkot [1] speaks with uncanny power. The portion is set in the aftermath of another national trauma: the sin of the Golden Calf. The covenant is broken, the people are lost, and the relationship with God hangs by a thread. It is from this place of communal despair that Moshe cries out with a plea that echoes our own: “Oh, let me behold Your Presence!” It is a cry for reassurance, for a sign that healing is possible after the shattering.

What follows is a beautiful and complex choreography, a Divine dance at the cleft of a rock. God’s response is a lesson in how we might recover from trauma. A full, direct view of God's “face”, a reality in which the pain is erased, is not possible. Instead, God offers a protected encounter with goodness. “I will place you in a cleft of the rock,” God says, “and I will shield you with My hand... you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.” This is a model for finding solace. We cannot unsee the horrors of the past, but we can create safe spaces from which to witness glimpses of hope: the resilience of a community, the enduring strength of our people, and the courage to believe in peace even after such an immense trauma.

This brings us to the very meaning of the sukkah this year. As Rabbi Michal Shekel points out, this dialogue between Moshe and God occurs at a moment of supreme vulnerability [2]. The firmest walls are often the ones we build to protect our hearts. Sometimes, those walls isolate us. The sukkah proposes a different kind of shelter, thin yet held by presence, porous yet capable of hosting blessing.

Rabbi Nina Beth Cardin, cited by Shekel, puts it beautifully, “Sukkot reminds us that ultimate security is found not within the walls of our home but in the presence of God and one another… The walls of our sukkot may make us vulnerable, but they make us available, too.” These fragile walls “help us understand that sometimes the walls we build to protect us serve instead to divide us.”

This Shabbat, let us see the sukkah as our communal cleft in the rock. It is our safe space to sit with our fragility, to honour our memories, and to be shielded as we look for signs of goodness passing by. It is where we can hold our sorrow and still allow the possibility of peace to be a balm on our aching hearts.

Mo'adim le-simcha and Shabbat Shalom.

[1] Exodus 33:12–34:26

[2] http://bit.ly/4h2bj73

Dvar Torah: Holding Safety and Spirit in Our Sukkah

Tonight we will step out of sturdy rooms into a shelter that welcomes the wind and the stars. Sukkot tells us to live, for one tender week, with a roof that lets the rain in and walls that can sway.

The Talmud asks a deceptively simple question, what does the Torah mean by “sukkot”? On Sukkah 11b we find two voices. Rabbi Eliezer teaches that the sukkot were the Ananei HaKavod, the clouds of glory that wrapped our ancestors in Divine care in the wilderness. Rabbi Akiva answers that they were sukkot mamash, real huts of wood and brush, built with human hands.

These two teachings give us a map for Sukkot. Rabbi Eliezer calls us to trust, to cultivate a spiritual life thick with awareness that we are held. Rabbi Akiva calls us to responsibility, to build structures that keep people safe, fed, warm, and seen. Spiritual well-being and physical security are not rivals. They belong together in this fragile little house.

If we listen to Rabbi Eliezer alone, we might drift into a faith so airy that it forgets bodies. We could speak beautifully about God’s presence and ignore the person shivering in the night. If we listen only to Rabbi Akiva, we might build perfect huts and lose the reason we built them. We could win every battle for survival and forget what survival is for.

Sukkot teaches the choreography between the two. The roof must be porous enough to see the heavens, yet thick enough to cast shade. We do not sleep entirely exposed, and we do not close ourselves off completely. The mitzvah itself encodes the balance.

So what is this week asking of us, here and now? First, to say clearly that the mere physical survival of the Jewish people is not enough. Our tradition calls us to sanctify life with justice, compassion, humility, and joy. A people that survives without practising its values has missed its own destination. The clouds of glory are not nostalgia. They are a demand that our communities become canopies of care, places where the lonely are welcomed, the anxious are comforted, and the powerful are reminded that strength is for service.

Second, to say with equal clarity that values cannot be lived when existence is under threat. Rabbi Akiva’s huts are not optional. We need safe homes and neighbourhoods, initiatives that protect the vulnerable, and the courage to defend human dignity. We also need the communal infrastructure that allows Jewish life to thrive, practical systems of security and safeguarding, networks of hesed and mental-health support. There is no Judaism without Jewish life, and there is no Jewish life worthy of the name without Judaism.

The pactice of shaking the four species helps us practise the same truth. We bring together species that grow in different terrains and hold different textures. None is complete on its own. Together they become a blessing. Bring heart and spine, courage and tenderness, skill and prayer. Bring Rabbi Akiva’s practicality and Rabbi Eliezer’s faith. Shake them in all directions, because holiness is not confined to a single point on the compass.

When we welcome ushpizin, guests of spirit and flesh, we repeat the lesson again. Avraham enters with hospitality. Miriam enters with song. Ruth enters with loyalty. Invite them all. Then invite the neighbour you barely know, the person you have not called, the person whose story is unlike yours. Real huts become clouds of glory when their doors are open.

This week, as we sit under this woven sky, let us choose a path that holds both truths. We will work for physical safety, for all who dwell with us. We will also hold fast to a Judaism that heals, elevates, and critiques, a Judaism that remembers the stranger and refuses to trade conscience for comfort. We will build huts, and we will weave clouds.

May our sukkah steady our hands and widen our hearts. May God spread over us the sukkat shalom, the shelter of peace. And may the joy of this festival give us strength to protect life, and the wisdom to fill that life with meaning.

Chag sameach.

Between the Wound and the Healing: Reflections for Parashat Ha’azinu – Two Years After 7 October

Yehuda Amichai begins one of his most beloved poems with the line:

“A person doesn't have time in his life to have time for everything.” [1]

Many rabbis, myself included, have turned to this poem in moments of contradiction, when joy and grief collide in sacred space. Over the years, it has become a go-to text for wedding ceremonies held shortly after funerals, for baby blessings after miscarriages, for any moment when celebration and sorrow come too close to separate. But over the past two years, since that terrible day on 7 October 2023, Amichai’s words have taken on a deeper, more haunting resonance.

“A person needs to love and to hate at the same moment,

to laugh and cry with the same eyes…

to make love in war and war in love.”

The Jewish calendar doesn’t avoid contradiction, it crystallises it. On that day, Simchat Torah, as we were dancing with scrolls, singing with children, and kissing sacred words, our people were being attacked, in what would become the most brutal assault on Israeli civilians in a generation. Simchat Torah, the “Joy of Torah”, remained written on the calendar. But something inside many of us broke open. And now, two years later, we are still living in the echoes of that collision: between what should have been and what was; between joy and grief, presence and absence, comfort and terror.

This week’s parashah, Ha’azinu, comes to us in the form of poetry as well. It is Moshe’s final song, a deeply layered, often stark poem that summarises Israel’s journey with God. In last week’s column, I wrote about the emotional force of music and memory, and the Torah’s invitation to “write this song” and place it in our mouths and hearts. Ha’azinu takes up that invitation in full.

But the Torah’s poem is not just a farewell, it is a tapestry of warnings, lament, and hope. Near its close, God says:

“I deal death and give life; I wound and I will heal” (Devarim 32:39).

We have been living in that verse. We have buried and we have blessed. We have sat shivah and danced under chuppot. And we mourn, not only for Israelis murdered and soldiers fallen, not only for hostages still in captivity and families torn apart, but also for Palestinian civilians killed, for children bereaved, for communities shattered. Every human life is of infinite worth, created in the image of God. Our grief must not be reduced to a ledger, nor measured in competing sorrows.

To say this aloud is not to blur moral responsibility; it is to insist on another kind of moral clarity, that compassion is not a scarce resource, and Jewish conscience does not permit dehumanisation. We can condemn cruelty and still pray for the protection of all innocents. We can pursue security and still yearn for a future where no child goes to sleep afraid. This, too, is something the Torah’s poem models: poetry capable of holding covenantal joy and searing lament in the same breath.

And now, we return to Amichai’s poem, which ends with this image:

“He will die as figs die in autumn,

Shrivelled and full of himself and sweet,

the leaves growing dry on the ground,

the bare branches pointing to the place

where there’s time for everything.”

This week, may we give ourselves permission not to resolve the tension but to honour it. May we hold the wound and the hope together. May the songs of our lives carry the names of those we love and those we have never met. May our prayers reach toward healing: for the injured, the traumatised, the bereaved on all sides. And may we remember that our lives, like our Torah, contain both prose and poetry, and that sometimes the only way forward is through song.

Shabbat Shalom.

[1] https://shira-ovedet.kibbutz.org.il/cgi-webaxy/item?2478

Dvar Torah: What Do We Do with the Offensive Passages in the Torah?

A previous version of this text was published on this blog in Portuguese under the title "Dvar Torá: O que fazemos com as passagens ofensivas da Torá?")

You have probably heard the story of the discussion between two rabbis about which is the most important verse in the Torah [1]. One of them chooses the verse, “Love your neighbour as yourself,” whilst the other chooses a verse that speaks of the creation of human beings in the image of God. Rabbis love telling this story because it speaks of values that are dear to us and relate to the role we believe Judaism should have in our lives: empathy and the inalienable dignity of every human being, as well as speaking to Jewish pluralism.

But a liberal Jewish community, committed to fostering a critical Judaism that is truthful in its relationship with its sources and engages in dialogue with adults, must acknowledge that not all verses in the Torah value empathy or human dignity.

Some time ago, I was in a conversation with fellow Jewish educators who were expressing their discomfort at having to read a verse from the Torah whose literal meaning stood in stark contrast to the very educational values they sought to instil.

What do we do when the words of our tradition do not reflect the values we believe Judaism stands for, or even worse, when they reflect the opposite values?

This is not a question unique to our community, nor is it a recent one. Since the beginning of the rabbinic era, some 2,000 years ago, Rabbis have been expressing their discomfort with parts of the tradition and seeking strategies to deal with it in midrashim, in the Talmud, and in other commentaries.

This week's parashah, Ki Tetze, is considered to have the largest number of mitzvot in the entire Torah; according to one count, there are 72. Some of them are deeply rooted in our values, such as the concept that we must not delay the wages of our employees, as they depend on these payments [2], the obligation not to subvert the rights of the oppressed because we were oppressed in the land of Mitsrayim [3], or the duty to return a lost object we have found or to take care of it until we find its owner [4]. There are mitzvot in our parashah whose reason may not be obvious to us but which do not offend us, such as the prohibition against wearing clothes that mix wool and linen [5]. But there are also several mitzvot in this parashah that conflict with my values, and I imagine with yours as well.

There is the instruction that a defiant and rebellious son should be brought by his parents to the city elders to be stoned to death [6]. There is the law that a man who rapes an unmarried woman shall be ordered to pay a fine to her father and marry her, with no possibility of divorce [7]. And there is the law concerning a man who accuses his wife of having lied about her virginity – if her parents can prove he is lying, he is physically punished and fined; but if her parents cannot prove she was a virgin, she shall be condemned to death [8].

Many of you may not have known about these rules. They are not on the list of mitzvot that we, as rabbis, like to publicise. Perhaps you feel shocked and uncomfortable with the values they express: the apparent lack of empathy in how we approach disagreements within our families, or the absolute lack of empathy for the female perspective in rules about marital conduct. Personally, I admit that these rules leave me shocked and disturbed, to use an euphemism.

Faced with rules like these, we need strategies so that we don’t discard Judaism as a whole, so that we don’t “throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

I know of four distinct strategies – four strategies that are all grounded in Jewish tradition and have their adherents today. Many people, perhaps most of you, alternate between different strategies for different situations or throughout your lives.

The first strategy is to deny the discomfort, attributing any reservations we might have about these mitzvot to our own inability to recognise their wisdom. “If it is in the Torah, it comes from God,” its proponents claim. “If it comes from God, we can only obey without question. Or do you think that in your limited capacity, you can comprehend all of Divine logic?!” What the defenders of this strategy prefer to ignore is that Jewish tradition questions Divine decisions all the time! Abraham questioned God in the most emphatic terms when he learned of the Divine decision to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah [9]; Moses challenged God upon learning of the decision to destroy the people after the episode of the golden calf [10], and again after the episode of the 12 spies [11]. In rabbinic tradition, one of the most famous passages in the Talmud tells how God decided to intervene in a debate and how the rabbis responded: Lo Bashamayim Hi (לא בשמיים היא)—"It is not in Heaven" [12]. God’s reaction to this act of chutzpah? Pride. “My children have defeated me,” God says, like a proud parent watching their child outplay them in chess. The response that we lack the capacity to comprehend the full complexity of Divine logic may well be correct, but it has never prevented Jewish tradition from questioning and even challenging God when we have disagreements.

The second strategy is the one that the educators I met with had proposed: why don’t we just stop reading the passages we find especially problematic? Personally, I am a proponent of adapting some of our liturgical texts, of slightly modifying the wording of some prayers. But the Torah?! The verb of action that appears in the brachah for the study of Torah is la'asok (לעסוק), to be engaged in the words of Torah. The root of the verb is the same as that of essek (עסק), meaning "business". The true study of Torah is something that goes beyond the purely philosophical. It doesn’t just stay in the brain; it involves the heart, arms, and legs: we truly engage with it, body and soul. Anyone who has worked in a garden will understand the metaphor of getting soil under your fingernails—that is the measure of true Torah study. Could we achieve this result if we omitted all the passages that make us uncomfortable? Discomfort is part of this process of Jewish growth—and if we eliminate every passage that causes us discomfort, we would tremendously limit our growth in our encounter with the Torah!

A third strategy is to analyse the Torah text in its historical context. The laws establishing utterly asymmetrical marital unions might not seem so unjust because the culture of the time gave even less autonomy to women. By comparison, the text can even seem slightly more egalitarian. In many liberal circles, this is the most commonly adopted strategy. Its adherents argue that you cannot judge a text that is at least 2,500 years old by 21st-century sensibilities. Personally, my problem with this approach is that I want this text to have relevance for my life today. When I read the Torah as an academic, I have no problem placing it in dialogue with other cultures of the region. But when I, a 21st-century Jewish adult, read the Torah in a religious context, I look to the text for values and references that help me define my behaviour towards the oppressed of my time, to negotiate the relationship with my children when they are defiant, and to question my own relationship with authority. For me, the Torah isn’t merely a historical document to be read with detachment; it is a sacred text that speaks across generations, inviting and challenging me to become a better version of myself each time I read it.

How, then, do we deal with the passages whose values are not aligned with my own?

The fourth strategy—and it must be obvious by now that this is the one I most resonate with—is to treat the Torah’s mitzvot not as literal instructions, but as invitations to wrestle with the ethical issues they raise. Any good teacher knows that sometimes the best way to spark a meaningful debate is with a provocative statement. That is what the Torah often gives us. In this approach, these verses are not the lesson—they are the spark. They launch the conversation. Each community will engage with the prompt differently and arrive at conclusions that evolve over time. In this way, the Torah remains “a tree of life to those who grasp it.”

How do we navigate power imbalances in employment? What do we do when our children challenge what is most sacred to us? How do we respond to sexual violence, infidelity, or divorce when people seem to forget they once vowed to spend their lives together? Can we uphold ethics even in the most bitter of disputes—even in war?

These are among the urgent conversations this parashah invites—some would say commands—us to have. In a reality where the public debate on how to handle violent crime often veers into calls for street justice, and where the devastating statistics on gender-based violence are a constant source of pain and urgency, these discussions feel essential.

The rabbinic tradition teaches that the case of the rebellious son never happened and never will. So why was it included in the Torah? The answer: to reward those who engage with it seriously [13]. The reward is the debate.

A Judaism that is critical, contemporary, and meaningful doesn’t always offer easy answers. It often challenges us and unsettles us. But for those who engage with it fully—with heart, mind, and even under their fingernails—the reward is a faith that brings meaning and depth to every step we take, every decision we make, and every emotion we feel.

Shabbat Shalom.

[1] Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim 30b

[2] Deuteronomy 24:14-15

[3] Deuteronomy 24:17-18

[4] Deuteronomy 22:1-4

[5] Deuteronomy 22:11

[6] Deuteronomy 21:18-21

[7] Deuteronomy 22:28-29

[8] Deuteronomy 22:13-21

[9] Genesis 18:23-25

[10] Exodus 32:9-14

[11] Numbers 14:11-25

[12] Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 59b

[13] Tosefta, Sanhedrin 11:6