This week’s Parasha is about the last days of Abraham Abinu. After taking care of the burial of his wife Sarah, Abraham has a critical mission: to get a wife for his son Isaac (Ytshaq). Much is at stake. Finding a woman worthy of Isaac will allow Abraham’s legacy, his covenant with HaShem, to continue for posterity. But if the wife does not accompany Isaac in Abraham’s way, everything will be lost. At that time, as today, the children’s education and Jewish continuity depended primarily on the wife. For this challenging mission, Abraham sends his most loyal servant, Eliezer. He arrives in Haran, the land where Abraham comes from, and where he still has some relatives. Eliezer begs HaShem to guide his steps. And he proposes to do a “test” to find the future wife of Isaac. Eliezer heads towards the well. And he tells himself that when he arrives, he will ask one of the young women for some water to drink. If the woman agrees and also offers water for his camels, this would be a sign that she is a suitable wife for Isaac.

The rabbis are divided in their opinion regarding this event: Some, like Maimonides, say that Eliezer showed a lack of judgment: we cannot “put God to the test” (לא תנסו). A Jews should never say, for example, “HaShem, You are Almighty, and it is within your power to determine which way the coin will fall. I am not sure whether I should buy this house. Therefore, HaShem, I am going to toss a coin so that You reveal Your will to me: if it is Your will that I buy this house, make the coin fall ‘heads’. And if it is not Your will, let it be ‘tails’. “Maimonides indicates that this seemingly impeccable reasoning was part of the rhetoric used by idolaters to “force their gods to reveal their will”, which they then manipulated at will, claiming that they were following their god’s instructions.

Other Rabbis, while agreeing in principle with Maimonides’ opinion, say that in this case, Eliezer did not try to test God but to test the character and personality of the girl. After all, Eliezer didn’t ask for an arbitrary identifying sign: he did not say, for example, “if I see a young woman wearing a dress with flowers, she will be the one HaShem wants for Isaac,” or something like that. Eliezer set out to identify “qualities” that would test the girl’s good character.

As additional support for this second opinion, we should notice what virtues Eliezer hoped to see in Isaac’s future wife. 

Eliezer looked for the virtues of Abraham Abinu.

1. When Abraham welcomes guests, he offers them less than he ultimately gives them. Abraham offered them “a piece of bread and some water.” But in the end, he feasted them on tender meat, freshly baked bread, and delicious desserts. Part of the virtue of a Tsadiq (a righteous man) “is to do more than what he promises” (the opposite of politicians!).

2. Abraham served his guests with “enthusiasm” (זריזות). One of the ways to measure our enthusiasm is to see how quickly we do things. If a child or a teenager has to get up at dawn to do a task that he does not want to do, he will surely get up very slowly, dress in slow motion, with total reluctance, etc. But if he has to get up at dawn to fly to Disneyland, he will surely do that without delay, dressed up quickly and with great enthusiasm. When Abraham received his guests, the Torah tells us that Abraham “hurried” and said to his wife: “Hurry, mix the flour and prepare the cakes.” And then Abraham “ran” to his cattle and “hurried” to prepare the meat …

1. When Eliezer saw Ribqa he asked for water. Ribqa “hurried” to the fountain and said: “Drink, my Lord.” And she said, on her own initiative: “I am going to give your camels to drink, too.”

2. “And she “hurried” and “ran” to the source of water and watered the camels until they quenched their thirst”. 

This exceptional behavior is typical of people who practice chesed, acts of kindness at the highest possible level: They do more than they are asked or expected to do. They do more than they promised to do. And when they do their good deeds, they do it with enthusiasm, passion, and selflessness.

Ribqa passed the character test, reached the bar established by Abraham Abinu, and graduated with flying colors.

Our Parasha begins by recounting that Sara passes away at the age of 127. Abraham, determined to honor his wife with the highest dignity, identifies a plot of land in the city of Hebron for her burial. The land contained a cave located in the field of Makhpela, in what today is the city of Kiryat Arba and Hebron. The land belonged to Efron, a member of the Hittites, a people who formed one of the most influential civilizations of the Middle East, whose presence extended as far as Turkey.

Abraham requests to buy the cave and the adjacent field. Efron offers to let him bury Sara free of charge. Abraham insists on formally acquiring the parcel and pays about 400 shekel of silver for the land, a high sum. In doing so, Abraham establishes a legal bond with the Land promised by God, which becomes the first documented Jewish deed of ownership in history, located precisely in Hebron.

After burying Sara, Abraham entrusts his trusted servant, Eliezer, to find an appropriate wife for his son Isaac in the region of Haran, located in the southeast of modern-day Turkey, which is where Abraham originally came from. In addition, this would prevent Isaac from assimilating by marrying a local Canaanite woman. The insistence on preserving spiritual identity and avoiding assimilation becomes, from that very moment, a central theme of the legacy of Abraham and his descendants.

Eliezer arrives in Haran and prays to God for the success of his mission. He asks God for a clear sign to recognize the woman destined for Isaac: that the young woman to whom he asks for water not only offer him a drink, but also, on her own initiative, give water to his camels. This gesture would show not only the customary hospitality but also hesed, the generosity characteristic of Abraham and his family.

At the water well, a young woman appears who fulfills exactly this behavior. Her name is Ribka (Rebecca), daughter of Betuel and granddaughter of Nahor, Abraham’s brother.

Ribka runs home to tell the news. Her brother Laban goes out to receive the visitor and hosts him. During dinner, Eliezer explains in detail his mission, the prayer he recited, the sign he requested, and how Ribka fulfills all the requirements. The family recognizes that this encounter is not random but part of divine providence. They accept the marriage proposal and authorize Ribka to leave with Eliezer.

After an emotional farewell, the delegation begins the journey back. When Isaac sees Ribka, he takes her as his wife.

Abraham remarries Keturah and has several more sons. However, to avoid inheritance conflicts, Abraham gives some of his possessions to them during his lifetime and sends them toward “the land of the east.” To Isaac he leaves all his possessions, including his settlements in the land of Israel, consolidating the spiritual and territorial continuity of the Divine Promise.

Abraham dies at the age of 175. Isaac and Ishmael reunite to bury him together in the cave of Makhpela, next to Sara.

Halloween is celebrated in the United States and many other countries around the world on the night of October 31st. People place pumpkins and candles at the entrances of their homes, and children go out to collect sweets and candies. Seemingly, there is nothing wrong with this innocent celebration. Because dressing up and receiving free candy is fun, many Jewish parents allow or even encourage their children to celebrate Halloween. That is why I decided to write about the origins of Halloween and show how its celebration is modeled after pagan rituals. It still preserves all the elements related to idolatry.

THE EXPLOITATION OF FEAR
Maimonides explains in the first chapter of Aboda Zara that the rituals of idolatry were conceived by sorcerers or pagan priests—professional demagogues—for their own benefit, by manipulating the masses and taking advantage of people’s fears and innocence. That is why pagan rituals are always associated with superstition, magic, and esoteric beliefs.

The fear of death was always the pagan priests’ favorite subject of exploitation. The deepest human vulnerability—“What happens to those who die? Where are they? Do dead people come back and affect us?”—paved the way for ordinary people to perform or submit to any rite, no matter how irrational or absurd, to protect themselves from these imaginary fears.

Halloween is no exception to this rule. In fact, it is the rule, because the word Halloween literally means “the day of all the (dead) spirits.”

THE ORIGIN OF HALLOWEEN

Halloween has its origins in Celtic culture. Celtic magicians, called “Druids,” made people believe that evil spirits and the spirits of the dead visited the world of the living on this day. According to the Druids, the dead were like Hollywood zombies—harmful and dangerous. Their spirits returned to this world with grievances, thirsty for blood and eager to take someone with them.

To appease these spirits and avoid “tragedies,” the Druids taught the people to carve pumpkins into the shape of skulls to acknowledge and welcome the dead. Candles were then lit inside the pumpkins to help the spirits find their way in the world of the living. Cats were considered essential on Halloween because, according to the Druids, these animals could sense and smell the presence of invisible hostile spirits. However, black cats were to be avoided—or even killed—because witches were believed to be reincarnated as black cats. The Druids also taught that, besides the dead, the devil himself might appear that night, arriving from hell.

THE NIGHT OF THE ZOMBIES
So, what did people have to do to save themselves from zombies, witches, and the devil? They had to bribe those evil spirits. And who disguised themselves as those terrifying figures? The Celtic priests! The Druids wore masks and costumes to look like zombies and devils. At night, they went from house to house—and that’s when their business began. They demanded a human sacrifice from the homeowners. But if a family refused to offer one of their members, the “kind” Druids would allow them to redeem the sacrifice with gifts—food or money—in England and Ireland.

In short, something had to be paid to the Celtic magicians for protection so they would not curse you or your family. And people, terrified, gave the Druids whatever they demanded.

This, in a nutshell, is the story of Halloween.

HALLOWEEN AND OUR CHILDREN

All the elements that were part of the ancient pagan Halloween are still present in today’s celebration. In the modern version, children “replace” the Druids: they dress up as dead people, witches, or devils and go door to door demanding gifts. This pagan ritual is called “trick or treat,” which means: “Either you give me a ‘treat’—a gift—or I’ll play a ‘trick’ on you, a harmful prank, a curse, or something that will hurt you.” Throwing eggs at someone’s door is a very common illustration of this idea.

As you can see from this brief description, Halloween might seem fun or innocent, but it is deeply rooted in one of the most primitive forms of idolatry: the cult of death. Halloween also reminds us how corrupt pagan leaders once used the natural fear of death to exploit innocent people.

For all these reasons, we Jews should avoid participating in Halloween—actively or passively. There is nothing holy or positive about it.

LA RÉSISTANCE

Thinking as an educator—I believe that Halloween is an excellent opportunity to teach our children about the true nature of idolatry and our duty to stay away from it. How so?

By explaining to them that idolatry, the greatest offense against God, was very common in ancient times. We Jews have opposed the falsehood of idolatry since the day our patriarch Abraham destroyed the idols of his father Terach.

However, it is often difficult to explain paganism and its abuses, because the primitive ‘aboda zara’ has almost disappeared.

Halloween is an opportunity—especially related to this week’s Parasha: Lekh Lekha—for our children to recognize the superstitions of ‘aboda zara’, understand their falsehood, and become aware of the importance of staying away from them. In doing so, we will feel even more privileged to be the descendants of our heroic patriarch Abraham Abinu.

This week’s Parasha begins with a Divine call to our patriarch Abraham, “Lekh Lekha”: Leave your land and go to the land that I will show you [Canaan, Israel]. God speaks to Abraham and invites him to leave his land and settle in a new land, Israel, where HaShem will bless him with a multitude of descendants. Very nice indeed!  But the biblical text keeps its silence at a sensitive point. “Why Abraham?” What did Abraham do to deserve God’s attention?

CHOICE OR DETERMINISM? 

For those who are familiar with the style of the Tora, the absence of an explanation as to why people do what they do is the rule rather than the exception. Similarly, the Tora only sometimes reveals why HaShem does what He does. The biblical text does not explain, for example, the reasons for many Divine precepts. Why certain animals are pure or impure, etc. similarly (and I believe this is the most dramatic example), the Tora never reveals why God created the world. I’m not sure what the reason for that is. Still, it is notorious that Biblical Hebrew does not have the word why (the word lama, for instance, indicates the purpose of the action, not the intention of the subject; and something similar happens with the term madua’). Perhaps, as I once heard, this has to do with the belief in the absolute freedom of choice (for God and man). Providing the “why” will suggest certain determinism and limitations in the process of making choices. 

Or perhaps, as Rabbi Menashe ben Israel explains, the Tora wants to leave the task of “why” to us. We, the readers, need to find the answers to the why. Every generation can contribute with their point of view on the text, discovering new levels of understanding of the Book of HaShem. This would not be possible if the “whys” were explicit.

Let’s go back to our initial question. Why did God choose Abraham?

ABRAHAM MADE THE FIRST MOVE

The first answer is the story that every Jewish child learns at a tender age. Terach, Abraham’s father, was manufacturing and selling idols. Statues of the mythological gods that represented the different forces of nature. I imagine that “idolatry” must have been a great business (like “art”) because all the seller needed to make a good profit was to convince the buyer that one idol had more powers than the other, and for that, the customer had to pay a higher price! Terach must have been a great salesman. But when Terach wanted to teach his business to his son Abraham, something unexpected happened. Instead of helping his dad, Abraham challenged him with an impeccable but disastrous-for-business logic: “How can you claim that these idols are our creators if they were made yesterday with our own hands? Why should we consider these statues as gods since they cannot see, listen or speak? Abraham’s father was furious with his son. He was not fit for that type of business. Eventually, God “called” Abraham and invited him to move to His land because of Abraham’s honesty. And Abraham accepted the invitation.

HASHEM CALLED FIRST

The second answer concerns a text we recite EVERY day in our Tefilla in the mornings. “You are HaShem, our God, You chose Abram, and You took him out from Ur Casdim, and You changed his name to Abraham, and You found that his heart was faithful to You” אשר בחרת באברם והוצאתו מאור כשדים … ומצאת את לבבו נאמן לפניך. According to this pasuq (Nechemia, 9: 7-8.) God first chooses Abraham, almost arbitrarily, and then He finds out that Abraham is His faithful servant. Ironically, although we recite this pasuq daily, this viewpoint is less known (or less popular) than the first one. According to this interpretation, HaShem sought Abraham, and He prepared him and trained him to become the patriarch of the nation of Israel through the challenges and difficulties (nissiyonot) that Abraham had to experience throughout his life.

ADOPTING A CHILD

Rabbi Hayim Sabato from Yeshiva Bircat Moshe in Maale Adumim (Israel) says something exciting. The text describing the past of Abraham Abinu (at the end of last week’s Parasha) is very short in detail. Except for one circumstantial but revealing point: Haran, the brother of Abram, dies, and his orphan son Lot becomes now part of Abraham’s family. Abraham adopted Lot as his son. This supreme act of kindness made Abraham worthy of the Divine call.

WHO ANSWERED HASHEM’S CALL?

My favorite, a fourth opinion, is the beautiful interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda Alter (1847-1905) in his Book Sefat Emet. There, he says that “HaShem did not speak exclusively to Abraham, HaShem was announcing permanently and to many people His call to leave the land of Casdim and go to Israel, for those who wanted His blessing (המאמר’ לך לך’ שנאמר מהשם יתברך לכל האנשים תמיד). But people rejected God’s call or ignored it. And the only one who “picked up the phone”, and responded affirmatively to God’s call, and the challenges that taking this call would imply, was Abraham Abinu. I love this response for many reasons. But especially for its relevance. HaShem is permanently calling us. He constantly invites to follow Him. To follow His ways. His Voice is in His Book. The call of HaShem is in His Tora. And if we want to follow the steps of Abraham Abinu, all we have to do is open the Book and listen to His Voice.

 We become God’s chosen when we answer His call.

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ-לֹהִים יְהִי מְאֹרֹת —

Rashi:

לא נבראו ביום רביעי, אלא ביום ראשון נבראו, וברביעי צִוָּה עליהם לִתְלוֹתָם בָּרָקִיעַ, ולשמש במלאכתם.וַיֹּאמֶר אֱ-לֹהִים יְהִי מְאֹרֹת —

“And God said: Let there be lights.”

[Rashi explains: The sun and the moon] were not created on the Fourth Day, but on the First Day. On the Fourth Day, God commanded that they be placed in the firmament of the heavens to fulfill their function.

In the following lines, I will analyze the events of the Fourth Day of Creation — the most misunderstood day in the entire Creation narrative. From childhood, we are taught that on the Fourth Day God “created” the sun, the moon, and the stars. However, this popular and simplistic interpretation does not align with the view of the vast majority of our Sages of Israel — including the rabbis of the Talmud, such as Ribbi Aqiba, and the classical commentators Rashi, Radak, Maimonides, and others.

To force the biblical text to mean that the sun was created on the Fourth Day would also require assuming miracles that the Torah never mentions — something that contradicts the philosophical approach of Maimonides and Radak, who maintain that God does not perform unnecessary miracles when a natural process suffices. Such a reading would lead to untenable conclusions: that the plants created on the Third Day could have existed without sunlight; that the Earth’s atmosphere, formed on the Second Day, functioned without solar energy; and that the alternation of day and night — already mentioned on the First Day — occurred without the presence of the sun or the Earth’s rotation. Above all, it would imply that a planet can exist without orbiting a star — something we now know to be impossible, since every known planet belongs to a solar system.

The process of Creation described in the Torah is gradual and systematic. It presents a sequence that, remarkably, can be understood today through the lens of modern scientific reasoning — with one essential difference: attribution. The Torah attributes it all to the Creator.

Once we understand that the sun was created on the First Day — or, more precisely, during the initial act of Creation — we must clarify what actually occurred on the Fourth Day. This is, without doubt, the most challenging part of the narrative.

In what follows, we will explore this subject in greater depth. The text is longer than usual, but I trust it will help us better understand the biblical account of Creation — and appreciate that the more we learn about our universe, the more we recognize the exquisite precision and wisdom of our Torah.

Genesis 1:14

“And God said (on the Fourth Day): Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years.”

Jewish tradition holds that the luminaries — that is, the sun and the moon (and the planets of our solar system) — were not created on the Fourth Day but on the First Day of Creation. More precisely, God created the sun, the moon, and the entire universe during the initial act of Creation (Genesis 1:1). The Fourth Day, therefore, describes the final positioning of the sun and the moon in their respective celestial orbits (reqia haShamayim).

This detail is not minor. Modern scientists emphasize that the Earth’s temperature — which allows the oceans’ water to remain in liquid form and sustain the evaporation/precipitation cycle that produces fresh water — depends on the planet’s exquisitely precise distance from the sun.

Our verse states, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens,” but the Divine command does not refer to the creation or appearance of the luminaries, but to their placement “in the firmament of the heavens,” that is, in their final, stable orbit.

This is the view of most Talmudic rabbis. According to our Sages, including Rashi (Genesis 1:14), this verse refers to the final placement of the luminaries. Rashi explicitly cites the expression teliyat ha-me’orot — “the suspension of the luminaries” — meaning their hanging or positioning, not their creation.

One detail confirms that this verse does not refer to creation: the absence of the verb bara (“create”), which the Torah uses to describe acts of creation ex nihilo. Instead, the verse uses yehi (“let there be”), a term already used for the formation of the atmosphere (Genesis 1:6), where the text referred not to creation from nothing, but to the establishment of a natural system derived from preexisting matter.

Once placed in their definitive orbits, the luminaries were assigned a broader mission. No longer would they merely mark the alternation of day and night, as before; now they would regulate other, more complex units of time — months, seasons, and years. (The seven-day week, however, remains independent of any astronomical reference and was established directly by the Creator.)

Genesis 1:15

“And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth; and it was so.”

From their new, precisely calibrated distance from the Earth — what modern science calls the “galactic habitable zone” — the sunlight would benefit future life on Earth, which depends on a very specific and narrow range of temperatures (Radak, 1:14–15).

The sun’s mission is clearly stated in this verse: leha’ir al ha’aretz — to radiate energy and warmth in just the right measure to sustain life. The Earth’s average temperature of 14°C is astonishingly stable, within a narrow range that allows oceans neither to freeze (as on Mars or Jupiter) nor to evaporate (as on Venus).

The Earth’s oceans can thus maintain liquid water, and the planet’s climate system continues to produce rain, preserving and renewing the small portion — less than 3% — of fresh water on Earth. All this is possible thanks to the precise distance established by the Creator on the Fourth Day. This “habitable zone” was essential for the emergence of life on the Fifth Day.

Genesis 1:16

“And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars.”

The moon is 400 times smaller than the sun, yet 400 times closer to Earth — a ratio that allows them to appear almost the same size from our perspective. Its gravitational pull stabilizes the Earth’s tilt and elliptical orbit, which in turn produces the seasons and ocean tides — both crucial for maintaining a stable climate and supporting life in the seas.

Genesis 1:17

“And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.”

The biblical commentators explained that leha’ir al ha’aretz — “to give light upon the earth” — should also be understood as “for the benefit of the earth.” Siftei Chakhamim (a commentary on Rashi) notes that the luminaries were positioned for the benefit of the world’s inhabitants (olam), not merely for the planet itself (eretz), which does not require such delicately balanced solar energy.

This idea aligns with the view that during the Second and Third Days, a stronger solar light — directed by the Creator — operated to form the atmosphere, separate land from water, and shape the Earth’s surface. But by the Fourth Day, once these geological processes were completed, the sun was repositioned in a new orbit designed to sustain life and directly benefit animals and human beings.

This concept was developed by the Italian commentator Seforno (1475–1550) in his explanation of Genesis 1:15: “Now [on the Fourth Day] a balanced light (or memuzag) reaches the Earth from the luminaries, in the right measure for its inhabitants.”

In summary, the text reports two actions on the Fourth Day (Genesis 1:16–17). Yet for our rabbis, these two verses describe one continuous act: (Gen. 1:16) “God made [=set in their final position] the sun and the moon,” and (Gen. 1:17) “placed them in the firmament of the heavens,” meaning He established their final orbits from which they would radiate a balanced, life-sustaining light.

Genesis 1:18

“To rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.”

Rabbi Menashe ben Israel (1604–1657) masterfully illustrated the stages of Creation with a metaphor. He wrote that the Creator is the architect, builder, and interior designer of our world. His project — Planet Earth — resembles the construction of a house:

• First, God creates the basic materials, the skeleton and walls (Genesis 1:1–2).
• Second, on the Second Day, He builds the roof and the plumbing system that ensures a constant supply of water (Genesis 1:6–7).
• Third, on the Third Day, He constructs the floor and a system of bioengineering that provides a steady source of food and oxygen: vegetation (Genesis 1:9–14).
• Fourth, on the Fourth Day, once everything is ready, He installs the electrical system — the light, heating, and air conditioning.

The house is now habitable. The structure, roof, floor, and all essential systems are in place and functioning perfectly. The table is set, awaiting the honored guest: man.

Genesis 1:19

“And there was evening and there was morning, the Fourth Day.”

And on the Fifth Day, God created life.

“…so that your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in sukkot when I brought them out of the land of Egypt. I am HaShem your God.”

Leviticus 23:42

This coming Monday night, October 6, we will begin the celebration of the festival of Sukkot, which commemorates our forty-year journey through the desert, from Egypt to the Promised Land: Israel.

The Tora clearly states that we celebrate Sukkot to remember “that God established us in sukkot” when He brought us out of Egypt.

But what were the Sukkot?

HUTS

According to Ribbi Aqiba we must understand this word, Sukkot, in its original sense: huts. Indeed, a sukkah is a hut with a roof made of branches, which does NOT protect you from the rain like a standard roof but serves just from the sun, something essential in the desert. According to this opinion, the Sukka reminds us of our journey in the desert.

There are at least two problems with this “literal” interpretation.

1. When the Tora refers to the places of residence of the Jews in the desert, it mentions “ohel”, that is, tents made of cloth, whereas huts or cabins are not mentioned. 2. The second objection is a bit sharper. Why does the Tora say that “God” established the Israelites in the huts? “Huts” must have been built by the people, not “God”…

CLOUDS OF GLORY

Ribbi Eliezer, therefore, disagrees with Ribbi Aqiba and maintains that in this verse, “sukkot” does not refer to huts. Regardless of the materials the dwellings in the desert were made of, we must remember that God protected the Jewish people during the 40 years of their journey in the desert. Ribbi Eliezer called this “invisible” Divine Protection “clouds of glory”, seven clouds with which HaShem protected the Jewish people. One on each side of the camp, one forward, one back, one up, one down, and one ahead of the camp, three days away, showing them the way, guiding them.

Crossing a desert is risky; when one crosses it, it is vital to have water and food. But food and water are not enough. A traveler faces at least four more serious challenges when crossing a desert.

1. WEATHER: The scorching heat of the day, the night’s cold, and the unpredictable and fierce winds and sandstorms. Remember what happened to the army of the Persian Emperor Cambyses in Egypt? “In the year 525 B.C.E, Cambyses sent a mighty army of 50,000 soldiers to destroy the Temple of Amun in the Siwa Oasis, Egypt. After traveling the desert for seven days, the great army reached an oasis. And after they left it, they were lost and no one ever heard from them again. The army vanished. They were, presumably, buried under a sandstorm. “A sandstorm made 50,000 very well-equipped soldiers disappear. Isn’t it fascinating that no climate event affected Jews for 40 years in the desert?

2. ATTACKS: There are bandits, thieves, and murderers in the desert. Sometimes entire villages unite to attack and loot the caravans that cross the deserts. In the case of the Jewish people, after the war with Amalek, which happened before the long journey began, there were no attacks from any other people.

3. ANIMALS: Vipers, snakes – many poisonous – and scorpions abound in the desert. They are down there, on the ground, and it is typical to accidentally step on an animal that would bite, inject its poison, and kill to defend itself.

4. DIRECTIONS: You need a guide in the desert. Someone who knows the desert terrain very well and can guide travelers. Moshe asked his father-in-law Yitro to join the Jews as their guide (vehaiyta lanu leeynaym). Yitro knew the desert very well, and he was a native of Midian (not far from Saudi Arabia),). Curiously, in our days, the Israeli army has special units of Bedouin soldiers who specialize in surveillance of the desert terrain.

UNDER THE DOME

Now we can better understand Ribbi Eliezer’s opinion. The word “cloud” in Hebrew’ anan, should not be understood as a normal “white cloud.” The word “cloud” should be understood here metaphorically (just as we use the word “cloud” today to refer to a digital storage mechanism). The number “7” is not there by chance. In my opinion, the first four clouds (two on the sides, one on the front, and one on the back) represent that God protected our people from enemy attacks. These could have been a kind of “firewalls”. The cloud above represents Divine Protection from inclement weather. The one below means that God protected us from the poisonous animals on the desert surface. And the seventh, as the Midrash explicitly says, represents that HaShem guided us with a column of light and smoke to show us the way, like a modern GPS.

Our Sages debated the two opinions and finally came out in favor of Ribbi Eliezer’s view.

In our time, we can picture the Clouds of Glory even more vividly. Without the “clouds” that protect Medinat Israel today—such as the Iron Dome anti-missile system, which continues to intercept rockets launched even from Yemen—the situation would be tragic. In Israel, Divine intervention combines with human ingenuity. And we hope that soon the Iron Beam—what I like to call the “Laser Sukkah”—will be fully operational, protecting Israel from rockets and drones, and sealing the skies just as our ancestors were sheltered under Divine protection in the desert.

When we enter the Sukka we must remember that HaShem protected our ancestors from all the dangers of the desert. And we pray that He will continue to protect Israel and the Jewish people from harm and danger. 

May HaShem continue to protect Israel from our many enemies, as He did for our ancestors in the wilderness. (sukat rachamim veshalom).

 Did Hamas and the Palestinian Authority Fall Into a Trap From Which There Is No Escape?

Urgent: Has Israel once again reasserted the legitimacy of its position through President Trump’s festive plan for a ceasefire? Did this plan trap Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, leaving them with no way out? What are the real stages of the plan? Is it good or bad for Israel? Here is an exclusive analysis for Gplanet members.

In the festive halls of Congress and the White House, Prime Minister Netanyahu managed to put forth a joint plan with the Americans that included Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. For them, it will be very difficult to escape. If they do not cooperate at all, it will be seen as a blatant act of hostility toward Israel and the United States. That, in turn, would require them to pay a heavy price. This is something Israel has not had in a long time. And who gave us this new strategic depth? President Trump.

Trump’s Belief in Peace

President Trump truly believes in peace in the Middle East, and he mobilized all Arab countries on the eve of releasing the plan. Netanyahu managed to alter the wording of the plan, so that instead of being a trap for Israel, it became a trap for Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

As we already explained this morning on our Telegram channel, the plan has turned into a “red snare” against Hamas and the PA.

In the official announcement, which partly outlines a ceasefire, Netanyahu detailed the binding conditions that Trump agreed to. These conditions now oblige Hamas.

The Binding Stages of the Plan

• Stage One: Hamas must release all hostages alive within 72 hours. This is the only immediate and unconditional demand. Everything else is contingent. If this does not happen within 72 hours, or if not all hostages are released, Hamas will bear the blame, and Trump will enforce the consequences.

• Stage Two: If Hamas agrees to the plan, it must release everyone. This would mark an “Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire in Gaza,” but only after all hostages are freed.

• Stage Three: President Trump himself will establish an international body to separate Hamas from the civilian population of Gaza. This body will consist of Arab leaders—similar to Tony Blair’s role in the past—who ultimately left Gaza impoverished and ruined. This body would supervise the demilitarization of Hamas and prevent further attacks on Israel.

• Stage Four: If this international body succeeds, Israel will finally end the war, but only after full demilitarization and disarmament of Hamas. The war will not end merely with a ceasefire and the release of hostages, but only after Hamas has been fully disarmed—a stage that may never actually arrive.

This strikes at the very core of Hamas’s central demand: to end the war without disarming. Trump will not accept that.

• Stage Five: Only after demilitarization will Israel conclude the war. Until then, Israel will continue targeted strikes and separations. If demilitarization does not take place, Netanyahu’s government will reject the plan.

Strategic Depth for Israel

In any case, Israel will remain in full security control around Gaza without time limits, and it will preserve its freedom to operate militarily. These are central conditions for Israel’s security. Hamas, of course, will never agree to dismantle its military infrastructure—meaning Hamas will never accept the plan.

• If Hamas refuses these steps, Israel will destroy it militarily, this time with full support from Trump. In such a scenario, Israel would also be able to take additional measures.

• A final clause: the Rafah crossing would be opened to allow Gazans who wish to leave, but none would be allowed to return.

• As for the Palestinian Authority, it will not become a Palestinian state. Trump himself agreed to this point, as he does not trust the Arab leadership.

• The PA will have no role in Gaza until it undergoes “genuine, authentic change,” in line with Trump’s 2020 conditions: dismantling terrorist militias, halting payments to terrorists and their families, stopping incitement, canceling hostile steps in international institutions, recognizing Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and much more. Clearly, none of this will happen.

The Trap Closes

The plan has shifted the focus from “Israeli concessions,” which are always demanded, to American presidential demands imposed on the Palestinians. Even Macron has admitted Hamas cannot implement the plan.

The plan now opens for Israel a host of new opportunities, including expanded ties with Arab countries.

The chances that Hamas will accept the harsh conditions are minimal. Even if it pretends to say “yes, but,” the plan forces Hamas into a corner at every stage. For the first time, a plan requires immediate “payment”—the release of all hostages upfront. Hamas has rejected such conditions many times before. This time, however, Trump is personally invested, and the whole world will focus on Hamas’s refusal.

Israel is now the decisive actor, watching everything Hamas does. Every terrorist who emerges will be struck immediately. Hamas has no intention of disarming or separating from its terror organizations—on the contrary. It openly declares its defiance.

Qatar

Netanyahu indeed confronted the Qatari Prime Minister over “the problem of Qatari mediation” and effectively neutralized Qatar within the process. But there is also a triangle of aid: Israeli, American, and Egyptian. To test Qatar’s hostility, consider Al Jazeera broadcasts, support for the Muslim Brotherhood, hostility toward Jews on campuses, and more. The evidence is overwhelming. Qatar is caught. From now on, an American blow against Qatar will follow.

This is a domino effect: one state after another returning to Israel’s side.

The Palestinian Authority Again

There is no chance the PA will agree to these terms—especially not recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. It will stumble over this point and collapse into Netanyahu’s hands. These conditions are already being discussed in a special White House conference and broadcast worldwide.

Both Hamas and the PA have already cried out for rescue after the plan’s publication.

Conclusion

Hamas now realizes this is a “deceptive plan,” much like the one Netanyahu and Trump imposed on Iran. If Hamas rejects or sabotages the plan, it will have to be removed from its current bases of support.

Netanyahu has also challenged Qatar directly, exposing its duplicity. Qatar’s mask has fallen, and now American measures will follow. This process represents a return of states to Israel’s orbit.

As for the PA, it will be unable to accept the terms. Recognition of Israel as the Jewish nation-state is something it will never agree to. Thus, it too is trapped.

Hamas and the PA, having cried out in distress, find themselves ensnared in Trump’s plan—unable to move forward, unable to retreat. Israel, meanwhile, holds all the cards.

Bring Them Home או Let My People Go?

לפני שנה השתתפתי בניו יורק ב־Israel Parade, המצעד השנתי הגדול למען ישראל. הסיסמה של אותה שנה הייתה מרגשת: “Bring them home” — “החזירו אותם הביתה”. התרגשתי לראות עשרות אלפי אנשים מתכנסים בסולידריות עם ישראל ועם בני הערובה הישראלים שנחטפו. צילמתי סרטונים ושיתפתי אותם עם חברים במיאמי ובבואנוס איירס.

אבל הערה של חברי היקר ליאון גרמה לי לחשוב מחדש על נאיביותי הפוליטית. ליאון שאל אותי: “למי בדיוק מופנית הקריאה הזאת? לחמאס? לקטר? למדינות ערב שמממנות ומגינות על חמאס? או בעצם לממשלת ישראל?” אז הבנתי שבלי לשים לב נפלתי למלכודת פוליטית מתוחכמת: באמירה “החזירו אותם הביתה” הלחץ מונח על ישראל, כאילו נתניהו וממשלתו הם אלה שצריכים לשחרר את החטופים.

הסיסמה הזאת אינה נועדה ללחוץ על נתניהו שיחלץ אותם במבצע צבאי. המסר הסמוי של “Bring them home” הוא אחר: “נקבל את תנאי חמאס כדי להביא אותם הביתה”. כלומר: נפסיק את המלחמה, ניכנע, נמשוך את הכוחות מהשטחים שכבשנו בעזה, נשחרר אלפי מחבלים, ניתן עוד אדמות, עוד אוכל, עוד פריבילגיות, ונשאיר את חמאס בחיים. פתאום הדרישה שאמורה להיות מופנית כלפי הרוצחים ובני בריתם הבינלאומיים — מתגלגלת לעבר ישראל!

הנטל על הקורבנות

הגישה הזאת של להאשים את הקורבן היא מעוותת. חמאס ובעלי בריתו — האירופאים, הצלב האדום, האומות המאוחדות, אונר״א וכו׳ — הם האחראים. המשקל צריך להיות מונח עליהם.

דוגמה: תארו לכם שאירופה הייתה מאיימת על הצלב האדום שתפסיק כל מימון אם לא יגיעו מיד אל בני הערובה היהודים לבדוק את מצבם ולסייע להם רפואית. אני מבטיח לכם שבאותו רגע הצלב האדום היה מתנועע מידית.

הקמפיין “Bring them home” הופך את ההיגיון המוסרי: האחריות כבר אינה מונחת על הרוצחים ובעלי בריתם — הפעילים או הפסיביים — אלא על כתפיהם של הקורבנות ושל ממשלתם. מבלי להתכוון, המשתתפים בצעדות כאלה מחזקים את הנרטיב הכוזב של חמאס: שטבח 7 באוקטובר היה תגובה “לגיטימית” להתנחלויות ולכיבוש של ישראל. “נעשה את הוויתורים שהם דורשים ויעזבו אותנו בשקט”.

מחיר בני הערובה

לפני שנים, בטיסה מבואנוס איירס לניו יורק, צפיתי בסרט Ransom בכיכובו של מל גיבסון. בנו נחטף והפושעים דרשו כסף. בצעד נגד־אינטואיטיבי, גיבסון הופיע בטלוויזיה והכריז שלא ישלם סנט אחד. להפך — הוא הציע פרס על ראשי החוטפים. הוא איים: אם תפגעו בבני, הכסף הזה ישמש לצוד אתכם.

כל דולר שהחוטפים ביקשו הפך ללחץ נגדם. המסר היה ברור: איני נותן לכם כוח, אני לוקח מכם כוח.

עם חמאס צריך לנהוג כך. אין לתגמל את החוטף בוויתורים או בהפסקות אש שמחזקות אותו. האסטרטגיה היחידה ההגיונית היא להגדיל את הלחץ הפוליטי, הצבאי והכלכלי, עד שיבינו שחטיפת בני הערובה עולה להם יותר ממה שהיא מועילה.

Let My People Go

הסיסמה הנכונה איננה Bring Them Home. הקריאה האמיתית היא זו שאמר משה רבנו לפרעה: “שַׁלַּח אֶת עַמִּי” — מופנית לפרעה, לא למשה.

יציאת מצרים הייתה הסוף השמח של אירוע טראגי: קודם הטבח של הילדים היהודים שהושלכו ליאור ואחר־כך החטיפה ההמונית של עם שלם, שנשבה בכוח ושועבד — לא רחוק מעזה. התורה איננה מסתירה את פרטי העימות ההוא בין משה לפרעה, כי היא רוצה שנלמד ממנה את האסטרטגיה שעלינו לזכור וליישם באירוע דומה.

הדיאלוג שלא עבד

בהתחלה משה נכנס לארמון עם בקשה דיפלומטית: ביקש בנימוס מפרעה לשחרר את העבדים היהודים. תגובתו הראשונה של פרעה הייתה להסלים: הוא הקשה את השעבוד. העמיס עוד עבודה, דיכא עוד יותר את העם. זו הייתה תשובתו של העריץ למילות הנימוס של משה. כצפוי, העם החל ללחוץ ולתקוף את משה.

משה חזר והראה לפרעה את כוח האל באמצעות מופתים: הפך את מטהו לנחש, הפך את מי היאור לדם והשאיר את המצרים בלי מים. בתחילה פרעה העמיד פני אדיש.

אחר־כך הגיעו מכות קשות יותר: צפרדע, כינים, ערוב, דבר. ואז הלחץ החל להשפיע.

ככל שהמכות התרבו ופגעו בכלכלה, בבריאות ובחיי היומיום של מצרים, פרעה החל לחוש את הלחץ של עמו עצמו. אז התחילו ה”משאים ומתנים”:

• “עשו את הקרבנות כאן, במצרים”, הציע פרעה. משה השיב: בלתי אפשרי.

• “לכו, אבל הנשים והילדים יישארו”. משה ענה: כולם יוצאים.

• “לכו כולכם, אבל השאירו את רכושכם”. משה שוב סירב.

משה עמד איתן. לא קיבל תנאים. הוא לא ניהל משא־ומתן, כי ידע שעם עריצים וחוטפים לא מנהלים משא־ומתן.

כל סירוב החליש את המדכא, כי המכות הלכו והתגברו. עד שהגיעה המכה האחרונה: מכת בכורות. ורק אז, כשכאב נכנס לארמון עצמו, העריץ נשבר.

הלקח ברור: המדכא מוותר רק כשהמחיר על עקשנותו הולך וגדל.

מה אנו לומדים מהאירוע הזה?

בלתי מובן לי איך עם ישראל בשנת 2025 לא פותח את התורה כדי למצוא הדרכה ודגמי פעולה במצבים דומים. אנחנו עם הספר — אבל משאירים אותו סגור. סיפור השעבוד במצרים, הטראומה הלאומית שלנו, צריך להיות הניסיון והמדריך שלנו. חמאס, כמו פרעה, איננו מבין ויתורים או טיעונים מוסריים. הוא מבין רק לחץ ותוצאות. והוא ייכנע רק כאשר יבין שהחזקת החטופים מחלישה אותו ולא מחזקת.

אם כל יום של שביים מביא לחמאס ויתורים או הישגים פוליטיים — כמו הפגנות נגד ממשלת ישראל — חמאס ימשיך להחזיק בהם. אבל אם כל יום של שביים מביא אובדן — טריטוריאלי, פוליטי או צבאי — אז, ורק אז, הם ישוחררו.

תארו לכם דוגמה מעשית: על כל יום שחמאס לא משחרר את בני הערובה היהודים, ישראל תספח רשמית קילומטר רבוע אחד מעזה ותכריז עליו כשטח ישראלי. מה יקרה? עבור חמאס, איבוד קרקע הוא התבוסה הקשה ביותר: פסיכולוגית, צבאית ודתית. המתים הם “שהידים”, ואינם נספרים כהפסד. אבל איבוד קרקע — זה מה שהם אינם יכולים לשאת. זה, ורק זה, יכריח אותם לוותר.

הלקח מההיסטוריה הקרובה

הקול שלנו חייב להיות ברור ואחיד: LET MY PEOPLE GO — שַׁלַּח אֶת עַמִּי. והוא צריך להיות מופנה לכל התומכים בחמאס, במיוחד למדינות האסלאמואירופיות כמו צרפת, אנגליה, אוסטרליה וקנדה.

אסור לנו לחזור על טעויות העבר. מאז 2009, כל הפסקת אש עם חמאס שימשה אך ורק כדי שיתחמש מחדש ויתכונן לטבח הבא. ה־7 באוקטובר היה תוצאה ישירה של אותן ויתורים והסכמים שחיזקו את החוטף.

המדיניות הנכונה היחידה שישראל חייבת להחזיק בה כיום היא ברורה: לספח שטחים מעזה ולהחזיק בהם, ולהמשיך לספח עד שבני הערובה ישוחררו. בלי ויתורים. בלי משא־ומתן דרך קטר או מצרים.

על המחבלים לשאת בתוצאות פשעיהם. רק כך הם לא יחזרו עליהם.

זה עבד עם פרעה, זה יעבוד גם עם חמאס.

One of the symbolic customs instituted by our Sages to remember the destruction of the Bet haMiqdash—particularly during moments of great joy—is the placing of ashes on the head of the groom (chatan) before the chuppa.

Talmudic Source

The Talmud in Baba Batra 60b records:

אמר רבא: בשעה שחרב בית המקדש גזרו חכמים שלא ישא אדם אשה, ולא יוליד בנים… אמרו לו: נניח ישראל בלא פריה ורביה?! אלא כך אמרו: סד אדם ביתו בסיד, ומשייר דבר מועט… עושה אדם כל צרכי סעודה ומשייר דבר מועט… עושה אדם תכשיטי אשה ומשייר דבר מועט… עושה אדם חתונה לבנו ומשייר דבר מועט. מאי היא? אמר רב פפא: אפר מקלה בראש חתן.

Translation:

Rava said: When the Bet haMiqdash was destroyed, the rabbis enacted decrees to limit joy… Among these: “A man may prepare a wedding for his son, but he must leave something out.” What is this omission? Rav Pappa said: He places ashes from the hearth on the groom’s head.

Halakhic Codification

This halacha is codified in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 560:2:

נוהגים לשום אפר מקלה בראש החתן במקום הנחת תפילין…

Translation:

It is customary to place ashes from the hearth on the groom’s head, at the spot where the tefillin are placed (i.e., the top of the forehead).

The Rema (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds:

וכן נוהגין בכל המקומות…

And this is the practice in all communities.

Details of the Practice

• The ashes used are traditionally ashes from a cooking fire (called efer mikleh), symbolizing mourning.

• They are placed specifically on the spot of the tefillin shel rosh—the holiest part of the head—indicating that even at the peak of joy, a Jew remembers the destruction of the Temple.

• Some communities recite the verse from Tehillim 137:6 at that moment:

אִם אֶשְׁכָּחֵךְ יְרוּשָׁלָ‍ִם, תִּשְׁכַּח יְמִינִי. תִּדְבַּק לְשׁוֹנִי לְחִכִּי, אִם לֹא אֶזְכְּרֵכִי…

“If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you…”

Contemporary Practice

• Many Sephardic and Ashkenazic communities still maintain this custom today.

• In modern weddings, it is often carried out right before the groom walks to the chuppa, sometimes by the rabbi or officiant.

• The act is intended to be brief, symbolic, and discreet, but deeply meaningful.