parshat Chukat

When opening up their morning newspaper, why do atheists turn to the horoscope page?

The connection between this week's Haftarah reading (from the Books of the Prophets) and the Torah portion of Hukat is very clear. In both of them we read how the Emorite king, Sichon, refused to allow Israel to pass through his land on our way to the Promised Land – paving the way for Israel to defeat him in battle...

The common denominator between Moshe's anger at Israel and his hitting of the rock for its water

“Is this the Torah and this its reward?” we are tempted to say. What was Moses’ sin that it merited such punishment?

“Is this the Torah and this its reward?” we are tempted to say. What was Moses’ sin that it merited such punishment?

Our parasha, in its poetic part, describing the geopolitical situation, mentions a city called Meidva as a central city in the Moavite region of Transjordan. Surprisingly, though, in Divrei Hayamim, Meidva is described as a city of Amon, not Moav. Let us explain what might have happened.

Purity is a condition we have to fulfill so we will be able to live in the land of Israel.

G-d instructed Moshe and Aharon to speak to the boulder and extract from it water. At this point, Moshe speaks very sharply to Israel, calling them "rebels," and then strikes the boulder. Some commentators said that what Moshe did wrong (I don't like saying that Moshe "sinned") is that he spoke in anger to Israel, and others say that he hit the rock instead of speaking to it. The Maharal of Prague explains that these two things are one: Because Moshe got angry, therefore he hit the boulder instead of speaking to it. "Anger" means a lack of happiness, a lack of emuna and trust in G-d. The Maharal says that joy and faith in G-d always come together.

The retribution for this sin seems to be far too harsh, especially when we consider the decades of service, sacrifice and loyalty that Moshe previously exhibited in his relationship with the Almighty.

The commentators disagree as to which aspect of Moses’ behaviour was wrong: His anger? His act of striking the rock instead of speaking to it? The implication that it was he who was bringing water from the rock?