We can leave the communities we grew up in, choose new ones, change careers, change cities, construct an online identity and find people anywhere in the world who share our interests and convictions. The old categories into which people were born no longer have quite the hold they once did. Increasingly, identity is something we are expected to make for ourselves.

But there are parts of ourselves we didn’t make.

For Jews, that has always posed a particular question. Jewishness is an inheritance before it is a choice. We are born into a people, a history, a set of obligations and associations we had no hand in choosing.

And today, for some Jews, that inheritance has become uncomfortable. At a moment when being Jewish can mean finding yourself associated with arguments you didn’t make, events you don’t control, and a people whose very identity has become fiercely contested, it can be tempting to step away—to insist that this particular inheritance doesn’t define you.

There have always been Jews who have felt that way. What is different about our age is the expectation that we should be able to choose our identities in the first place.

Which raises a harder question:

What do we do with the parts of ourselves we never chose?

This week’s Torah portion, Nitzavim-Vayelech, begins with people standing at Sinai—and to those who are not there. Those who are not there!

That includes us.

And it has something provocative to say about what it means to inherit an identity before we’ve had the chance to decide whether we want it.

Read more

Have you ever found an old photograph and suddenly saw that what actually happened in it was not what you thought was happening at the time? The face in the background you never noticed? The expression you were too young, or too close to it, to read correctly? Somebody standing slightly apart from everyone else, and only now do you wonder why?

Nothing in the photograph changed. Your perspective did.

That gap between what we see in the moment and what we can only see looking back is this week’s territory. A war memoir written thirty years after the war it describes. A phrase from Ki Tavo that seems to contradict itself within the space of two verses — an entire generation told, in the same breath, both that they saw everything and that they still couldn’t see. And a Hebrew word that means both the mechanism a soldier lines up before firing and the direction of your own intention, which is exactly the kind of double meaning you don’t catch the first time around either.

Read more

The impulse to fix what isn’t broken is almost always disguised as generosity. We see a blank space in a loved one’s life, a decision they are dawdling over, or a potential they haven’t fully tapped, and our first instinct is to fill it. We call it encouragement, guidance, or simply looking out for them. But there is a subtle, fragile boundary between nurturing something into bloom and micromanaging it into exhaustion—a line where our well-intentioned involvement starts doing the heavy lifting that belongs to someone else.

In a culture obsessed with optimization and squeezing maximum output from every modern moment, stepping back feels almost counterintuitive. Yet, true restraint requires far more discipline than intervention. Choosing to leave a space open—to resist the urge to improve, advise, or rearrange—isn’t neglect; it is an act of deep respect for the natural timing of things. Knowing when to act is a skill, but knowing when your work is finished and it is time to simply let be is where true wisdom begins.

If this resonates, you might enjoy the latest episode of Torah in Seven, where we explore the hidden danger of over-improving the good things in our lives and what an ancient law about vineyards teaches us about the art of knowing when to stop.

Read more

For a soldier returning from war, the story hasn’t ended. Some come home traumatized, emotionally numb, and incapable of inhabiting the lives that await them.

In this week’s episode, we look at the Torah’s protections in three particular situations.

Read more

In Anton Chekhov’s story “Gooseberries,” a man finally gets the small estate he spent his whole life saving for — a house, a garden, his own gooseberry bushes. His brother comes to visit, and finds him at the table, eating the fruit he grew with his own hands, entirely satisfied.

It should be a happy scene. Instead, the brother can barely watch.

What bothers him so much?

This week’s episode considers Maimonides’s description of “the joy of his belly.”

Read more

The Hebrew word for “forget” — shachach — shares its root with shachiach, meaning common, or frequent. On the surface that seems backwards. Shouldn’t something you encounter all the time be harder to forget, not easier? But the mind doesn’t work that way. Anything filed under “normal” stops actively registering at all. It’s the strange, the singular, the once-in-a-lifetime that gets remembered. The ordinary is exactly what slips away — the word for forgetting and the word for the everyday come from the same three letters, as if the language already knew which one causes the other.

This week’s parsha cautions us to be alert to what happens once we settle into the comfortable life: the blessings become so shachiach, so constant, that its very familiarity would make us forget where these blessings come from.

Read more

If you’d like to mark a birthday, yahrzeit, anniversary, or another meaningful occasion, I’ve created a simple page explaining how episode dedications work and what they include. Your dedication will be acknowledged at the beginning of the episode by name, and will accompany a teaching heard by thousands of listeners each week.

Your episode dedication includes:

• A dedication read at the beginning of the episode

• A complimentary paid subscription to Torah in Seven for one year

• The weekly podcast script

• The companion study guide

Episode Dedication: $240

After submitting your dedication, you’ll be asked for:

• The name of the person being honored or remembered

• Whether the dedication is in honor or in memory

• The parshah you’d like to dedicate

• The wording you’d like included in the dedication

If your dedication is for a specific date or parshah, please submit it at least two weeks in advance. Dedicating an episode of Torah in Seven is a beautiful way to celebrate a special occasion or remember a loved one. Just click the link!

Dedicate an Episode

Have you ever talked to someone who really listened to you? If you have — or, maybe rather if you haven't — you know it's a rarely practiced skill. It's why people are drawn to true listeners. As human beings, we need to feel that we exist, and nothing validates that more than being truly heard by another person. How sad, then, that in the rush and noise of daily life, most people go through their days without anyone really hearing them at all.

And going unheard has an insidious way of wearing people, and relationships, down. It shows up first, and most painfully, in marriage. Most marriages don’t end because two people stopped loving each other. They end because, somewhere along the way, they stopped listening — really listening, the kind where you set down your own next sentence long enough to actually take in what the other person said. It’s a small thing at first. A conversation half-heard while scrolling. A complaint answered before it’s finished. Over years, it adds up to two people living in the same house, talking past each other, each one quietly certain the other doesn’t understand them anymore.

It’s strange how much damage a habit that small can do, and how rarely anyone names it as the actual problem. This week I’m looking at what the parsha has to say about listening — not as a nice idea, but as a discipline the Torah treats as central to everything else.

Read more

The Book of Deuteronomy opens with a man taking stock of a life’s work he doesn’t get to finish. Moshe stands in sight of the land he has spent forty years leading the people toward, knowing he will not cross the Jordan with them. What he does with the time he has left is not simply legal review — it’s an accounting, a reckoning, and a last will and testament.

This week I’m looking at what it means to hand off a life’s work to people who will carry it forward without you — and at the strange first sentence of this book, one that has never appeared before anywhere in the Torah: not “God spoke to Moshe,” but “these are the words that Moshe spoke.” For the first time, after forty years of relaying someone else’s voice, the words are his own.

Read more

There is a Midrash that stages a cosmic courtroom. A question is put to four witnesses: what should happen to the sinner? Wisdom answers first, then Prophecy, then Torah. Each one, in its own register, says roughly the same thing: the consequence must follow the act. The ledger has to balance. Cause and effect must be ironclad. These are not cruel answers. They are, in fact, the answers most of us would give if asked. They are the answers that feel like justice.

Then God answers. And God says: let him return.

What strikes me about that sequence is not that God’s answer is more merciful — though it is. It’s that the first three answers don’t distinguish between what a person did and what they meant. They can’t. Natural law doesn’t ask about intention. Neither does prophecy. Even the legal mechanism of Torah, in this Midrash, settles for a transaction: bring the offering, balance the ledger. The act is the act. The consequence follows.

We live, increasingly, inside the logic of the first three answers. The internet has become the most efficient system of consequence ever built — not because it is cruel, but because it has no mechanism for the fourth answer. It cannot ask what you meant. It can only record what you did, and make sure the past never stops catching up to you.

The Torah’s City of Refuge was built on the premise that intention matters enough to construct a physical institution around it. That a society serious about justice has to build something — not just rule something — to protect the difference between what happened and what was meant. I don’t know what the contemporary equivalent of that city looks like. But I notice we haven’t built it yet.

Read more

None of it comes to anything the way she imagined. The cottages don’t get built. The scholar turns out to be a small, jealous man more interested in protecting his legacy than in pursuing truth. Dorothea ends up living a life that looks, from the outside, like a series of near-misses — the grand, Theresa-sized life she wanted replaced by something quieter, more local, less legible as heroism.

And yet Eliot’s closing argument is that Dorothea’s life was not the lesser version. The good that came from it — the people she steadied, the crises she quietly absorbed, the moments where her generosity changed the direction of someone else’s story — none of it was recorded. None of it made her famous. It was, in Eliot’s word, unhistoric. And Eliot insists this is where most of the world’s good actually lives: not in the acts that get commemorated, but in the ones that get taken for granted.

I thought about Dorothea while working on this week’s episode. Shimon ben Pazi’s ruling — that the verse about the daily lamb outranks the Shema and love your neighbor — is making the same argument from inside the Torah. The most encompassing verse isn’t the one that reaches for transcendence. It’s the one that asks you to come back tomorrow and do the same thing again, for no reason except that you did it yesterday. The tamid is the most routine offering . Dorothea is the person nobody writes a history of. And both of them, it turns out, may be holding more of the world together than we knew.

Read more

Aaron dies on a mountain, and the text lingers on the choreography: Moshe removes the priestly garments, layer by layer, and places them on Elazar. The people watch the office pass from father to son in broad daylight. Whatever Aaron was to the role, the role survives him.

Miriam dies, and there is no transfer. No one inherits her well. It simply stops — mid-sentence, with no successor named, no garment handed to anyone standing nearby. Two deaths, a few verses apart, and the Torah seems to be making a distinction most of us never have to articulate out loud: some forms of sustaining a community can be handed down. Others were never replicable to begin with, because they weren’t a function. They were a person.

This week’s Torah in Seven sits with that second kind of loss — the kind that doesn’t pass to anyone, and what a people does once they realize that.

Read more

This week I’m looking at the pattern of friction that runs through the entire wilderness journey — and at one moment, tucked into the book of Exodus, where Moses makes a request he has never made before. Not for the people. For himself. It’s the cry of someone who has given everything and is asking: let me see your face.

Read more

Parshat Shelach was written for this moment. What it offers is not a strategy for winning the argument — but something rarer, and more enduring. Something the Torah calls a ruach acheret. A different spirit.

Read more

Human nature harbors a strange, quiet pathology: a tendency to to avoid the vulnerability of arrival. We tell ourselves we are reacting to a flawed reality, but more often than not, we are simply terrified of the accountability that comes with getting exactly what we prayed for. We build elaborate cases to justify turning back, mistaking our fear of growth for a legitimate complaint about our circumstances.

In this episode, we explore the strange anatomy of the "nostalgia trap" and the passive aggression we use to protect ourselves from our own potential. This is an invitation to look at the grievances we manufacture and ask the uncomfortable question: are we actually suffering, or are we just terrified of what happens once the door finally opens?

Read more

Listen to the podcast here.

Read more

But English has no single word for a parent who loses a child. Historically, our language only created these titles when a loss changed your legal or financial status in society. Because a child held no property, the parent’s title remained unchanged. The grief was private, so the language left it nameless.

Yet, the Hebrew language does not look away from the sheer identity-shift of this grief. It gives us a specific, heavy title: em shakula—which we tend to translate poorly as a bereaved mother.

But bereaved is not accurate— the word shakul is reserved exclusively for the parental relationship to a child. The root shakol doesn’t mean to mourn; it means to be violently emptied of your children, to be rendered childless. When Jacob thinks Joseph is dead in Genesis 43:14, he cries, "Ka'asher shakalti, shakalti"—literally, "If I am to be made childless, I am made childless." It is an active emptying. It implies an unnatural inversion: To be shakul means the natural order of life has been reversed.

So when a mother is called an em shakula, the Hebrew language is technically identifying her as a woman whose fruit has been torn away, leaving her structurally altered.

Today, we see this title carried with heartbreaking grace by modern women like Rachel Goldberg-Polin, who in her new memoir, When We See You Again, charts the brutal reality of a life permanently divided into “The Before” and “The After.”

But this is an ancient lineage. Long before the modern day, there was a woman in the the Book of Ruth who stood as history’s primordial em shakula. Her name was Naomi.

Naomi’s losses have completely redefined her. She stands in the background, heavily weighted by her own grief, while orchestrating a future for others.

In this week’s episode of Torah in Seven, we look at Naomi—the woman in the shadow of the Book of Ruth.

Read more

The companion podcast script and study guide are available to subscribers below.

Read more