Details

Created: 07 May 2026

In 1519, Spanish explorer Hernando Cortez decided that he wanted to seize the treasure that the Aztecs had been hoarding. He took 500 soldiers and 100 sailors and landed his eleven ships on the shores of the Yucatan Peninsula, off the coast of Mexico. Despite the large army under his command, he was still vastly outnumbered by a huge and powerful empire that had been around for 600 years.

Some of his men were unconvinced of success, and being loyal to Cuba, they tried to seize some ships to escape there. Cortez got wind of the plot and captured the ringleaders. He wanted to make sure that the remainder of his men were completely committed to his mission so he did something that seemed completely insane to his people: Cortez gave the order to burn down his own ships.

His men resisted, wondering how they would even get home, and his answer was: “If we are going home, we are going home in their ships!”

The path forward was clear for Cortez – all or nothing, 100% commitment. The option of failure was gone – conquer as heroes or die.

The ships were sunk. By doing this, the level of commitment of the men was raised to an extreme level, much higher than anyone could have imagined.

Incredibly, they succeeded in this unlikely feat. In 600 years, no one else had been able to conquer the Aztecs. They were able to do so simply because there was no choice, no fallback – the ships were gone, the only alternative was death.

Cortez understood a fundamental rule of war and life: success is built on commitment – very little can be achieved without it.

In this week’s second parasha (Bechukotai) we have the Tochacha (what will happen if we don’t observe the mitzvot). In the Tochacha there is one word and phrase that is repeated many times. The verse tells us that because “Halachta Imi B’Keri” because you walk with me, with G-d, b’keri, so G-d tells us He will walk with us “b’keri” as well. This phrase, in different formulations, comes up seven different times within the Tochacha. 

There are different explanations for what this means:

The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh (Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar (1696–1743) writes that the word Keri is connected to the word “Mikre” or happenstance. Similar to how Amalek is described, asher “Karcha BaDerech.” Rashi on that verse explains, Lashon Mikre. The only reason Amalek had the audacity to attack Bnei Yisrael, a people who were on fire after the total destruction of Egypt at the hands of their G-d, was because Amalek believes things just happen, G-d does NOT control the world. They believe everything is Mikre, happenstance. Says the Ohr HaChaim, it’s the same idea here. G-d is telling us that if we don’t recognize His hand in the world, if we view the events in the world as happenstance, then G-d will begin to relate to us that way as well. He will leave our lives to mikre, to chance.

Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir 1085 – 1158) understands the idea of Keri not as a reflection of how we view G-d’s interaction with the world, but rather, as a reflection of our interaction with G-d. He uses the same language, lashon mikre, not connoting happenstance on G-d’s part, but on OUR part. The castigation of walking with G-d, b’keri, says Rashbam, implies a casual or inconsistent approach to G-d and His Mitzvos. Sometimes I walk with G-d, sometimes I don’t.

Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) writes that to be “Holech Im” implies something very beautiful. To walk in the ways of G-d, to follow Him, to walk with Him. But the language of halachta imi b’keri, implies that we try to play it both ways: On the one hand, we often find ourselves being a holech im G-d. Not just someone who is observant, but someone who identifies him or herself with a Torah way of life. But when someone is holeich im Hashem but only B’Keri, only when it works for me, only when it fits my schedule, my wants, my needs, that leads to a deterioration of the relationship. And the reason is obvious: every real, lasting relationship is based on commitment.

It’s interesting to note that this is NOT the first time we have seen this concept in Sefer Vayikra. In fact, the very first Rashi in the Sefer emphasizes this point as well. Rashi notes the small aleph in the word Vayikra and explains that there is a fundamental difference between the way G-d spoke to Moshe Rabbeinu and how he spoke to Bilaam. In G-d’s discussions with Moshe, the Torah always writes Vayikra. And G-d called out to Moshe. But when He speaks to Bilaam, the Torah writes Vayikar, and says Rashi, lashon akrai. Mikre.  Happenstance.  G-d’s relationship with Bilaam is fleeting, it is touch and go. With Moshe, it is consistent, it is lasting.

Why the difference? Because of G-d’s approach to the relationship?

No. But because of the difference between how Moshe and Bilaam each approached their relationship with Hashem. Moshe’s commitment to his relationship with G-d was unequivocal, unfettered no matter the situation. Bilaam, on the other hand, once offered the right price, is willing not only to turn his back on G-d, but to use his G-d-given ability of prophecy to turn against G-d and His people. Bilaam relates to Hashem based on his own convenience, in a way that is represented by KERI, so when Hashem speaks to him, He does do in the same way – vayikar.

G-d promises that His relationship with us will mirror how we approach Him. We find this idea in the very first verse in Sefer Vayikra, and here, in the Tochacha, at the very end of the Sefer as well. As the Sefer concludes, it calls out to us and asks us, “are we Vayikra Jews or are we Vayikar ones?” Have we learned the lesson of commitment found at both ends of the Sefer?  

Are we ready for commitment?