Taking a position that many of his Jewish peers would have considered heretical, the 14th-century theologian Nissim of Marseilles maintained that the specific details of biblical law were in fact created by Moses alone, based on the use of his own reason; only the general outline was of literally divine origin. Nissim’s source was an ancient midrashic commentary on the construction of the tabernacle, described in painstaking detail in the second half of the book of Exodus that concludes with this week’s Torah reading. David Frankel writes:

Nissim was unconventional. Whereas Moses Maimonides was often circumspect and ambiguous in his formulations, Nissim was more explicit and more radical. He denied God’s personal intrusion into the course of events and provided a naturalistic interpretation of creation and biblical miracles. . . .

Nissim [interpreted the Midrash to mean] that God merely stated “Build Me a tabernacle,” the way a king would commission someone to build a palace, without getting involved in the details. God thus trusted Moses to determine all the details, . . . which he in fact did. Moses’ great merit, however, consisted in modestly attributing all of these details to God. . . .

More strikingly, Nissim understands the tabernacle here as representing “all the commands of the Torah.” In other words, God commissioned Moses, in a general sense, to write for Him a Torah for Israel, and it was [to Moses’ credit] that he presented all the laws of that Torah as if they were individually commanded by God.

In a statement released on social media on Monday, the president-elect declared that if the hostages held by Hamas are not released before his inauguration, “there will be all hell to pay” for those who “perpetrated these atrocities against humanity.” But will Hamas take such a threat seriously? And, even if Donald Trump decides to convert his words into actions after taking office, exactly what steps could he take? Ron Ben-Yishai writes:

While Trump lacks direct military options against Hamas—given Israel’s ongoing actions—he holds three powerful levers to pressure the group into showing some flexibility on the hostage deal or to punish it if it resists after his inauguration. The first lever targets Hamas’s finances, focusing on its ability to fund activities after the fighting ends. This extends beyond Gaza to Lebanon and other global hubs where Hamas derives strength. . . . Additionally, Trump could pressure Qatar to cut off its generous funding and donations to the Islamist organization.

The other levers are also financial rather than military: increasing sanctions on Iran to force it to pressure Hamas, and withholding aid for the reconstruction of Gaza until the hostages are released. In Ben-Yishai’s view, “Trump’s statement undoubtedly represents a positive development and could accelerate the process toward a hostage-release agreement.”