There is a particular discomfort built into Ki Tetzeh, and it is worth dwelling on it rather than resolving it too quickly.

The Parasha places the prohibition against overworking a threshing ox (Deut. 25:4) beside the command to wipe out Amalek without a trace (Deut. 25:17–19). It commands us to send away a mother bird before taking her eggs (Deut. 22:6–7), and a few chapters later, to show no mercy to an entire nation. Tenderness and severity do not alternate in some orderly sequence,they sit directly against each other, unexplained.

Our instinct is to sort. We naturally divide mitzvot into "essentials", for example, do not murder (Ex. 20:13), do not worship idols (Ex. 20:3–5), and "details"- do not muzzle an ox, do not take a mother bird with her young. This sorting feels like basic religious maturity: surely a thinking person knows that bloodshed matters more than a bird's nest. And yet the Torah itself performs no such sorting. Even within the Ten Commandments, the prohibition against coveting (Ex. 20:14) sits beside the prohibition against murder, as though placed on the same scale.

The Talmud confronts this directly regarding the mitzva of sending away the mother bird. Someone might pray, "Your mercies extend even to a bird's nest" , thus framing the law as an expression of divine compassion, something we can understand and admire. The Talmud's response is severe: such a person "is silenced" (Berakhot 33b), because he has made God's decrees into "simply acts of mercy, whereas they are merely decrees" (Megilla 25a).

This is a hard teaching, and it would be a mistake to soften it. The point is not that God lacks mercy. The point is that when we insist on explaining every mitzva as an act of comprehensible kindness, we quietly install ourselves as the judges of which mitzvot make sense and which don't. From there, it is a short step to deciding which ones we will keep. A Torah organized around human logic is a Torah we can eventually outgrow.

The Kotzker Rebbe's formulation cuts to the heart of it: "A God who can be understood by anyone is not worth serving." A law we can fully explain no longer requires faith, it requires only agreement. Ki Tetzeh's refusal to separate major from minor is, in this light, not disorder but instruction: the demand is not to like every mitzva or find it emotionally satisfying, but to receive the whole of it, precisely because God authored it.

Questions to Contemplate

When I find myself needing to explain why a law or tradition makes sense before I'm willing to follow it, what does that reveal about where my faith actually rests, in God or in my own understanding?

Take a deep dive into the Parasha on our Portal or download the Steinsaltz Daily Study App