Settled Soul Practices Clarity Coherence and Calm.

It is the first week of February. Sadly, this is where New Year resolutions go to die. However, I am feeling confident that for me, this year it will be different.

In early January, I was sitting on a plane somewhere over the Pacific when I encountered, what I hope will be, life changing wisdom about “settled souls”. I used to think that a settled soul was an outcome. Instead, I learned that being a settled soul was an ethical practice. One of my commitments for 2025 is to live by “settled-soul” practices of clarity, coherence, calm and presence.

To better understand how this works, let us consider the opposite of the settled soul, “the scattered soul”[i]. An example of this state can be found in the ways of Jacob’s son Reuben. Jacob spoke harshly on his deathbed to Reuben, criticising him for being hasty, rash or impetuous, like water[ii].

The problem with haste is discussed in the teaching of the Musar (ethical development) movement[iii]. One of the leaders of this movement taught the importance of the calm mind that is not hassled. This consists of having clear direction in life, living in coherence with one’s principles and not pursuing vices and lusts that cause a person to leap from one temptation to another. A lack of moral clarity can be masked by mannerisms that appear calm on the outside, but it is the internal clarity and coherence that matters. 

Once a person has this clarity, it is then important to focus and be present to whatever she or he is doing. In contrast to the multitasker, whose attention is constantly shifting between one thing and another, the settled soul is highly intentional with their attention. When Abraham became aware of visitors in his peripheral vision, he considered whether to look up, which, when he did, is described as “Abraham lifted his eyes”[iv].  For me, this means putting my phone out of reach when studying Torah and ignoring the dinging announcements of new WhatsApp messages.

The saddest example of Reuben being unsettled was his failure to save his younger brother, Joseph, from the rest of their brothers when they were plotting to kill him. First he advocated against harming the boy, then he disappeared. During Reuben’s absence, Joseph was sold into slavery. Reuben returned too late, and was beside himself with grief. “And I, where, can I ever come [home]”.[v]

One of the key practices of the settled soul is to do one thing at a time. Yet, Reuben could not stay focused on saving Joseph. He was off doing other things but failed to come through for someone who needed him.[vi]

For the last four weeks, I have been focused on the aim of living the settled-soul way. I am doing more of what I am committed to and feeling healthier and often more energetic. Now, I am thinking about retaining this approach.

When the Hebrew slaves were liberated from Egypt, there was the very real possibility that they would go right back.[vii] For me, the Exodus from Egypt represents my personal redemption from the tyranny of more limited ways of being[viii] but, like my ancestors, I am concerned about regression.

Nutritionist, Yehudis Kluwgant stated that ‘to lose weight and change to a healthy lifestyle, a person needs to change their identity, beliefs and values.’[ix] When the Hebrews left Egypt, they were first referred to simply as ‘the people’.[x] When they agreed to trust God completely and go into the desert where nothing grows[xi], their name and identity changed.[xii] They were then called the sons of Israel[xiii], symbolic of mastery of spiritual struggles.[xiv] I feel like something has shifted in me over these last few weeks, and in a sense, I am a new person. If this is correct, I think it is likely that my New Year’s resolution will endure long past early February.

   

---

[i] Rabbi Y. Y. Schneerson, Naaseh Nuh Aliyas Kir Ktana, in Sefer Hamaamarim Kuntreisim, vol. 1, p. 332,

[ii] Genesis 49:4

[iii] ר' שמחה זיסל זיו[iii] Rabbi Simcha Zisl, known at der Alter fun Kelm, a leader of the Kelm Musar
אור רש"ז, מאמר קע"ט, עמוד רכה

[iv] Genesis 22:4

[v] Genesis 37:18-30

[vi] The Lubavitcher Rebbe in Likutei Sichos, vol. 15, p. 445.

[vii] Exodus 13:17

[viii] The Lubavitcher Rebbe

[ix] In a conversation on 3.02.2025

[x] Exodus 13:17 refers to the Hebrews as the people three times

[xi] Jeremiah 2:2

[xii] Klei Yakar on Exodus 13:17

[xiii] Exodus 13:18

[xiv] Genesis 32:29

Bullies, Patriarchy and Death of the First Born Sons

We cheer for the little guy when we see a bully making threats and throwing their weight around. It is the principle that “Might does not make right! Right makes right[i]” that is at the heart of the story in which God killed the first-born sons of Pharoah’s Egypt[ii]. This principle is also a significant aspect of the most important story of Judaism, the Exodus from Egypt, that is acknowledged twice daily by religious Jews. To explore this further, we need to consider that dangerous word, patriarchy.

I suggest we rethink the Exodus story. The common understanding of the story is that one bad man named Pharoah and his people used their power to oppress members of a powerless group of foreigners, the Hebrews. Then, like in an action movie, God was stronger than the Pharoah, so God beat up the Egyptians with 10 plagues and the Hebrews were freed by the relatively weaker Egyptians.

There is another way of reading the story, that follows the interpretation of the late Rabbi JB Soloveitchik[iii]. In considering his approach, let us not worry about the archaeological evidence about ancient Egypt, and just follow the argument in the text to understand what it might mean to us today[iv].  

Egypt was the superpower of their time and very much a patriarchal society where “might did make right”. As is often the case, the ways in which societies are organised are also reflected in the dynamics in families. The father was the head bully in the family, and the first-born male was not far behind. The first-born males cruelly dominated their siblings and were seen as being of higher status in the community, which enabled them to bully some more.

This concept of the first-born son is linked to the idea that he is the father’s “might and first manifestation of [his] vigour”[v]. In other words, the first
born son symbolised the father’s manhood and was expected to assert his manliness over others.

In the twisted society of the Pharaoh, these ruthless men brutally mistreated the Hebrew slaves. It is for this reason that they are central to the process of breaking down the oppressive system of slavery and are killed by God during the plague of the death of the first born.

The intimidation of the Pharaoh is not replaced by a scarier tyrant (despite the violent plagues). When God appointed a messenger to free the Hebrews from this society, He did not recruit a warrior. Instead, He sent Moses, a shepherd with a speech impediment.  

The Hebrews were invited to reimagine the idea of the first-born son when they were commanded to temporarily set aside such a child as “holy to God”[vi], until a ceremony when they are a month old called Pidyon Haben – “redeeming the son”. When the Torah introduced this commandment, it did not reference the father’s forcefulness; instead, the Torah highlights that the first born is the one who “opened their mother’s womb”. The word for “womb” in Hebrew is rechem, which is closely linked to the word for “mercy”, rachem, and to one of the Jewish names of God, HaRachaman, “the Merciful One”. The first-born child is met with boundless love by their mother, whose baby is her greatest joy.

May we all orient our lives around love and mercy and see these qualities prevail over violence and threats.

---

[i] T.H. White, The Once and Future King

[ii] Exodus 4:22-23, 11:4-5

[iii] David, A, (2020) Drosh Darash Yosef, Mosad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, p 108.

[iv] See Blidstein, G. J. who makes a similar point in Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Abraham, https://traditiononline.org/rabbi-soloveitchiks-abraham/

[v] Genesis, 49:3, Deuteronomy 21:17

[vi] Exodus 13:2, 12-16

Is Rebuke Degrading? The Case of Joseph’s Brothers

“A stinging rebuke” is an apt description of an experience that can be deeply hurtful. Ouch! Already in Talmudic times, observers lamented that those who were able to graciously accept such ethical criticism were rare. Equally rare were those who could deliver it well[i]. As unpleasant as getting such feedback is, it can be done in a way that preserves dignity and does not need to be degrading.

In their book The Courage To Be Disliked, Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga assert that one must not rebuke or praise. Because both create hierarchical relationships between the one praising or rebuking and the recipient of these forms of feedback, the recipient is positioned beneath the one who passes judgment [ii]. While the authors can be assumed to be responding to their Japanese context and cultural norms, they also draw heavily on the theories of Alfred Adler, one the giants of 20th-century Viennese psychology. Adler insisted that all human relationships should be horizontal rather than vertical ones, and that both paise and rebuke reinforce vertical ways of relating.

I do not agree. Rebuke is possible within a horizontal relationship. It is possible between spouses who deeply respect each other or fellow adherents of a set of teachings or principles. Equals can call each other out over their failures to live to their shared standards.

The conflation of the delivery of rebuke with status difference appears to be an error made by the brothers of Joseph, when confronted by Joseph regarding the harm they did to him and their father when they sold him into slavery [iii].

Many years after the evil deed, Joseph reminded his brothers of what they had done. “I am Joseph, your brother, whom you sold into Egypt [iv]”. Joseph asked his brothers sarcastically [v], “is my father still alive?” This rhetorical [vi] question followed a monologue by Judah, one of the brothers, about the close bond their father, Jacob, had with his children, and that if one of them was to be taken away from him, Jacob would die of grief. Following Judah’s assertion, Joseph implicitly confronted his brothers with the terrible suffering they inflicted on their father when they sold Joseph [vii]. By their own logic, the brothers had nearly killed their father, in addition to betraying their own brother.

The brothers felt terrible, stunned and overwhelmed, not just by their shock in discovering that the high Egyptian official was in fact their brother, but also by their shame and guilt viii].

Joseph reassured his brothers that although they were responsible for their deeds and for the bad thoughts about him that led them to sell him, the main outcome of their deeds turned out to be beneficial [ix]; he was now in a position to feed and save them during the famine.

For many years after this conversation, the past appeared to have been resolved. Joseph had forgiven his brothers and they, together with their father, Jacob [x], dined at his royal table.  

However, when Jacob died almost two decades later, the brothers’ guilt resurfaced. They worried that Joseph might hate them [xi], projecting their fears on to him. They were so troubled by their guilt that they half- hoped Joseph would hate them [xii]. His hatred would be easier to bear than his kindness [xiii].

The brothers assumed a vertical relationship with Joseph, with him at the top and themselves at the bottom, his rebuke from years earlier ringing in their ears as they pleaded with him - as if he were God - to bear their sins [xiv]. They then offered themselves as slaves. Joseph did not accept their characterisation of their relationship as vertical, reminding them of their shared human status. He asked them, “Am I instead of God? [xv]”  He wanted them to understand that although they had done wrong, he had long forgiven them. He also reminded them that God is the only One to whom it was appropriate to be subservient.

Perhaps it was the fact that the brothers were, in their own minds, stuck in a vertical dynamic with Joseph that prevented them from forgiving themselves and restoring a horizontal relationship with their magnanimous, but briefly critical brother.

We all fall short sometimes. It hurts to recognise it. Hopefully, it can sting less if we recognise that our shortcomings do not make us less than those who point it out to us. To err is human but to accept rebuke is somewhat divine.

---

[i] Talmud, Arachin 16b

[ii] Kishimin, I, and Koga, F, (2017), The Courage To Be Disliked, Allen & Unwin, pp. 177-180

[iii] A summary of the story as it is told in Genesis, Chapters 37-50.
Jacob had twelve sons but favoured his second youngest Joseph. He gave him a special coat. Joseph’s brothers were jealous of him and intended to kill him, but in the end sold him into slavery.

Joseph was taken to Egypt, where he was a slave. He was subsequently falsely accused of seducing his master’s wife and was thrown into prison. Directly, from prison he was surprisingly appointed to high office after interpreting troubling dreams for the Pharoah. As the second highest official in Egypt, Joseph – now with a new Egyptian name, Tzafnat Paneach - orchestrated a program of food storage to prepare for famine.

When all his brothers except for the youngest, Benjamin, travelled to Egypt to access some of the surplus food during the famine it was an opportunity for Joseph to meet his brothers. They did not recognise him but he recognised them.

Joseph-Tzafnat accused his brothers of being spies and told them that they would only prove their innocence if they brought their youngest brother Benjamin with them. After imprisoning them for three days, he released nine of them to return home with food to their hungry families. He kept one brother, Simeon, as a hostage to compel them to bring Benjamin.

When Benjamin arrived, Joseph contrived to have evidence of theft planted in Benjamin’s bag and threatened to enslave Benjamin. This presented an opportunity for the brothers to demonstrate loyalty to Benjamin in a situation that was somewhat of a reenactment of the situation of their betrayal of Joseph and opportunity for complete their repentance for their betrayal of him.

The brothers passed this test, with Judah offering himself as a slave instead of Benjamin and argued that if Benjamin were not returned to their father, Jacob, the distress would cause Jacob to die.

Joseph revealed his identity to his brothers, and reconciled with them and he forgave them, even though he had not forgotten what they had done and reminded them of them of their deed.

Joseph’s brothers and father subsequently moved to Egypt from their native Canaan and their food and other requirements were provided by Joseph.

When Jacob died, the brothers worried about Joseph taking revenge and offered themselves as slaves. Joseph reassured them that he was not in the place of God and that God made it all turn out for the best.

[iv] Genesis 45:4

[v] The suggestions that Joseph was sarcastic is made by Rabbi Yosef Dov Ber Soloveitchik, in Beis Halevi on the Torah, translated into English by Rabbi Yisroel Isser Zvi Herczeg, the Oliner edition, (2016), Feldheim, p. 168.

[vi][vi] The assumption that it is a rhetorical question is based on the fact that the brothers had told Joseph numerous times before that their father was indeed alive

[vii] Soloveitchik, Y.D.B., based on the Midrash, Bereshis Rabba, 93:10.

[viii] Midrash, Bereshis Rabba, 93:10 and as explained by Soloveitchik

[ix] Genesis 45:5-8 and 50:20

[x] Midrash, Bereshis Rabba, 100:8, cited in Rashi.  

[xi] Genesis 50:15

[xii] Ohr Hachayim and Malbim on Genesis both comment on the unusual wording in verse XX. In Biblical Hebrew, if individuals were worried about a possible event they wished to avoid, the word used was פן  (“pen”)  which translates as “lest”. If one hopes for an outcome, the words (“lou”)  לוor (“oolai”) אולי  are used. The use of לו  (“ou”) in this verse implies  that the brothers, at least on some level, hoped for hatred and/or retribution.

[xiii] Malbim

[xiv] David, Avishai, in Drosh Darash Yosef, lessons and sermons on the weekly Torah portion by Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Hebrew Edition, Mosad HaRav Kook, p. 88-90

[xv] Genesis 50:19

Jewish appreciation of non-Jewish people’s spirit – the case of Joseph’s brothers’ guilty talk

In this post I reflect on Judaism’s teachings about how to relate to non-Jewish people with a new argument for appreciation.

I write this reflection in the Crown Heights area of Brooklyn, New York. I am here celebrating with all my siblings both my son’s wedding and my mother’s 80^th birthday. While walking around Crown Heights during my visit now, I have noticed an apparently pleasant and easy coexistence between Jewish people and blacks. This is different to what I remember.

When I grew up in Crown Heights, I heard a lot of historical stories about non-Jewish persecution of Jews, pogroms and blood libels. I also felt contempt, animosity toward and fear of our non-Jewish black and Hispanic neighbours. These feelings about people that we had little understanding of were also related to muggings, burglaries and even murder. A young Jewish man named Avrohom Eliezer Goldman was murdered mere meters away from my current temporary accommodation on Montgomery Street[i]. I attended his funeral in 1977 as a seven-year-old boy. I still remember the heart-rending recitation of psalms and the crowd. It was not easy for anyone then.

Putting aside judgement of our community at the time, it is a fact that with one exception[ii], as I grew up, I had a consistent sense of a generalised negative attitude to non-Jewish people. There was no basis for me to admire the virtues of non-Jewish people, their compassion or altruism or how faith might move them to such stances.

This week I learned something in relatively recent Jewish commentaries about the story of the Biblical Joseph’s brothers that supports a more respectful approach (for readers who want more details of the story, see [iii] below).

Years after Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery, they met again during a time of famine when they sought to purchase scarce food in Egypt. However, Joseph’s brothers did not recognise him in the Egyptian viceroy he had become, but Joseph recognised them. In this role, Joseph had them thrown into prison, on false charges of espionage, a parallel to their depriving him of his freedom all those years earlier. After three days, he offered to allow all of them, except one hostage, to go home.

It is at this point of the story that Joseph’s brothers finally express guilt over what they had done to Joseph. “They said … but we are guilty, on account of our brother, because we looked on, at the anguish of his soul, yet we did not listen, as he pleaded with us. That is why this distress has come upon us.”[iv]

What led them to this epiphany at this particular time and not before, even during the three days of their imprisonment?[v] It was their reflection on the Egyptian ruler’s statement: “Do this and you shall live, for I fear God. If you are being honest [and you are not spies], let one of your brothers be held in your place of detention, while the rest of you go and take home rations for your starving households.”

The brothers thought: “If this man who is not ‘from our faith’ is moved by faith in God to show mercy for our starving families, who are strangers to him, whose suffering he did not see, should we not feel regret for the way we treated our own brother, whose suffering we did see, as he pleaded with us?”[vi]

Of course, Joseph was not actually a person of another faith. Yet, the fact that the commentary has the brothers acknowledging the way an apparently non-Jewish person’s faith in God guided him to compassion is a source text for greater recognition of the ways that non-Jewish people are moved to altruism. I hope it helps encourage greater appreciation by Jewish people of non-Jewish people.

 

---

[i] https://www.nytimes.com/1977/06/14/archives/three-sought-in-killing-of-hasidic-rabbis-son.html

[ii] The case of Dama Ben Netina, a non-Jewish man who excels in honouring his father.

[iii] A summary of the story told in Genesis, Chapters 37-50.
Jacob had twelve sons but favoured his second youngest Joseph. He gave him a special coat. Joseph’s brothers were jealous of him and intended to kill him, but in the end sold him into slavery.

Joseph was taken to Egypt, where he was a slave. He was subsequently falsely accused of seducing his master’s wife and was thrown into prison. Directly, from prison he was surprisingly appointed to high office after interpreting troubling dreams for the Pharoah. As the second highest official in Egypt, Joseph – now with a new Egyptian name, Tzafnat Paneach - orchestrated a program of food storage to prepare for famine.

When all his brothers except for the youngest, Benjamin, travelled to Egypt to access some of the surplus food during the famine it was an opportunity for Joseph to meet his brothers. They did not recognise him, but he recognised them.

Joseph-Tzafnat - accused his brothers of being spies and told them that they would only prove their innocence if they brought their youngest brother Benjamin with them. After imprisoning them for three days, he released nine of them to return home with food to their hungry families but kept one, Simeon as a hostage to compel them to bring Benjamin.

When Benjamin arrived, Joseph contrived to have evidence of theft planted in Benjamin’s bag. This presented an opportunity for the brothers to demonstrate loyalty to Benjamin and complete their repentance for their betrayal of Joseph. When the brothers passed this test, Joseph reconciled with his brothers.    

[iv] Genesis 42:21

[v] Toldot Yitzchot and Maasei Hashem quoted in Tzeda Lederech by Yisocher Ben Eilenberg, in Chumash with 11 Meforshei Rashi

[vi] Be’er Hatorah and both in Chumash with 11 Meforshei Rashi