Bondi. Approaches

It is less than two weeks after the horrific events at Bondi. I cannot fully grasp, much less describe, the impact on the families of those murdered; on the orphans, the widows, the bereaved parents and siblings, the injured, those who experienced the terror at the event and on all Australian Jews. To all of you, I have no words of comfort. Instead, all I can offer is my empathy, my care, and for many just a hug.

Last Wednesday, I attended two funerals: those of inspiring young Rabbi Eli Schlanger – my sister-in-law’s brother, and Rabbi Yaakov Levitan, the husband of a young woman I have known since she was 10 years old. She taught in the Sunday school I led when she was a teenager and taught my children more recently as an adult.

We are all shaken by the sheer horror of the fact that they were murdered along with 13 others, including 10-year-old Matilda. I witnessed the grief of bereaved children. The atrocity screams to the heavens. I have been alternating between hyper-focused work and being dazed, leaving my car keys …

In addition to my personal connections with victims and their families, there is the fact that for almost 25 years I have worked to improve Jewish-Muslim relations. In more recent years, perhaps for a decade, I began to worry that something like Bondi would happen and I hoped that my work might prevent it. Alas, it has not.

According to the Torah, in some cases of murder, the elders of that place must wash their hands and proclaim, “Our hands have not spilled this blood” (1). The intent of this declaration is that it follows introspection about what the elders might have done to prevent the conditions that made murder possible. Did they ensure that visitors were escorted safely when they left, went on their way? (2).  

In the days after the massacre, I asked myself – briefly - if I could say that my hands were clean, “..that I had not spilled this blood.” My answer is “Yes. I did what I could based on what I knew and the opportunities I had.” Unfortunately, in hindsight, it is clear that we had not ensured conditions to prevent these multiple murders and so much harm to many others.  

Where to from here? There will be various approaches that leaders and individuals will need to choose from. Indeed, the Torah reading this week is named, “He approached.” (3)

One interpretation of the word “approached” is to approach for “war” (4). When innocents are harmed, it is both natural and appropriate for people to feel anger. A former student asked me what should we do with the anger? My reply is to channel it. Anger is a gift, if it is harnessed to right wrongs. It is a curse if it is diffuse and causes harm to innocents instead of protecting innocents. This is true even if it is well-intentioned. Anger that is misdirected leads to poor outcomes. 

The approaches of peace and conciliation are also mentioned by the commentaries (5). An example of this is the celebration of the hero, Ahmed El Ahmed, a Muslim man from Syria, who risked his life to save other lives. My brother Mendel and I visited him. Mendel gave him a personally and spiritually significant gift. I said only two words to him. “Yes” in response to his humble question about the expressions of gratitude, “Do I deserve this?” “Yes”, I said emphatically. I added the word “Shukran”, the Arabic word for “thank you”.

There is the approach of comforting the mourner (6). Several Imams came to offer their condolences to the senior judge of the Sydney Beth Din (Jewish religious court), Rabbi Yehoram Ulman, whose son-in-law was killed. On the Imams Council’s Facebook page, they have the message that “the grief, distress, and deep sense of insecurity felt within the Australian Jewish community are fully acknowledged, and our solidarity and compassion are unequivocally affirmed.” (7)

In an interview on Channel 10, I shared how Australians of all walks of life have rallied, as we have before in times of tragedy. The outpouring of sympathy from people of all faiths and none has been non-stop. A Catholic bishop, many Muslim friends and leaders, and a former Together For Humanity colleague - and a Muslim - who worked with us two decades ago. To all who expressed support, from across Australia and as far away as Iraq, thank you, shukran. 

A final interpretation of the one Biblical word “approached” is to examine (8). For many people, this is a time of confusion and examination. We are asking how we find our way to a sense of safety and cohesion. How do we properly understand our neighbours from other faith backgrounds? Their intentions toward us? How do we navigate the advice of the Proverbs that one heart responds to the sentiments of the heart of another (9). How do we navigate the advice of the sages to “respect him and suspect him” (10). It is not going to be easy, but that is part of the journey of trust.  

For me, alongside the grief, I draw inspiration from acts of courage, from Ahmed and from Chaya, one of the injured girls who risked her life walking into the line of fire and getting shot so she could shield two younger children, and the beautiful spirits of the departed. We will not be defeated, we respond to all forms of hatred, including but not limited to, antisemitism, terrorism and dehumanisation, with a fierce determination to defeat hate. Let us instead approach each other with curiosity, to really know one another.  

 

Sources

1)    Deuteronomy 21:7

2)    Talmud Sotah 45b

3)    “Vayigash”, Genesis 44:18 and on to 47:27

4)    Bereshit Rabba 93

5)    Bereshit Rabba ibid

6)    Bereshit Rabba ibid

7)    https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1316378170530805&id=100064759026797&mibextid=wwXIfr&rdid=NgqMZJdvqb2SNXIr#

8)    Midrash Hagadol, and Chemdat Yamim, cited in Torah Shlaima, p. 1631, note 49

9)    Proverbs 27:19

10)  Popular saying based on Derech Eretz Rabba 5

Responsible and Caring Enough? Noah

When preparing to teach the teachers of tomorrow at Sydney University about global citizenship, I reflected on the question of responsibility. Many people, including me, and even children, are burdened with feeling responsible for problems that we cannot fix. These feelings are emotionally draining and perhaps destructive because they distract us from doing what we can for people we love or live near us in our communities and suburbs. On the other hand, there are times when I or others fail to embrace our responsibilities as individuals, members of families, communities and humanity as a whole.

Margaret Meade famously said we should “… never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.” Good point.

I love the idea of changing the world. I have committed my life to it. Then I got tired, very tired.

On the one hand, I am deeply grateful to the small group of thoughtful committed people who work alongside me and guide me as I have tried to change the world and then to support children and teachers. Thank you to all of you in the Together for Humanity team, board members, the volunteers, the casual educators, the donors, Christians, Muslims, Jews and others. We did amazing things together and we will continue to do great things.

On the other hand, despite all the children and adults we educated to reject prejudice and hate and to find common ground, there were other committed, but less thoughtful people who contributed to injustice, hatred, generalisations, prejudice and dehumanisation.

I learned, slowly and over many years to feel a little less responsible. It is not my task to complete the work, but neither am I free to desist from it (1).

I think of change-work as being a crew member of a sailing ship. We are not the captains of the ship ̶ that is God (or whatever forces atheists see playing God – multinationals, or whoever).  We are not responsible for the winds ̶ that again is God. Our task is to be part of the team that turns the sails to catch the winds already blowing. We do this with great humility – as small players in God’s vast world but paradoxically with a touch of magic as God’s partners in creation (2).  

Reading the Torah with this mindset, I am challenged when I read the story of Noah, especially as interpreted by some Jewish scholars.

Noah was burdened by his parents’ expectations that he would change the world, comfort humanity and repair the earth that had been cursed (3). He was favoured by God and declared to be a saint (4).

The world had become evil and full of crime and cruelty. The powerful– the sons of the gods ̶  took any woman they wanted, regardless of her consent or marital status (5). They farmed animals and people to be sold as sex slaves, with ownership certificates (6).  

When God told Noah, the golden boy, that the inhabitants of the earth would be wiped out in a flood, he said absolutely nothing, not one word of prayer to save his generation (7). Reactively, perhaps feebly, Noah talked to people who approached him while he was building his ark about the coming flood and suggested that they change their ways (8).  However, he failed to change his society. Instead, the people ridiculed and cursed him (9). For this he is deemed to have failed to be collectively responsible for humanity (10).  

Noah’s final humiliating episode had him rolling naked and drunk in front of his children, when he finally found his voice to respond to his humiliation with curses for his grandson (11).

Yet, the Torah is clear that Noah was a virtuous man who did what he could in a terribly difficult time (12). His very name, Noah, means respite. He was not an assertive man. Maybe his getting drunk was a response to his feeling of loneliness when everyone – outside his own family – was dead, and even when they were alive, he could not relate to them (13). Or it might have been a reaction to his own sense of failure to live up to his father’s dreams and his sense of responsibility for the catastrophe of humanity.

As I sit with the two ways of reading the story, I choose to embrace both. Perhaps what I can learn from Noah is not to go passive or silent, to continue to care deeply but to care enough. Not to the extent of delusional saviour complexes. Regardless of others’ estimations of our gifts, we can discern which challenges to take responsibility for and which to step back from. We are not responsible for other people’s choices, nor are we responsible for saving the world. Yet, we should care about all human suffering, everywhere, even as we recognise our limited ability to alleviate it.  Then we should go about soberly doing our bit. This is what we should also tell our children.  

 

 Edited by Hazel Baker. Thank you!

1)    Pirkey Avot 2:16

2)    Talmud, Midrash Rabba

3)    Genesis 5:29

4)    Genesis 6:8, 6:9

5)    Genesis 6:2

6)    Midrash Rabba and Eshed Hanechalim commentary

7)    Genesis 6:13- 7:5, Sacks, J. (2009), Covenant and Conversation, Genesis, p.45

8)    Midrash Rabba

9)    Midrash

10) Sacks, p. 63, others

11) Genesis 9:20-27

12) Genesis 7:1

13) Adin Steinsaltz, https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/4942416/jewish/What-Was-Wrong-With-Noah.htm

Shaming Disrupts the Flow - Moses’ Rock Strike

Image by BillVriesema - Creative Commons License 2.0

When we are provoked, we must generally respond without shaming our antagonists, nor allowing anger to cloud our judgement. 

It is not always ethical to go along with others’ wishes. Saying yes when our principles require the answer to be no, is to compromise our own integrity. In the context of marriage, saying yes against our principles or needs, has this result: “the lips may be moving one way, but the heart may be saying no silently until the heart breaks from the weight of ’nos’[i]." Sometimes, disagreement escalates into identity conflict[ii] and becomes a contest of claiming the moral high ground – each party trying to be deemed the “good one” and cast the other as the villain. It can then become especially tempting to inflict pain on one’s opponent. Especially for people who have been hurt deeply – and who hasn’t been - there can be an urge to lash out. This blog post will explore the merit of being agreeable in disagreement.  

Let us consider what happened between Moses and the Israelites in the desert. “There was no water for the people to drink, so they gathered onto Moses… (the wording in Hebrew is very similar to the modern expression “pile on”). The people quarrelled with Moses, saying, “If only we had died when our brothers died… Why did you bring [us]… to this desert… and why did you take us out of Egypt… to this terrible place with no grain or figs or vines or pomegranates? ...[iii]”.

While there was a legitimate water problem to solve, the rhetoric from the Israelites was a broad rejection of Moses and God. Let’s think of the relationship between the people and Moses and God as a marriage. Only a short time ago, God - with Moses as his visible messenger - was the knight in shining armour that rescued the Israelites – damsel in distress – from the oppression of Pharaoh. The people threw caution to the wind and displayed great faith in God and Moses, his servant[iv],  walking after Him bravely into a desert, where nothing had been planted[v]. But the honeymoon didn’t last, and the Israelites’ stance was like yelling “Why did I ever marry you? I wish I never met you.”

In response to this attack on Moses, Moses lost his temper with the Israelites, and he used a derogatory label to shame them. In his anger[vi], Moses muddled God’s instructions to him about how to miraculously draw water from a stone. Although God told Moses to speak to the rock to draw water from it, he, instead, hit the rock with a stick. God was disappointed with the way Moses handled this situation, and told him that, because of this failure, Moses would not bring the people to the promised land[vii]. 

Moses had plenty reason to feel angry. The people had, yet again, delegitimised his leadership and life’s achievements. This attack came at a particularly vulnerable time for Moses as he mourned the death of his sister, Miriam[viii]. Yet, one commentator sees Moses’ angry reactions as a significant failure.

The amazingly kind, Berditchever, taught that you can rebuke people, using two different methods. One approach is positive and builds people up. It reminds the people that their very souls originate ‎immediately beneath the Creator’s throne in heaven. It tells people about their ability and privilege to provide God with the pleasure he gets from ‎His people performing His will. The other method of admonishing people involves putting people down and shaming them.

When the positive method is used, it introduces positive energy into the physical world, so that the creations willingly provide for the people. In the case of Moses, if he had spoken positively to the people, then the rock would have responded to Moses’ words with flowing water. However, when people are denigrated, the creations are not in a state of flow. The only way to get them to provide for humans, is with great coercion symbolised by their being beaten with a stick[ix].

There will be times in our lives when others’ disrespect toward us, or unwillingness to support our wishes, might make us feel like we are spiralling down to feel small like a mouse “insignificant, under the foot, hiding, timid and on the run”. It is at such times that we overcompensate for such feelings by swinging in the opposite direction, to become a “monster… obnoxious, and overbearing”[x]. This reaction is understandable but ultimately very destructive - it interrupts the flow of the good things we need and want for ourselves and the people around us.

 

---

[i] Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

[ii]  Heen, S. Patton, B. Stone, D. 2021, Difficult conversations, Penguin

[iii] Numbers 20:2-5

[iv] Exodus 14:31

[v] Jeremiah 2:2

[vi] Sifre to Numbers 31:21, see also Talmud Pesachim 66b, every man who rages, if he is wise his wisdom will leave him…

[vii] Numbers 20:7-12

[viii] Numbers 20:1

[ix] R. Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, Kedushas Levi, on Chukas, Vdibartem El Haselah, p. 303, Sifrei Ohr Hachayim edition, Jerusalem

[x] Brenner, M (2011) Conscious Connectivity, p.70, drawing on the work of Pat Palmer

Silenced Man of God – Joshua, the “severed head” - Shlach

It is appalling to see the silencing of “men or women of God” or other voices of conscience when they are advocating for justice or compassion.  I am not denying that there are scoundrels, who cloak themselves in righteousness or clerical robes and promote cruelty or foolishness. However, this blog  focuses on the thwarting of people like artists, journalists, cartoonists and clergy, in their roles as social critics. The people who are supposed to be the brakes on the darker impulses of the powerful and the many, are prevented from playing their vital role in speaking for virtue, the weak and the few. This is like players in a sport turning on the referee.

This calls for some clarification: I  would like to emphasise that I am not concerned about people offering alternative views. What concerns me is when they attack the legitimacy of credible people with whom they disagree.

According to one scholar, this is the meaning of a peculiar expression in the Talmud relating to Joshua, the prophet. Joshua was one of twelve spies, who returned to the desert from Canaan (1). He dissented from the views of ten of his fellow spies, who were opposed to God’s plan for the Israelites to go to the Promised Land.  The majority were not content to argue their case on its merits. Instead, according to the Talmud (2), when Joshua tried to speak, they shut him up with the following statement:  “Will this severed head speak?!”

According to one commentary (3), the strange phrase was an attack on Joshua’s status and legitimacy or standing in the discussion.  Moses had added the letter Yud (Y), which is the first letter of God’s name, to Joshua’s name, changing it from Hoshea, to Yehoshua (4). This name change symbolised his special status as being one of two spies, deemed aligned to God (5). The other spies sought to dismiss Joshua’s special status with the suggestion that the “head of his name”, the additional Yud from the name of God, was disconnected or severed from the rest of his name and not legitimately part of his name at all. The technicalities in this case are quaint but the tactic is all too common today.

One response to the tactic is often for social critics to get creative in order to get people’s attention, using click bait or humour. Another strategy that is quite risky, is for the social critic to give the impression that s/he agrees with the mob, but then, when s/he gets their attention, to say what s/he really thinks. Caleb, Joshua’s fellow dissenting spy, tried that approach with limited impact (6).

Often this leads to frustration on the part of the social critic. “Joshua the son of Nun and Caleb…tore their clothes” to express their grief (7). They continued to speak their truth while no one was listening. The catastrophe they sought to prevent, came to pass, with the Israelites’ anticipated entry into the Promised Land delayed by a generation.  Failure, at least some of the time, comes with the territory.

Fortunately, in some cases, there are at least partial victories that protect some people or preserve some principle. Those of us who find ourselves in roles advocating for compassion and justice, need to be prepared for our opponents to try to sever our “heads”, to deny our legitimacy. We need to ensure that our egos do not cloud our judgement -  it is not about us - and that our emotions are managed well. Then, we need to get in there and do what we can.

For all of us, the message is that good “followership” is just as important as good leadership. If we are ever tempted to discredit people we know to be good, albeit imperfect, people, let us instead listen to their arguments on their merit, instead of trying to silence them, if they are saying what we don’t want to hear.

Notes

(1)    Numbers 13

(2)    Talmud Sota 35a

(3)    Maharsha, (Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Edeles, lived 1555-1631) on Sota 34b and 35a, building on what he deemed a forced explanation by the Aruch.

(4)    Numbers 13:16

(5)    Maharsha explains that, while God would have preferred just two spies to gather practical information, the people had insisted on a broader mission for the spies to determine if they should proceed with the conquest of Canaan at all. This expanded purpose required representatives from each of the twelve tribes.

(6)    Talmud Sota 35a 

(7)     Numbers 14:6

Blame the followers? On Leadership- Shemini

I lay awake at 4:30 am the other day. Not for very long, but still unusual for me to be awake worrying about work. I tend to do my worrying during the day.

Fear of failure is a natural part of leadership. However, I wonder to what extent a leader needs to feel responsible for outcomes that are ultimately dependent on the choices of many people, whether active supporters or disinterested “followers”? Perhaps leadership is overrated. Some leaders appear successful, when in fact they are merely taking people where they want to go anyway.  Should the primary potency and responsibility be recognised as being with the followers instead? Perhaps this idea is a form of shirking of my responsibilities as a leader disguised as modesty. On the other hand, I know that my mental and emotional strength as a leader is enhanced by the generous appreciative  engagement of my “followers”, either as participants in my work or at my Torah discussions.   

In the Torah reading this week we read how Aaron was encouraged to approach the altar when he was bashful and fearful about performing sacrifices on the altar (1). Aaron imagined the altar resembling an ox and this reminded him about his past failure when he built an altar for a false god, the golden calf (2). Aaron carried the burden of that failure for the rest of his life. Yet the main stimulus for him being involved with the golden calf was the loss of faith by the people, which all but forced his hand.

The wording of the phrase in which Aaron was invited to approach the altar relates to the question of the impact of followers on their leaders. “Moses said to Aaron, a) "Approach the altar and perform your sin offering…and atone for yourself and [atone] for the people, and b) perform the people's sacrifice, and atone for them (3). This appears quite repetitive, Aaron is told twice to atone for the people. However, the atonement for the people actually involves two different elements. Aaron’s offering of a calf as a personal sin offering for himself is also partially an atonement for the people (4). Aaron’s sin is not only his own. This idea is also found in the way the offering of the anointed priest’s offering is described as well. “If the anointed priest sins, to the guilt of the people, then he shall bring for his sin which he has committed, an unblemished young bull as a sin offering to the Lord” (5).

A sheikh I know reflected that we spend a lot of time giving leadership courses, perhaps we would be better off teaching people how to be followers. To all who have supported me in my work or teaching, thank you for helping me be as strong, mentally, emotionally and spiritually as I am. Thank you to the Australian supporter who sent me text messages about helping me from a hotel room in New York yesterday, at 7:00 am his time, while on holiday with his family. Thank you to the people who attend my Torah discussion group on a Saturday afternoon, who offer their thoughts, reflections and questions. Thank you dear reader for spending your precious time reading my thoughts. The success of leaders belongs to their followers as well as to the them. And when they fail, the buck stops with them... and perhaps a little bit with their followers too.

   

Notes

1. Torat Cohanim, in Torah Shlaima, p. 154.
2. Raavad cited in Torah Shlaima, p. 154.
3. Leviticus 9:7.
4. Abarbanel, Vayikra, p.108 (Chorev edition). Abarbanel’s interpretation of the atonement for the people that was included in Aaron’s offering is that Aaron’s sin “was a great stumbling block for the people”. However, his reference to the verse in Leviticus 4:3 can be plausibly interpreted in the way that I am suggesting in this post, even though this is not quite the way he explains it.
5. Leviticus 4:3. The translation is mine, others such as the translation on chabad.org renders it as “If the anointed kohen sins, bringing guilt to the people, then he shall bring for his sin which he has committed”

Process, Personality and Positions combine against Violent Extremism and Prejudice - Tzetzaveh

On the 14th floor of an office building this week, I confronted the fact that I will fail to achieve my purpose if my approach is more of the same. My work has been significantly personality driven. Muslim, Jewish and Christian people, often with charisma and great personal qualities have talked to 100,000 students and some others about how we can respect our differences and be friends. Despite the merit and value of this work to date, to changes things to a further extent requires a holistic approach and the collective impact of many factors.

I rode into the city on a crowded bus on Tuesday morning to attend a two day planning process about resilience and violent extremism. One could be cynical about the whole thing. During the second day it was clear that there wasn’t even a agreement about how to talk about the issue or issues; how on earth could we achieve anything?

For many people the words violent extremism equals Muslims, or even Muslim young men. Even some of the people who think that they should not speak this out loud, still think it is true, but are constrained by “political correctness”. Never mind violent white supremacists. Other people are furious about what they see as a soft approach to what they perceive as a massive threat. These people are become increasingly hostile to everything Muslim.

Those of us who work in “the field” know the vast number of young Muslims who have shown no sign of violent extremism. The real risk posed by violent extremism is not denied and is taken seriously because even a small amount of terrorism is too much. Still, we have concerns about the way that innocent people are being demonized, and we are concerned about feelings of alienation and other problems youth struggle with. There are valid questions about what is an ethical, truthful and practical way to articulate these issues.

However one defines the challenges we face relating to prejudice and violent extremism, there are plenty of quality people doing their bit. Yet, lacking a shared understanding or time  to even understand what others are doing, our efforts are often fragmented rather than coordinated or building on each other's work.

In the two days a group representing community, government, academic and business sectors followed a very effective process for thinking through the issues. We identified processes we will need for collaborating and communicating more effectively and being accountable for the degree to which we are contributing to a collective impact. We also considered the personal qualities of people being involved as well as the ways that roles and positions of leadership can be harnessed. I cannot divulge more because of confidentiality requirements but I am confident that something more holistic will emerge and contribute to better outcomes.  

The journey this week resonated for me in light of the Torah reading this week. It is the only reading relating to the time that Moses was alive in which his name is not mentioned. It would appear to be setting up the people for a time after the passing of the charismatic leader (1).

Three different methods appear to be provided for setting up a group of people, called Cohanim or priests, to function in a holy temple to create an institution to foster Moses’ message. The first is providing them with distinctive clothing (2), offering sacrifices and associated induction processes (3) and God himself making them into Cohanim (4).  

The text implies that the special clothing can transform ordinary men into priests or Cohanim (5).  However, many of the traditional explanations find ways around this interpretation. They suggest the clothing would just bring them into the role, rather than being transformative (6). Alternatively, they focus on how the clothing might symbolise the inner personal and spiritual transformation the ordinary men would be expected to work on as they took on the roles (7). Of course “clothings” and positions or formal roles is not enough. Personal qualities and integrity are vital in the people filling roles if they are to have some impact. Similarly, the induction procedures in the Torah for the Cohanim were extensive and highly symbolic (8). To me this reflects the importance of rituals and process in the quest for transformation.

There is no quick fix to any problem. Yet, I am confident that our efforts, following on from the two days this week, will yield even greater fruit as we start to see a new approach to facilitating and brokering collaboration. What will be different is a better mix of the three P’s, personal leadership by people with relevant positive qualities; some of these people will be strategically placed in positions of leadership and following wise, evidence based processes that will be tried, and invariably fail only to be replaced by others. In this, we will see a more cohesive nation with somewhat fewer angry people of any background.

1. http://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation-5768-tetzaveh-do-clothes-make-the-man/
2. Exodus 28:3, & 29:29
3. Exodus 29:1
4. Exodus 29:44
5. The Hebrew word is  לכהנו which literally means to make him into a Cohen. See Rabbi Avraham Mizrahi (1450 – 1526) who concedes that this is the clear implication of the text before opting for a non-literal meaning, also translation by Kaplan in Living Torah. Our sages (Midrash Hagadol, cited in Torah Shlaima Exdodus, Tetzave, p.157, note 24) state that “for all the time that their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them and their holiness endures in them, (but if) their garments are not on them, their priesthood is not upon them (either). R. Yona Ibn Janach (995 – 1050- Andalusia, Spain- In Torah Shlaima p154, note 11) entertains two meanings to the word, either to minister or to made to minister eg. to put the work upon him...like to sanctify.
6. Rashi as interpreted by Sifsei Chachomim, Chizkuni and other suggest we read the word as if it was written without a Vav and means to serve rather than to make into a Cohen.
7. Malbim  (1809-1879, cited in Lebovitz, p 532), Sefer Hachinuch, the Lubavitcher Rebbe
8. Midrash Habiur, cited in Torash Shlaima vol 20, p. 215, 68 explain the ritual of putting blood from a sacrifice on the their ears, thumbs and big toes. The ear that heard, on Mt. Sinai, I am...and you should have no other gods, after 40 days (the same ear) heard/was responsive to the voice of the people who demanded “arise and make for us a god” needs atonement. The legs that up to Mt. Sinai and then ran to make the golden calf need atonement. More specifically, the soft part of the ear is the part to use to block out ‘bad sounds’, the thumb & big toes played key roles…(note 68)

Physical and mental illness does not devalue a person - Vayelech

I saw his fear filled eyes and anguished face across a crowded room. How long has it been since I saw him last? Thoughts of pity filled my mind. He was clearly suffering from a severe mental illness. Then I caught myself. Did I value him less because of his illness? Did I see the person and respect him for his intrinsic worth or did I see him primarily through the lens of his condition?

Jane Caro once said about ageing: "Your outside deteriorates, but by God, your inside improves". Yet, still, physical strength seems also to be erroneously equated with virtue. In the US presidential election, ‘Hillary’s health’ has been highlighted, not just because it is necessary for a demanding job but, in my view, as way of devaluing her as a person (especially as a woman) aspiring to leadership. Trump’s sniffles at last week’s debate were also jumped on by commentators, for the same reason. I object to that. Surely, there are people whose physical or mental health is not optimal; they might tire more quickly, be unable to walk, be in pain, depressed or anxious, yet they can be intelligent, compassionate and productive. It is wrong to suggest there is something shameful about a loss of physical strength or mental health difficulties. As the late Stella Cornelius used to say; “The best things in this world have been done by people who were not feeling well that day” (1).  

The tendency to equate physical strength with virtue can be inferred from the commentary on the following verse. Moses, said simply “"Today I am one hundred and twenty years old. I can no longer go or come” (2). Rather than take this at face value, some of the classical commentators jump in with denial of his physical decline. “You might think that his strength was weakened, so the Torah tells you (in another verse) that although “Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eye had not dimmed, nor had he lost his moisture” (3). His being unable to “go and come” is interpreted as him being denied divine permission to enter the promised land (4).

In one dramatic commentary we have Moses feeling afraid that the people might take his words literally and think that he is not physically strong. To counter this “Moses walked (5) the length and breadth of the whole camp quickly or vigorously to show that his strength at this time (at the age of 120) is the same as it was then (when he was younger)” (6).  

Alternative commentators, however, have no problem acknowledging the changing degree of physical strength or prowess of the great man of the spirit (7). A compromise position is that although Moses was still physically strong at the time he told the people “it is not proper that I fool myself that it will always be thus, because due to my being elderly, despite my current good health, I have no doubt that it will not be this way in the future, per force, weakness will come upon me quickly…” (8) Clearly, there is no shame in physical weakness, it is the way of all men and women, including the greatest.

At this holy time of the year for Jews (leading up to Yom Kippur when our fate for the following year is “sealed”), I wish everyone optimal physical and mental health and strength, and for those of us for whom that might not be possible, let us be spared the pain of stigma and judgement and instead do the best we can. This is certainly virtuous and honorable.

Notes

1. Stella Cornelius, cited in a comment on my blog by Paul Reti, and also quoted to me by Donna Jacobs Sife
2. Deuteronomy 31:2
3. Deuteronomy 34:7
4. Talmud Sotah 13b, based on Sifre, cited in Rashi, and second opinion in Daat Zekainim M’baalei Hatosofot. The interpretation is made more plausible when reading the second half of the verse that mentions the matters of permission: “and God said to me you will not pass this Jordan river”. This argument is challenged by Mizrachi and Maharsha who argue that the letter Vav means “and”, and we don’t find it used as “because”. Tzeda L’Derech counters that in fact in Genesis 2:5 the letter Vav which means: and, is taken to also mean ‘because’. The verse states: “God had not made it rain and, -meaning because- there was not a man to work the land”. Ramban also does not accept the simple meaning of the text and instead suggests that Moses’ comment was (a false) comfort for the people, implying that his imminent death was not such a great loss.
5. This is the reason for “Moses going”, mentioned in Deuteronomy 31:1
6. Klei Yakar
7. Ibn Ezra, Bchor Shor and implied in Seforno
8. Abarbanel