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

Don’t keep it simple or calm! On political and other leadership

The contrast between Donald Trump and our current prime minister could hardly be greater. The “Donald” fearlessly commits to punishing women for having abortions, ‘building a wall that Mexico will pay for’ and barring Muslims entry to the US. I cringed when I read Kristina Keneally’s sarcastic ridiculing of the caution of our Prime Minister in her article; “Let’s cut Turnbull some slack, he’s had a hard week after making a decision[i]”. Another comparison could be made between the complexity of Hilary Clinton’s candidacy and the simplicity of the Sanders economic message. The attraction of the simple is undeniable. Despite my strong feelings about the leaders more generally, this post is focused on the merit of different leadership styles rather than on the personalities. 

 I was told the other day to calm down while talking passionately about my ideas. I thought: ‘No way will I calm down’. Sitting alongside emotion’s potential for destruction and messiness, is its potency as an ingredient of positive change. I love watching Bernie Sanders getting carried away in delight, as when a bird settled on his podium, or in anger when talking about injustice. On the other hand, emotion coupled with arrogance can be truly scary in a leader.

I also choose to embrace, albeit reluctantly, my hesitancy and difficulty making decisions. While it might be considered heroic or “manly” to be decisive, it can also lead to harmful decisions.

In this week’s Torah reading, we find a caution against getting carried away with emotion in the case of Aaron’s sons who spontaneously and joyously[ii] brought an offering that they were not commanded to bring[iii]. Passion is vital, as symbolised by the constant fire in the temple [iv], but it must be combined with humility[v]. Humility is also highlighted in commentary about Aaron being told by Moses to step forward to leadership[vi]. It is suggested that Aaron was reluctant about leadership, worried about a past failure. However he was told “it is for/because of this that you were chosen[vii]”. This quality of humility and reluctance to lead is itself the virtue that makes Aaron deserving of leadership[viii].  Sanders seems to have a combination of humility and passion which I am drawn to.   

I also have been thinking about the qualities attributed to honey and salt in our traditions. Honey is seen as highly potent and not at all complex: it simply adds to the flavour of foods. Salt is complicated. If you put a lot of salt on a plant, it will destroy it; however, put salt on other foods and it preserves them. So salt is complicated in that it’s  both preserving and destructive. Of the two elements, it is salt that is required in the temple and honey that is generally banned. That might be of some comfort to Clinton or Kasich supporters if complexity was the only thing that mattered.  Humility and passion, coupled with an embrace of complexity and caution, are some of the needed qualities for leadership. As Ed Kotch said when he was running for Mayor of New York, “there are many people better qualified than me to be mayor. None of them are running this year”.  I pray that whoever leads both the US and Australia be blessed with the required qualities to do so.   

---

[i] The Guardian

[ii] Torat Cohanim, in Torah Shlaima p3, 1

[iii] Leviticus 10:1

[iv] Schneerson, Rabbi Y. Y. in Hayom Yom,  21 Adar II

[v] Talmud, Eruvin 63a, Yoma 53a, and Torah Cohanim

[vi] Leviticus 9:7

[vii] Torah Cohanim cited in Rashi

[viii] Baal Shem Tov in Degel Machne Efrayim, in Greenberg, A.Y. (1992) Torah Gems, Orenstien, Tel Aviv p.266

I dotting, Inactivity and Inspiration

The process for choosing a leader for the largest faith community in the world has begun in Rome. I would like to think that what would be uppermost in the minds of the selectors is identifying who is the most compassionate, most committed to justice and charity, most devout, tolerant, spiritual, sensitive, wisest, boldest, noblest visionary candidate. I would imagine there are other practical qualities that are being considered seriously, such as something as mundane as management skills for example. This is a good time to think about the role of spiritual and moral leaders of significant faith or values based institutions broadly and for me personally. In particular, beyond vision and guidance how important are management skills to implement the vision and the ability to run a compliant, accountable organisation? How much of a priority is to be still and to contemplate? All of these issues are deemed to be important in the Torah reading this week in the portions Vayakhel-Pekudei[1].

The first conflict is between the priorities of action vs. stillness. Moses has a temple to build and there is great excitement, should this activity pause for the Sabbath rest? A robust argument could be made for action to take priority. Surely, ‘since the temple symbolised God’s presence among the nation, its creation should take precedence over the Sabbath. Perfection (would presumably) lie in action rather than rest. Action seems a much more eloquent witness of faith than merely the absence of work[2]’. This argument is repudiated in God’s command to Moses in the midst of the discussion about the temple that the Sabbath rest must be observed[3]. Lesson one inverts the famous action oriented saying to advise us: “don’t just do something, sit there!”, at least for one day out of seven.

The tension between institution building activity and quiet contemplation plays out in a lovely Midrash that presents it as a conversation between the Sabbath and God. The Sabbath says “Master of the World, you created me from (the time of) the six days of creation and you sanctified me, now you are instructing the Jews about matters of the tabernacle but my name you don’t mention. Perhaps, out of the love Israel has for making the tabernacle they will desecrate me”. Immediately, God turned to her and told Moses to write about the Sabbath in this portion that deals with the work of the tabernacle to show that it’s construction does not override the Sabbath …[4]” I take this as a message that while “doing” and building is important, a spiritual endeavour must include an emphasis on retreat and reflection.

While quiet time helps us stay true to ourselves, building institutions is really important and exciting work that occupies many page of the Exodus. After Moses went up on the mountain and was with God for forty days and nights, not even eating or drinking[5] as he received the law and the most amazing revelation at Mt Sinai, he goes on to build a physical building to contain the vision, the relationship with God and the message.

I think Moses would have hoped this could be his focus, but this is not to be. He has the scandal of the Golden calf. What an incredible let down, by the people he was so committed to helping. These were the people who were meant to be on his team. What have they done?! Yet this too is part of leadership, to support the flock and be there for them in their struggles with their human frailties.

Photo by Mrs. L. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nosmoking/ 

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic 

(CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) Creative Commons License.

After the drama of the Golden Calf, Moses deserved a holiday. Instead he threw himself into the construction of the Tabernacle. Yet, another challenging task was still ahead of him, the extremely practical and mundane task of accounting for the donations. Moses is focused on the following bits of information. “the gold of the waving was twenty nine talents, seven hundred and thirty shekels in the holy Shekel[6]The silver of the community numbers was one hundred talents and one thousand seven hundred and seventy five shekels in the holy Shekel. One hundred talents of the silver were used for casting the sockets of the Holy and the sockets of the dividing curtain; one hundred sockets out of one hundred talents, one talent for each socket. And out of The one thousand seven hundred and seventy five [shekels] he made hooks for the pillars, and he covered their tops and banded them…” and on and on it goes.

According to commentary, a bookkeeping error meant that Moses was very worried about a 1775 shekel discrepancy which is the reason for the word “the” in the preceding verse, after that particular bit of expenditure was identified. Moses was elated when this accounting problem was solved[7].

This work is not fulfilling or exciting yet it is required. Like Moses, I embrace it and accept the great importance of doing right and being seen to be doing right. The compliance, governance and audit responsibilities all come with the territory and are part of the sacred work. Once these are attended to, other matters of worship and vision can be realised. This is as true for me as it is for the next pope.

---

[1] Exodus 35:1-40:38

[2] Abarbanel cited in Leibovitz, New Studies in Shemot Exodus, p.655

[3] Exodus 35:1-3

[4] Midrash Hagadol cited in Torah Shlaima, Vol 23, p.3

[5] Exodus 34:28

[6] Exodus 38:24

[7] Midrash Tanchuma 7