Two Minutes of Torah: Ekev (Deuteronomy 9:1-19) - What would Supernanny do?

With the limited number of channels available to us on freeview, I have started watching ‘Supernanny’ on an occasional basis (there really is nothing else on at that time in the morning). On the TV programme Jo Frost visits families who are struggling with their children. She spends a short time observing, and then she offers suggestions and strategies on how to be better parents and help the children to grow and develop. All too often the problems in the home revolve around discipline; whether it is a lack of, or poor methods of discipline. The majority of Jo’s time seems to be dedicated to helping the parents to develop better strategies for both rewarding and rebuking their children.

The right words, strategy and technique nearly always see the family transformed as relationships improve, with Supernanny proudly watching as the parents put into practice what they have learnt. I watch it and worry about the type of parent I will be, while also fascinated by the way that the use of ‘rewards and punishments’ serve to educate the children.

I wonder what Supernanny would say about the way that Moses speaks to the Israelites in this week’s Torah portion. As they are on the eve of entering the Land of Israel, Moses makes sure to let them know that they are not receiving this land as a reward for good behaviour; ‘it is rather because of the wickedness of those nations that the Eternal is dispossessing them before you’ (Deuteronomy 9:4). The other nations misbehaved, so they are being punished, and as a result we will be the beneficiaries. And if this was not clear enough: ‘It is not because of your virtues and your rectitude that you will be able to possess their country, but it is because of their wickedness’ (Deuteronomy 9:5).

There is no positive reinforcement for the Israelite’s behaviour, instead there appears to be a threat hanging over them – possession of the land is temporary, depending on appropriate behaviour. The wickedness and evil of the Israelites is then restated by Moses in the following verses, as the story of the golden calf, and other incidents, are retold.

It is true that the Israelites had been a difficult people for Moses to lead through the wilderness, and there is no denying that they sinned and transgressed along the way. But one wonders if this is the best method for handling their ill discipline, and problematic behaviour.

I have this image of Supernanny sitting across the table from Moses as she replays him clips from his dealings with the Israelites. I can almost hear her suggesting to him that there are other ways in which he could offer the same message, ways which would encourage, rather than discourage. I think that she would have suggested that Moses needs to also look for positives when talking to the Israelites, and not to focus exclusively on their faults. I am also certain that she would remind him to criticise the behaviour and not the Israelite people.

At this point one can imagine that Moses had reached his limits with the Israelites. They were going to enter the Promised Land, while he would die without crossing the Jordan. This awareness might go some way to explaining his behaviour, although it does not excuse it. Instead, as we read about the chastisement of the Israelites we can reflect on our own relationships, and the way that we give feedback, criticism and even rebuke.

Perhaps this interaction was further evidence of the fact that it was time for Moses to pass the mantle of leadership on to Joshua, who would be able to handle, and discipline, the people in a more appropriate way.

Two Minutes of Torah: Vaetchanan (Deuteronomy 3:23-4:14) - I've Been to the Mountaintop

Last summer, while Micol and I were driving across America, we stopped for a few hours in the city of Memphis. We knew that we did not have time to spend the night there, but we wanted to see the National Civil Rights Museum. This museum is located at the Lorraine Motel, the site of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and we felt a responsibility to visit and learn more about the American civil rights movement. It was a tremendously powerful experience, and the story of Dr. King was especially moving. He led the civil rights movement, but he never saw the final fruits of his labour.

On the 3rd April 1968, the day before his assassination, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered a speech where he said: ‘We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land.’

His prophecy that day was two-fold. Yes, he said, his people would reach the promised land, but no, he would not be there to reach it with them.

The mountaintop to which Dr. King was referring could have been Pisgah, the mountain which Moses ascends in this week’s Torah portion (Deuteronomy 3:27). Moses led the Israelites from slavery to freedom, out of the land of Egypt and towards the Promised Land. But Moses was not permitted to enter.

Our Torah portion begins with Moses telling the people: ‘I pleaded with the Eternal at that time … Let me, I pray, cross over and see the good land on the other side of the Jordan’ (Deuteronomy 3:23&25). The text makes it clear that Moses remained unhappy with God’s decree that he would not enter into the Promised Land. The one consolation which Moses is offered is to climb up Mount Pisgah and ‘gaze about, to the west, the north, the south, and the east. Look at it well, for you shall not go across yonder Jordan’ (Deuteronomy 3:27).

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Moses both led their people to freedom, both climbed the mountaintop, and both were prevented from reaching their promised land.

The difference between them lies in the way in which they approached their destiny. Moses appeared unable to accept his fate; he was angry with God, with the people and most of all with his situation. Dr. King accepted his fate with grace and dignity; he accepted that the journey to the promised land was about more than any one individual. For Dr. King, guiding his people to freedom took precedence over achieving freedom himself. He did not get there, but through his work and his legacy, his people reached the promised land.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had the benefit of learning from Moses’ example. He could read the Bible and about the Israelite successes both under Moses’ leadership and after his death. He could read about the way in which Joshua continued Moses’ legacy; leading the people into the Promised Land. From the Bible, Dr. King gained an insight into the future, and the fact that the journey would continue without him. And with that awareness, he was able to accept his destiny, and continue to shape the destiny of his people.

Both Moses and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made the world a far better place for future generations. They did not see the full fruits of their labour, but we are able to experience the richness of their legacy everyday.

If only English football could find a manager like Moses

(This article was published in the Jewish News 15th July 2010)

Another World Cup has come to an end, and we have four years to wait until Brazil 2014.

By any measure it has been a disappointing competition for the England team, as our ‘golden generation’ meekly surrendered in the Round of 16. However, over in Europe, the whole of Spain has been united in euphoric celebration of their first World Cup success – I know that I’m not supposed to covet, but I am a little jealous of the Spanish nation who will continue to rejoice for many days, months and years to come.

As a Jewish community we got to watch our co-religionists Benny Feilhaber and Jonathan Bornstein represent the United States, disproving the commonly held assumption about Jews and sport.

However, there is more for us to take away from South Africa 2010, and the way that events transpired offer us important lessons for our Jewish community.

I’m no football expert, but it seems clear that England suffered from a lack of team spirit, and a culture of individualism. We have world class players, but they failed to combine to create a world class team (and we weren’t the only ones, just look at France and Italy). In contrast Spain battled through with each player demonstrating a commitment to his colleagues and country.

In the wilderness, despite the entire Israelite community being divided along tribal lines, we moved forward together as the Children of Israel. The twelve tribe squad flourished when able to work together and, for forty years, passed undefeated through the wilderness, defeating all comers on our journey to the Promised Land, our own special prize.

All too often today we have a fractious Jewish community divided along ethnic lines, political lines and religious lines. We focus on our individual place and our individual community rather than the Jewish people. All too often we divide internally along various lines and forget the important teaching: ‘All Israel are responsible one for another’ (Talmud Shavuot 39a).

Last month I was privileged to be a delegate at the World Zionist Congress, one of the most impressive elements of the Congress was the way that it brought together Jews from across the globe representing virtually every position within the Jewish community. There was something wonderful about the way Jews came together with a common purpose and identity.

Returning to the less than wonderful England team, it is also clear that we suffered from a lack of real leadership. Rio Ferdinand’s injury on the eve of the competition was unlucky, but there appeared to be no obvious leader on the field, and our leader on the sideline failed to deliver. Again we need only look to the Spanish and the way that they were led on and off the field by Vicente del Bosque and Iker Casillas - that’s another part of the reason why they’re World Champions, and we are not.

Back again to the wilderness, and we had an undisputed leader. Moses was the man who led us out of slavery and brought us to the edge of the Promised Land. Despite setbacks along the way (most notably when he was effectively sent off and told he would not enter Israel – Bamidbar 20:12) he always picked himself up and continued to lead from the front. And as he reminds us in this week’s Torah portion, he also selected other leaders from amongst the tribes to help and support him (Devarim 1:9-18).

Moses is in many ways a model leader, always putting the needs of the community above his own. It was never about personal gain for Moses, it was always about the Israelites and what was best for them. He is an example for anyone who seeks to assume a leadership position within our Jewish community, and he could also have a lot to teach Fabio Capello and the boys, although I am not convinced he would favour the Christmas tree formation.

The England team will have to wait until 2014 to try and win the World Cup again, but for us in the Jewish community, we can learn the lessons of their failure, and try to emulate the teamwork and camaraderie of the tribes in the wilderness, under the leadership of Moses, who succeeded in leading our people to victory.

Two Minutes of Torah: Devarim (Deuteronomy 1:1-21) - Knowing your limits

When I went off to university I was really excited about all of the possibilities and opportunities which were available to me. And I tried to take advantage of them as much as possible. I played football and hockey, I got involved with the Israel society, I helped organise the summer party, I went to all of my classes, I got all of my papers in on time, and I even found time to stay very involved with RSY-Netzer. I had a great time juggling everything. I loved being busy (I still do), but I had bitten off more than I could chew. As the final term of the first year approached, it all got a bit much, and I dropped a couple of balls. Thankfully there were no serious repercussions, but it taught me an important lesson about knowing my limits.

Ever since that first time I have tried to be more disciplined about what I take on, and conscious of what I can and cannot manage. I am sure I am not the only person who has struggled with taking on too much. On this subject, Moses once again provides a very important role model for us.

When Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt he assumed responsibility for virtually every area of civic life. And he was busy from morning until night. When his father-in-law Yitro saw him judging all of the people, all day, he made the simple assessment: ‘The thing that you do is not good’ (Exodus 18:17). Moses accepted the advice and delegated responsibility amongst the people. It was only once this had been done that Moses could lead the people to Mount Sinai, where they would receive the Ten Commandments and enter into the covenant with God, until then he just hadn’t been able to find the time.

Deuteronomy contains within it Moses’ final speech to the Israelite people. In many ways it is a farewell address reminding the people of what has gone before, with lessons for the future. We might have expected the speech to begin with Egypt, or the crossing of the sea, or maybe even the Ten Commandments. Instead Moses began somewhere else.

Moses’ oration to the people begins with the people leaving Horeb (another name for Sinai) to continue their journey to the Land of Israel (Deuteronomy 1:6). Having laid out the journey the next thing Moses said to the people was: ‘I spoke to you at that time, saying: “I am not able to bear you myself alone”’ (Deuteronomy 1:9). Moses first words acknowledge his limitations, recognising that he was unable to lead the people by himself.

As Moses retells the story of the delegation of power and the selection of leaders the one thing missing is the involvement of Yitro. In Exodus Yitro offered Moses advice, which prompted the delegation of power; in Deuteronomy Moses’ father-in-law is conspicuous by his absence.

We may feel aggrieved on behalf of Yitro after his exclusion from the retelling of the story But as is the case throughout Deuteronomy, Moses is attempting to teach the people a lesson; a lesson for life when he will no longer be the leader. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a Yitro, who can suggest that we have taken on too much and offer a strategy for improving the situation. Most of us have to rely on ourselves.

Moses offers an example of self-reflection and honesty about his own limits. He is a model of a person who considers the work before him and acknowledges that it is simply too much. Moses teaches us to know our own limits; not to rely on Yitro (or someone else), but to know what we can and cannot do. This is the lesson which the Israelites need on the eve of entering the Land of Israel, and it is a lesson which we can learn from many generations later.

Two Minutes of Torah: Matot Masey (Numbers 34:1-18) - 'British Jews' or 'Jewish Brits'

Parashat Matot Masey
‘British Jews’ or ‘Jewish Brits'
(Numbers 34:1-18)

Almost every year on RSY-Netzer’s Shemesh summer camp there would be a programme all about identity. During this session we would be asked to consider whether we are ‘British Jews’ or ‘Jewish Brits’. How did our Jewish and British identity fit together? Where were the areas of conflict? And which identity was most important in our self-definition? The debate in the programme was always interesting, and people would offer different answers based on their own life experience and perception of their dual identity.

Initially I liked to say I was a ‘Jewish Brit’; the Jewish part came first, as the defining feature of my identity, and was followed by my nationality. As I grew through the movement I used to say I was a ‘British Jew’; the Jew is the noun, and the British part is an adjective describing it. Today I would say I am British and Jewish and I am a Brit and a Jew simultaneously. There is no necessary conflict between the two, and the interaction of these two elements of my identity has defined me as the person I am today.

We can imagine that the Israelites had no such problems of dual identity. They were all Israelites, united by their shared journey to the Promised Land. But while the Israelites formed a unified whole, they were still divided into different groups – the twelve tribes. Each person had a tribal identity and an Israelite identity.

In this week’s Torah portion, as the Israelites are about to enter the Promised Land, the division of the tribes is emphasised. The boundaries of the land, which Israel will inhabit, are described first (Numbers 34:2-12), and then the text explains that it will be divided amongst the tribes. ‘This is the land which you shall inherit by lot, which Adonai commanded to give to the nine and a half tribes’ (Numbers 34:13). Although all of the Israelite tribes left Egypt together, their shared journey will culminate in a divided land, split up between nine and a half tribes.

They will conquer the land together, as it belongs to them all; but they will inhabit it according to their tribal associations. The text itself makes an important statement by laying out the boundaries of the entire land before focussing on the idea of individual tribal allocations. It is a unified land, even though it will be divided amongst the tribes.

It is striking that two and a half tribes will not be receiving an allotment in the Promised Land. Reuben, Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh, have already received their land allocation on the other side of the Jordan (Numbers 32). However, as part of this agreement they committed: ‘We will pass over armed before Adonai into the land of Canaan, that the possession of our inheritance on this side of the Jordan may be ours’ (Numbers 32:32). Despite not receiving a share in the Land of Israel these two and a half tribes committed to participate in the fight to conquer it as a result of their shared Israelite identity. They knew that they would not share in the spoils of war, but they recognised that they had an obligation to the entire Israelite community.

The challenge of dual identity is therefore one which has been around the Israelites from the day we left Egypt (if not before). What is significant is the way in which the tribes found ways to be united, while remaining independent; cooperating despite different rewards. As ‘British Jews’ or ‘Jewish Brits’ our challenge is to make sense of our dual identity, so that we can contribute both to the Jewish community and British society. We flourish when both are flourishing, and we suffer when either one is in distress. We do not have to decide on what the label will be, we just have to commit to recognising our dual loyalty, and working to be a positive influence on both.

Two Minutes of Torah: Parashat Pinchas (Numbers 25:10-26:4) - The Rabbis offer a hidden critique

I have long been troubled by the end of the film: ‘Bend it like Beckham’. Throughout the film there are numerous storylines about the challenges of an Indian girl playing football in England. There is a clash of cultures between the dominant British culture, which accepts a girl playing football, and an Indian family who have a specific view of what the women should be doing. Jess, the star of the film is the girl caught between her wishes to play football, and her parents’ desire for her to conform to a certain set of expectations. Alongside this problem, Jess also has a very complicated relationship with her non-Indian coach; fearing her parents’ response if she ever brought home a non-Indian boyfriend. At the very end of the film, as she is about to fly away, she kisses the coach, and tells him that they will find a way to make it work.

The film offers the romantic, Hollywood ending, as the characters appear destined to find a way to make their interfaith relationship work – and there is something so artificial about it. This girl, who has struggled about how her Indian identity should influence her life, ends up appearing to leave it behind completely in her pursuit of a football career, and in her relationship with the coach. The complexity, the difficulty of the situation is lost in the search for the ‘right ending’.

Pinchas, for whom this week’s Torah portion is named, offers one way of dealing with interfaith relationships (one which is highly problematic). At the end of last week there was a developing problem of Israelite men entering into relationships with Moabite women. Pinchas took matters into his own hands and drove a spear through Zimri, an Israelite prince, and Cosbi, a Midianite woman (Numbers 25:7-9). This week, Pinchas is praised for his actions by God: ‘he has turned my anger away from the people of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them’ (Numbers 25:11). He also receives the honour of having a Torah portion named after him.

How do we make sense of this? And how do we understand this act of violence and the apparent praise it appears to receive from God? On a basic reading the story of Pinchas appears as a very clear statement against intermarriage, or even interfaith relationships. We have to engage with these difficult stories in our sacred texts.

The break between the Torah portions of Balak and Pinchas is particularly peculiar. Last week’s Torah portion could easily have finished with the verse: ‘And Balaam rose up, and went and returned to his place; and Balak also went his way’ (Numbers 24:25). As a Torah portion it would have perfectly encapsulated the story of Balak, beginning and ending with it. Instead, an additional ten verses were included so that we finished by reading about Pinchas’ murder of Cosbi and Zimri.

I would suggest that when the Rabbis were dividing the Torah into portions, they were also uncomfortable with this story, and the message it contains. They therefore chose to add this difficult story onto the end of a Torah portion all about Balak, so that it would essentially be lost at the end. On another level, it means that God’s praise for Pinchas is read out of context, and separated from the unpleasant action, which heralded it. The Rabbis divided the Torah so that we might forget the terrible actions of Pinchas when we read about God’s praise for him.

However, we are still left with the problem that Pinchas receives the honour of having a Torah portion named after him. In the Book of Numbers (Bamidbar) the other two men to have had a Torah portion named after them are Korach and Balak. Neither are particularly positive figures. Korach was swallowed up by the earth after attempting a rebellion against Moses’ leadership, and Balak was the Moabite king who feared the Israelites and tried to have them cursed. When Pinchas has a Torah portion, in Numbers, named after him, it appears that this is part of a rabbinic critique, both of him and his actions, placing him alongside Korach and Balak.

This is not the Hollywood ending of ‘Bend it like Beckham’, but the Rabbis ensured that God’s words were not the final word in the story of Pinchas, when we dig deeper we find a hidden critique to which we can relate.