Reflections

To view the archive of past 'Reflections' click here

Beha'alotcha

16th Sivan 5773 ~ 25th May 2013

Shabbat Times (London) begins 20:44 / ends 22:01

By Rabbi Stuart Altshuler

There are many interesting sections in this week’s Torah portion, including the description of the lighting of the first Menorah, the section referring to Pesach Sheni, a make-up Passover for those who missed the first one, and Miriam’s and Aaron’s gossip against their brother, Moses. Perhaps the most fascinating episode occurs in a short exchange between Moses and his second-in-command, Joshua, an interchange that says much about Moses, his leadership and the kind of society he envisioned for the nation of Israel.

Up to this point in the text (Numbers, chapter 11), Moses is clearly the sole leader of the people; dictatorial in a sense, for it was he who pronounced all legal judgments(despite the advice of Yitro, his father-in-law, Exodus 18), solved all problems and disputes among the people. Here(Num. 11:14), Moses asks for assistance, and God tells Moses to appoint seventy elders of Israel to come for a training course, so to speak, in helping Moses carry out his governance of the people.

God gathered the seventy chosen leaders, but one snag arose. Two men, Eldad and Medad did not leave the tent for God’s training course, and instead walked around the camp prophesying, speaking in God’s Name. Not liking this apparent challenge to Moses’ ultimate authority, one of his servants ran to tell Moses and Joshua what was occurring Eldad and Medad were doing. Joshua, Moses’ most trusted assistant, wanted Moses to put an end to this brazen challenge to Moses. What is Moses’ response? “Are you jealous for my sake? Would that everyone speak with God’s spirit”.(v.29) Leave them alone.

Moses was certainly no weakling when it came to false and scurrilous challenges to his authority, as in the case of Korach and his cohorts. Against those true rebels, Moses fought to the end to destroy those with nefarious motives to seize power over the people. But not here—Eldad and Medad were not rebels and neither were they kooks or crackpots. To Moses, they were well meaning individuals who deserved a listen, despite the fact that their views might have been in contrast with those of Moses.

Contrary to the vehement reaction of Joshua, Moses showed patience, understanding and discernment. Instead of demanding absolute obedience to his will, Moses respected, tolerated, and even applauded the right and obligation of those who had differing views than his. Perhaps the very foundations of Israel’s nascent democracy and freedom were underscored by Moses’ respect for diverse opinions. How especially relevant his wisdom appears in light of what is happening in so many places in the world—in Egypt, where dissidents and political satirists are arrested arbitrarily; in Syria which has radicalised its populace leading to a bloody civil war because of its leadership’s intolerance for dissent; in the Palestinian territories, where Facebook comments critical of Abbas are met with imprisonments without trial; in North Korea, Iran, Gaza, Saudi Arabia , China, Russia, and so many other places where political disagreement is severely punished by authoritarian and arbitrary decree. Increasingly so, the ability to discern between rebellion and honest and necessary dissent is disappearing.

The world is still battling an age-old problem—the assault against the integrity of differing viewpoints, aired honestly in literature, the media, and on the street. Societies where people are still yearning for true freedom to speak and to believe as they wish without causing harm to others are battling, oftentimes from prison cells, a right that our Torah guaranteed under the leadership of Moses. The principle that the struggle for control of a people does not depend upon brute force from one side against the other, but instead is to be contested in sincere and honest debate and discussion, was Moses’ gift to the Jewish people and to our inherited values.

Despite the fact that Israel today faces numerous challenges to its security from external and internal threats during its sixtyfive years of existence, it has shown remarkable resilience in allowing legitimate dissent. There is a need, for sure, to do better in this regard, especially in the struggle to tolerate many voices of Judaism, a righteous debate that requires a strong Masorti presence both in Israel and abroad. In the political realm, our people would also be wise to heed Moses’ sage advice: on both sides of the political spectrum, left and right, there is room for debate, protected by Judaism’s most precious inheritance of respect for differing views. Moses knew at this early stage of our people’s existence that a society that nurtures legitimate differences of opinion is a healthier and stronger society. He did not shut Eldad and Medad down for he knew that he had no monopoly over interpreting God’s Word.

This is a lesson for us all today—we do not have all the answers, no one person possesses such moral or political purity. Thanks to Moses here in B’ha’alotecha, the Rabbis sanctified our respect for diverse views by teaching us in Pirke Avot, that “eilu va’eilu divrei elohim chayim”—“These views and these views are words of the Living God”, and a “machloket”, a difference of opinion, for the sake of Heaven, voiced with sincerity and for righteous aims, is necessary, right and an appropriate way in which we all strengthen our beliefs and faith in God.

Today, voices in politics and religion react like Joshua to views contrary to their own and say, “Stop them! Restrain them! They are dangerous to tradition, to Judaism, to halacha!” Our challenge is to respond as Moses did to those who disagree with us—to affirm that we can learn from each other and cherish the multiplicity of ideas and opinions.

If we heed Moses’ words, then our synagogues, Judaism, Israel and our world will become places of true freedom and peace. Beha'alotcha.

Rabbi Stuart Altshuler is a Masorti Rabbi and the Rabbi of Belsize Square Synagogue

What’s in a name?

By Rabbi David Golkin

Question: If a person's name was changed during an illness, when this person dies, should one also engrave the new name on the gravestone? If both names are engraved, which name should come first?

Responsum: Changing the name of a sick person is a custom that appeared in Germany, France and Spain in the time of the Rishonim. Since it is only a custom, it is possible to follow different traditions. One can engrave both names in every case, or only if the person completely recovered from his illness, or only if he lived at least thirty days after his name was changed, or only if he was called to the Torah by his new name.

Each case should be judged on its own merits. If the person died shortly after the changing of the name, and the new name will be a painful reminder to the family that the change did not help, it is preferable not to engrave it on the gravestone. But if the person recovered from his illness and lived a few years after the changing of the name, it is preferable to engrave both names on the gravestone since he was already known by his new name for a few years. Finally, if one engraves the new name on the gravestone, it should appear before the original name.

Rabbi David Golinkin

Rabbi Professor David Golinkin is a rabbi, author and President and Rector of the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, Israel. He is a major halachic authority in the Masorti (Conservative) movement in Israel. Rabbi Golinkin is a Conservative rabbi, and a member of the Rabbinical Assembly.

He is the editor or author of eighteen books, and over 150 responsa, articles, and sermons. He is also a professor of Jewish law at the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, and was the chair of the Va'ad Halakha, the law committee of the Rabbinical Assembly of Israel. He is responsible for uncovering and re-publishing dozens of responsa of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly, making them available to the general public in a three-volume set.

Source: www.responsafortoday.com

Please note that we aim to provide articles of interest and that you should consult your local rabbi if any there are any issues raised that need clarification or further explanation.

To view the archive of past 'Reflections' click here

home | contact | legal info