OzTorah

Instead Moses – under pressure from a difficult people – lost his temper and hit the rock, and God punished him severely.

Yet at an earlier juncture Moses had been told to hit the rock. So what was the sin he now committed?

The Yalkut Shim’oni compares Moses to a teacher. If a pupil needs a rebuke, it all depends, says the Yalkut, on his age and stage of development.

With a young pupil who doesn’t yet know how to reason things out, the teacher is entitled to smack him; but with an older pupil, hitting is unlikely to get anywhere and the teacher should speak to him.

Moses was not punished because the rock had done anything wrong, but because as a leader he was dealing with the people in an inappropriate way.

By this stage they had matured sufficiently for a verbal rebuke.

Why is this sidra called Chukkat, “a statute”?

Tradition divides the mitzvot into those which reason can and cannot elucidate. The latter are called statutes.

Rashi says the nations of the world ask Israel why they keep commandments such as the rule of the red heifer. In response, the Israelites say, “It is a Divine decree, a statute!”

In other words, instead of seeking explanations for certain laws we simply say it is the word of God.

This echoes the modern problem of public relations. We have to be smart enough to know which approach to take when outsiders question us – whether to try painstaking explanations, or to choose to say, “This is a mark of Jewish identity!”

Q. In Germany and some other places there have been moves to ban circumcision as an infringement of the rights of a child.* What is your view?

A. There was a World Summit for Children at the United Nations, New York, in September, 1990. The Declaration that emerged from the Summit is full of beautiful rhetoric about the need to promote the survival, protection and development of children. It quite rightly emphasised that children should not be caught up in the dangers that surround every one of us in the modern world.

But how are we to protect our children, and indeed who are the “we” (governments? the media? the courts? the education system? parents?).

Presumably all children face the same dangers, and every country should adopt the same policies, but this wasn’t fully spelt out. Nor was there room for parents to claim that they acted in a certain way out of principle or conscience.

We are not certain whether the Summit disapproved of parents denying their children blood transfusions because of their religious beliefs. We are also not certain of its views about circumcision.

It may be that in today’s international configuration, no international body would risk banning circumcision because of the offence it would cause to Islam. Regardless of politics, however, to whom would parents who support circumcision state their view that this is a matter of conscience? To whom would they argue that circumcision in fact has medical benefits?

Who has the right to determine whether circumcision infringes a child’s “rights” – and what rights does a child have, and what if a child is unaware that it has rights?

If parents decide that giving a baby a heart operation, though it is intrusive surgery, does not infringe the child’s “rights”, why should they not equally be entitled to decide on circumcision, which is not nearly so invasive?

There is a time for common sense, and the opponents of circumcision in certain parts of Germany have an uncommon lack of it.

* This article first appeared in 2012.

Q. I read that a modern orthodox rabbi in New York is ready to ordain an orthodox woman but is worried about calling her “rabbi”.* Why is this a problem?

A. There are many orthodox women today with a high level of rabbinic knowledge. Few are clamouring to be called rabbis though they may be learned enough.

Of those who do want a title, the question is their motivation: whether they sincerely wish to serve God and the Torah, or if they wish to make a statement and show they are as good as men.

Some modern orthodox congregations have women carrying out pastoral and educational functions without a rabbinic title, but is there an appropriate title? “Rabbi” is masculine. Medieval authorities call a woman scholar a rabbanit, but this has come to mean a rabbi’s wife.

See also: Women as spiritual leaders

* This article first appeared in 2009.

Human beings will always have their own way of thinking, acting and responding. It is impossible for everyone to be the same and agree on everything.

But Judaism does not endorse every kind of controversy.

The classical analysis is in Pirkei Avot: “Every controversy for the sake of heaven will finally be established, but if not for the sake of heaven it will not be established. What is a controversy for the sake of heaven? This is the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And one not for the sake of heaven? This is the controversy of Korach and his congregation” (Avot 5:20).

What is meant by a controversy being “established”?

One possibility is that in the end it will lead to a worthwhile result; it will advance the cause of truth and assist in perfecting the creation. Or perhaps it means that generations to come will continue to discuss the issue, and the debate will echo down the ages.

To illustrate that kind of controversy, the Hillel-Shammai debate was chosen.

Both protagonists were earnest seekers after the truth. There was nothing unworthy in their motives. They sought only to understand the Torah. Their approaches differed, but they were both genuinely acting for the sake of heaven.

But the second illustration seems illogical. If the first is the paradigm, the second should have read, “Korach and Moses”, not “Korach and his congregation”.

It was Moses whom Korach and his people were challenging, Moses with whom they were in conflict. So why is Moses not named as the other side of the machloket?

One answer is that the motives of the two sides were different. Korach was not pursuing God’s interests but his own prestige, power and status.

Moses’ motive, on the other hand, was pure and disinterested. He was fighting God’s battle, not his own. His leadership position had been given by God. He had not appointed himself, nor had he wanted to be appointed. To see him as acting “not for the sake of heaven” would be an insult.

There is another way of looking at the passage.

Malbim remarks that, like any controversy pursued for selfish ends, “even those who have come together on one side are not really united. Each is governed by his own calculations of what he stands to gain and is ready to cut the others’ throats.”

Korach and his group were each out for their own ends. They were not united amongst themselves, and Moses was not involved in their conflict – it was Korach versus his congregation.

Truly a tragedy.