Parashat Pinchas, Numbers 25:10-30:1

This Parasha has been generously sponsored by Michael, Yoav and Danny, in memory of their beloved father Arno Schlesinger, Tammuz 15.

Women will tell you it is difficult to be heard.

Remember the power suit? I don't mean superhero outfits. I'm talking about the 1980's woman's outfit with sharp lines and wide shoulder pads and pants rather than a skirt. Men had their own power suits but more important was the power tie, usually red. Women wore a floppy scarf tie. The power suit meant women were making their way in the corporate world. This item was meant to fit in and be noticed. Even today, women in power will rarely wear a dress, though the modern professional woman's suit is softer and more feminine than its ancestor.

Enough fashion history. Appearances do make a statement, but the bottom line is that men and women are still treated differently in the professional world. Even now women will tell you it is difficult to be heard at meetings. There is the common experience of a woman saying something to no response, only to have it repeated a few minutes later by a male colleague who gets a tremendous reaction to his idea. Women are also interrupted more frequently, as is noted in this example from a reporter at conference on brain science:

At M.I.T., we were mostly spoken to by men, various kinds of men, of different ages and with different speaking styles, and we interacted with them with typical reportorial formality. Some were more popular with us than others; some were more engaged with us than others. Some spoke right over our heads; some reached even me with perfect clarity.
Something very different happened, however, on the two occasions when we were spoken to by women. The atmosphere in the room changed. We all became more familiar. We asked more questions. We interrupted more. We made sounds of assent or dissent; we questioned methods, concepts, base assumptions. It was as though, with the women, the boundaries dissolved. We were all immediately drawn into relationships.
How much of this had to do with the fact that the women tended to speak more relationally (“I think,” “I feel”), I don’t know. I don’t know if it was created by the fact that the women — to varying degrees — turned the story of their work into personal narratives.

Judith Warner, Of Mice and Women , Domestic Disturbances blog,
New York Times, June 26, 2008

Framing the issue as a personal narrative occurs in Parashat Pinchas. The daughters of Zelophehad have a problem and bring it to the attention of the powers-that-be: The daughters of Zelophehad, of Manassite family—son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh son of Joseph—came forward. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said, "Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah's faction, which banded together against the Lord, but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. Let not our father's name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father's kinsmen!" (Numbers 27:1-4)

Moses turns to God for help in adjudicating this problem. In a powerful declaration, God states that the plea of Zelophehad's daughters is just (Numbers 27:7). Rashi comments on this by saying that the daughters of Zelophehad "saw what Moses' eyes could not see."

Not only was their perspective different, so was their approach to the problem. They spoke of it calmly, taking it through the proper channels. The result was revolutionary:

…we can understand this story as a valuable lesson for all of us, teaching us that Jewish law has the flexibility to expand and embrace women, giving us increasingly more rights and a fairer share of our common legacy.

Ellen Frankel, The Five Books of Miriam, p. 236

This powerful story has set an example for women over the years. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the 19th century women's rights activist, drew on this text in her struggle, taking both sexes to task for not having the foresight or courage of our biblical ancestors:

The respect paid to the daughters of Zelophehad at that early day is worth the imitation of the rulers in our own times. …
… It would have been commendable if the members of the late Constitutional Convention in New York had, like Moses, asked the guidance of the Lord in deciding the rights of the daughters of the Van Rensselaers, the Stuyvesants, the Livingstons, and the Knickerbockers. Their final action revealed the painful fact that they never thought to take the case to the highest court in the moral universe. The daughters of Zelophehad were fortunate in being all of one mind; none there to plead the fatigue, the publicity, the responsibility of paying taxes and investing property, of keeping a bank account, and having some knowledge of mathematics. The daughters of Zelophehad were happy to accept all the necessary burdens, imposed by the laws of inheritance, while the daughters of the Knickerbockers trembled at the thought of assuming the duties involved in self-government

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, The Woman's Bible, chapter 5

Times change. Recently an article appeared in the Boston Globe examining the increased role of women in liberal synagogue life and the perceived disappearance of men from this same sphere.

Some Jewish leaders argue that the preponderance of women in segments of Jewish community life reflects pent-up demand for involvement by a gender excluded from leadership for much of religious history. Some suggest that in the Western world, spirituality, especially in more liberal denominations, has become associated with femininity. Others believe that men are reluctant to join organizations unless they can play leadership roles, and with the entry of large numbers of women into synagogue life, there are fewer such opportunities for men.

Michael Paulson, Where Have All the Men Gone?, Boston Globe, June 22, 2008

One rabbi interviewed in the article suggested that men devalue things done by women. I hope he is wrong. As Stanton exhorted the people of her day to take responsibility, we too need to encourage all members of our community to embrace the responsibilities that are ours, be it by birth or through struggle.

Parashat Pinchas teaches that there are different ways of doing things, different ways of seeing things, each of which serves to strengthen the community. It is this versatility that is our lesson.

New leadership comes to the fore in the parashah. Pinchas receives the "pact of priesthood" for taking decisive, if to our sensibilities, controversial action that saves lives. Joshua is named to replace Moses when the latter asks God to appoint someone over the community who shall go out before them and come in before them, and who shall take them out and bring them in, so that the Lord's community may not be like sheep that have no shepherd (Numbers 27:16-17). Pinchas and Joshua will continue on the path of the transactional "follow me" mode of leadership.

Where do Zelophehad's daughters fit in? They bring about a change in the community itself. They are the heirs to Miriam's transformational style of leadership; her words and example empowered the community to act for its own welfare as was noted a couple of weeks ago in the parashah commentary. We need the five daughters of Zelophehad no less than Pinchas and Joshua to have a strong and diverse community.

Shabbat shalom,
MS

Parashat Korach, Numbers 16:1-18:32

The tug of war over the priesthood is just the most obvious problem in Parashat Korach.

Next Tuesday is a significant anniversary. In Canada we will be celebrating Canada Day marking the establishment of the Dominion of Canada in 1867. While this will be celebrated with barbecues and fireworks, most Canadians are unaware that July 1st is also the anniversary of the 1916 Battle of the Somme, one of the significant battles of World War I. The horror of trench warfare was recorded by the poet John Edward Masefield the following year:

For a moment, they saw the parapet with the wire in front of it, and began, as they ran, to pick out in their minds a path through that wire. Then, too often, to many of them, the grass that they were crossing flew up in shards and sods and gleams of fire from the enemy shells, and those runners never reached the wire, but saw, perhaps, a flash, and the earth rushing nearer, and grasses against the sky, and then saw nothing more at all, for ever and for ever and for ever.

John Edward Masefield, The Old Front Line

The first day of fighting resulted in 58,000 casualties, one-third of whom "saw nothing more at all, for ever and for ever and for ever." This still remains the largest number of British casualties in a single day. Though this battle was eventually declared a strategic success, it remains controversial.

At the center of the debate stands Sir Douglas Haig, a cavalry man. He didn't think much of newfangled machinery like the tank, or that "overrated weapon," the machine gun. Ninety-two years later, we can still ponder what these views say about his leadership and that of his superiors.

This Shabbat we read about Korach, a Levite who was a cousin of Moses and Aaron. Despite the family ties, or perhaps because of them, Korach took exception with his cousins' leadership. Joined by Dathan, Abiram and 250 elders, they challenged the established leadership: You have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them, and the Lord is in their midst. Why then do you raise yourselves above the Lord's congregation? (Numbers 16:3) Is it not enough that you brought us from a land flowing with milk and honey to have us die in the wilderness, that you would also lord it over us? (Numbers 16:13)

What follows the challenge of these rebels is a test of leadership, in which the Divine clearly supports Moses, and, even more dramatically, affirms Aaron's role.

The tug of war over the priesthood is just the most obvious problem in Parashat Korach. The rebellion and its aftermath provide a glimpse of leadership in transition and the upheaval caused by the change to something new:

Texts that focus on the priesthood shift authority away from the family’s head toward the central sanctuary and its priests. … The inclusion of the wives of Dathan and Abiram reflects the role that women played within the clan system

Thus, Numbers 16 is not only a story of infighting among families that ultimately champions Aaron and his descendants; it also tells a story about the seeming demise of an important notion of the "biblical family." The deaths of Dathan, Abiram, and their wives at the entrances to their tents (16:27) make the point painfully clear: after all, the entrance to the tent is a place associated with theophany and judgment in the clan system and, hence, also a symbol of authority (Genesis 18:1; Deuteronomy 22:21). Together, Dathan, Abiram and their wives represent the clan system that must be erased—swallowed whole—in order to establish the authority of the priesthood.

Amy Kalmanofsky, The Torah: A Woman's Commentary,
Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Andrea L Weiss, ed., p. 909

Korach and the rebels were the biblical equivalents of World War I generals using old strategies. With everything that had happened up to this point, wasn't it clear that Moses and Aaron were the leaders and that the priesthood was God's chosen method? What further proof did Korach, Datan and Abiram need? Apparently, something overwhelmingly tragic was the only thing that would provide a wake-up call, something that, unfortunately, took many innocent lives as well: the ancient equivalent of the trenches of the First World War. It is only after the rebels and their families were swallowed by the earth that the priestly leadership is dramatically upheld:

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people and take from them — from the chieftains of their ancestral houses — one staff for each chieftain of an ancestral house: twelve staffs in all. Inscribe each man's name on his staff, there being one staff for each head of an ancestral house; also inscribe Aaron's name on the staff of Levi. Deposit them in the Tent of Meeting before the Pact, where I meet with you. The staff of the man whom I choose shall sprout, and I will rid Myself of the incessant mutterings of the Israelites against you.

Moses spoke thus to the Israelites. Their chieftains gave him a staff for each chieftain of an ancestral house, twelve staffs in all; among these staffs was that of Aaron. Moses deposited the staffs before the Lord, in the Tent of the Pact. The next day Moses entered the Tent of the Pact, and there the staff of Aaron of the house of Levi had sprouted: it had brought forth sprouts, produced blossoms, and borne almonds. Moses then brought out all the staffs from before the Lord to all the Israelites; each identified and recovered his staff.

The Lord said to Moses, "Put Aaron's staff back before the Pact, to be kept as a lesson to the rebels, so that their mutterings against Me may cease, lest they die." This Moses did; just as the Lord had commanded him, so he did.

Numbers 17:16-26

Without a doubt, parashat Korach is a lesson in leadership. Tradition tells us that in saying all the people are holy Korach spoke the truth, but not the whole truth. Korach wanted to lead but for his own reasons. He was selfishly focused on personal needs and desires. So too were the other rebels; and they were rejected because of their motives. Certainly enough has been written about the World War I generals who were so caught up in themselves, so confident that they knew best, fighting the last war while blind to the evidence before them. Clearly, these leaders were all too human, with flaws that proved fatal to others.

Yet a good leader, a true leader is by no means a saint. Moses, Aaron, Miriam, the prophets and the kings were all flawed individuals. It is because they were so human that we can look up to them. The model for us may be of an extremely high standard, but it is not beyond our reach. A true leader does not act for personal gain but rather for the greater good as clearly demonstrated by both Aaron and Moses in this episode. A true leader says things that are difficult to hear, but which must be heard. All too often, a true leader is never fully appreciated or rewarded in his lifetime.

Tradition tells us that the days of the prophets are long gone, as are the days of the priests. The question is, do we still have true leaders? We live in a time with no Moses, Aaron or Miriam, yet Korach's rebellion endures in our days. People who have great leadership potential face tremendous obstacles.

In large measure, this is our own fault. The single most important lesson we can learn from Korach is how to judge true leadership. It is the individual who sees beyond the self, who tells us what we need to do instead of what makes us comfortable, and who empowers others to fulfill their potential. We know such people exist. Our greatest challenge is not finding such individuals; it is recognizing them and allowing them to fulfill their potential.

There is an additional lesson we can learn about leadership, be it in the workplace, in our personal lives, or in the greater community. When faced with leaders who give us cold, hard, uncomfortable truths, leaders who struggle to transform us, we tend to turn against them. Far too often we are Korach.

Shabbat shalom,
MS