Torah L’Am: Simon Phillips on Leadership and the Lessons of Chukat

Earlier this year, Rabbi Miriam led Torah L’Am, a course designed to help participants develop the skills and confidence to explore any passage of Torah, understand its significance and build their own connection to the text. The course equips participants to research and deliver their own D’var Torah, developing their individual voice in Torah learning.

We’re pleased to share Simon Phillips’ D’var Torah, developed following the course, in which he explores leadership and accountability through the story of Moses striking the rock in Parashat Chukat.

D'var Torah - Simon Phillips

As parliament recess ends It is a time of great political turmoil and change, a new prime minister has emerged. As Blair once said, the Kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux. We are about to see where a new leader with a new vision will take us and Chukat is the perfect sedra to explore this.

The dramatic peak of Chukat is the story of Moses defying God, by striking a rock rather than speaking to it. He is punished by ending his 40 year odyssey on the borders of Israel and barred from entering. This is a compelling story, but a tragedy, that echoes those of Greek mythology.

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:  “Take the staff and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and speak to the rock in their presence so that it will give forth its water.  Moses said to them, “Now listen, you rebels, can we draw water for you from this rock?” Moses raised his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, then an abundance of water gushed forth. The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Since you did not have faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly to the Land which I have given them.”

My focus will be on analysing the leadership failings of Moses that lead to such a tragic ending and the universal and timeless lessons we can take from this.

Where had Moses gone wrong? Why was he punished so harshly and is this justified?

My initial reaction to all this is a sense of unfairness and pity. How can Moses deserve this given everything he had done? Confronting Pharaoh, bringing the people out of Egypt and leading them through the desert despite the obstacles and challenges.

Rashi’s offers the following explanations.  First, that Moses sin lay in defiance of Gods direction to talk to the rock. Had Moses done as he was told, the people would have learnt a valuable lesson

 “If a rock, which neither speaks nor hears nor is in need of sustenance, obeys the word of God, how much more so should we.”

Rashi talks about Moses second sin being the act of chillul hashem in the public questioning of God. Moses had questioned Gods power before. In parshat Beha’alotcha Moses privately questions whether God could provide enough sheep and cattle to feed all the people. But in this case Moses is simply castigated. But in Chukat, by questioning God publicly, Moses risked causing the wider congregation to doubt God and lose faith.

In modern political leadership, a pertinent example is the failing of Boris Johnson to follow his own covid rules. In many ways, the pandemic brought out the best of us, the virtues of reciprocity and solidarity. Johnson broke the social contract we’d all signed up to, undermining the faith we all had that we’d keep each other safe.

Rambam says that Moses’ sin lay in his anger - his irate words to the people, “Listen now, rebels.” This introduces the concept of the moral mean. In Eight Chapters he writes:

“Good deeds are such as are equibalanced, maintaining the mean between two equally bad extremes, the too much and the too little.” He continues: “Virtues are psychic conditions and dispositions which are mid-way between two reprehensible extremes, one of which is characterized by an exaggeration, the other by a deficiency.”

This is Rambam’s take on the Aristotelian concept of the golden mean. Rambam argues that virtue lies between two extremes of anger and meakness. In the case of Moses, Rambam argues that he departed from the mean of patience and moved towards the extreme of anger. However, where Rambam departs from Aristotle is that he takes particular exception towards anger. In the Mishneh Torah he says that

“Anger is an exceedingly evil quality, and it is fitting for a person to distance himself from it to the other extreme.”

Rambam explicitly says that anger is one of the traits where the paradigm of the golden mean cannot not be followed. That it is such a severe trait, one must move past the mean towards the opposite extreme.

Rambam’s argument is that this reaction represented a loss of moral leadership. As the leader and role-model of the people this act led to a irrevocable loss of authority.

This makes me reflect on the leadership of Gordon Brown. Browns temper was well documented and became part of the political discussion about his leadership. He was infamous for calling a labour supporter Gillian Duffy, a bigoted woman.

A modern interpretation is provided by Rabbi Sacks. Sacks makes the argument that Moses behaviour did not represent a moral failing and that the fact that Moses was not destined to enter the Promised Land was not a punishment at all. Sacks argues that Moses was no longer the right leader for this time. A victim of his own humanity.

Sacks compares a similar episode forty years prior where, God had specifically told Moses to take his staff and strike the rock: precisely the act for which he was now punished. Rabbi Sacks explains that times had changed. To quote Rabbi Sacks

"Moses failed to recognise that he was dealing with a different generation: the first generation had experienced slavery, while the current generation had grown up free in the wilderness, with different expectations and attitudes. Slaves respond to orders. Free people do not. They must be educated, informed, offered suggestions. Slaves understand force. Free people respond to persuasion”.

I find Rabbi Sacks take compelling but find it hard to let Moses off the hook morally. Rambam’s argument about the seriousness of anger is important and not to be disregarded.

Sack’s idea remains pertinent with the Starmer-Burnham transition. The most significant show of leadership from Starmer was his ruthless striking of anti-semitism from the Labour party. However, despite success with internal leadership within the party, and to an extent electorally, he was unable to continue this once in power. However, I don’t think Burnham would have been able to be sufficiently divisive within the party to remove the scourge of corbynism. He was too associated with the soft left and wouldn’t have showed the leadership needed at the time.

Time will tell if Burnham succeeds, but as of now he seems to have provided a vision for the country as well as the communication skills a relentless attention economy needs.

In conclusion, why does the Torah teach us about leadership? The Torah is not simply a book of laws; it provides a code for how to constitute a community and society. Judaism is built on families and then communities. For a community to thrive certain leadership virtues are necessary. A good leader must uphold the customs and traditions that bind us together. Must moderate their behaviour and imbue good character traits within the community. A good leader must be relevant for the times.

As parliament recess ends It is a time of great political turmoil and change, a new prime minister has emerged. As Blair once said, the Kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux. We are about to see where a new leader with a new vision will take us and Chukat is the perfect sedra to explore this.

The dramatic peak of Chukat is the story of Moses defying God, by striking a rock rather than speaking to it. He is punished by ending his 40 year odyssey on the borders of Israel and barred from entering. This is a compelling story, but a tragedy, that echoes those of Greek mythology.

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying:  “Take the staff and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and speak to the rock in their presence so that it will give forth its water.  Moses said to them, “Now listen, you rebels, can we draw water for you from this rock?” Moses raised his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, then an abundance of water gushed forth. The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Since you did not have faith in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly to the Land which I have given them.”

My focus will be on analysing the leadership failings of Moses that lead to such a tragic ending and the universal and timeless lessons we can take from this.

Where had Moses gone wrong? Why was he punished so harshly and is this justified?

My initial reaction to all this is a sense of unfairness and pity. How can Moses deserve this given everything he had done? Confronting Pharaoh, bringing the people out of Egypt and leading them through the desert despite the obstacles and challenges.

Rashi’s offers the following explanations.  First, that Moses sin lay in defiance of Gods direction to talk to the rock. Had Moses done as he was told, the people would have learnt a valuable lesson

 “If a rock, which neither speaks nor hears nor is in need of sustenance, obeys the word of God, how much more so should we.”

Rashi talks about Moses second sin being the act of chillul hashem in the public questioning of God. Moses had questioned Gods power before. In parshat Beha’alotcha Moses privately questions whether God could provide enough sheep and cattle to feed all the people. But in this case Moses is simply castigated. But in Chukat, by questioning God publicly, Moses risked causing the wider congregation to doubt God and lose faith.

In modern political leadership, a pertinent example is the failing of Boris Johnson to follow his own covid rules. In many ways, the pandemic brought out the best of us, the virtues of reciprocity and solidarity. Johnson broke the social contract we’d all signed up to, undermining the faith we all had that we’d keep each other safe.

Rambam says that Moses’ sin lay in his anger - his irate words to the people, “Listen now, rebels.” This introduces the concept of the moral mean. In Eight Chapters he writes;

“Good deeds are such as are equibalanced, maintaining the mean between two equally bad extremes, the too much and the too little.” He continues: “Virtues are psychic conditions and dispositions which are mid-way between two reprehensible extremes, one of which is characterized by an exaggeration, the other by a deficiency.”

This is Rambam’s take on the Aristotelian concept of the golden mean. Rambam argues that virtue lies between two extremes of anger and meakness. In the case of Moses, Rambam argues that he departed from the mean of patience and moved towards the extreme of anger. However, where Rambam departs from Aristotle is that he takes particular exception towards anger. In the Mishneh Torah he says that

“Anger is an exceedingly evil quality, and it is fitting for a person to distance himself from it to the other extreme.”

Rambam explicitly says that anger is one of the traits where the paradigm of the golden mean cannot not be followed. That it is such a severe trait, one must move past the mean towards the opposite extreme.

Rambam’s argument is that this reaction represented a loss of moral leadership. As the leader and role-model of the people this act led to a irrevocable loss of authority.

This makes me reflect on the leadership of Gordon Brown. Browns temper was well documented and became part of the political discussion about his leadership. He was infamous for calling a labour supporter Gillian Duffy, a bigoted woman.

A modern interpretation is provided by Rabbi Sacks. Sacks makes the argument that Moses behaviour did not represent a moral failing and that the fact that Moses was not destined to enter the Promised Land was not a punishment at all. Sacks argues that Moses was no longer the right leader for this time. A victim of his own humanity

Sacks compares a similar episode forty years prior where, God had specifically told Moses to take his staff and strike the rock: precisely the act for which he was now punished. Rabbi Sacks explains that times had changed. To quote Rabbi Sacks

Moses failed to recognise that he was dealing with a different generation: the first generation had experienced slavery, while the current generation had grown up free in the wilderness, with different expectations and attitudes. Slaves respond to orders. Free people do not. They must be educated, informed, offered suggestions. Slaves understand force. Free people respond to persuasion”.

I find Rabbi Sacks take compelling but find it hard to let Moses off the hook morally. Rambam’s argument about the seriousness of anger is important and not to be disregarded.

Sack’s idea remains pertinent with the Starmer-Burnham transition. The most significant show of leadership from Starmer was his ruthless striking of anti-semitism from the Labour party. However, despite success with internal leadership within the party, and to an extent electorally, he was unable to continue this once in power. However, I don’t think Burnham would have been able to be sufficiently divisive within the party to remove the scourge of corbynism. He was too associated with the soft left and wouldn’t have showed the leadership needed at the time.

Time will tell if Burnham succeeds, but as of now he seems to have provided a vision for the country as well as the communication skills a relentless attention economy needs.

In conclusion, why does the Torah teach us about leadership? The Torah is not simply a book of laws; it provides a code for how to constitute a community and society. Judaism is built on families and then communities. For a community to thrive certain leadership virtues are necessary. A good leader must uphold the customs and traditions that bind us together. Must moderate their behaviour and imbue good character traits within the community. A good leader must be relevant for the times. Watch this space for more learning opportunites with Kehillat Nashira!