OzTorah

This week’s sidra reminds us about Shabbat – but with a difference. In the Ten Commandments we are told, “Six days shall you work” (Ex. 20:9); in this sidra the phrase is “Six days shall work be done” (Ex. 35:2). One could say that the result is the same – Shabbat is a day without work. But the Torah does not use words carelessly. Every nuance has significance.

The passive phraseology (“six days shall work be done”) could suggest that work must not become a dominating obsession leaving no time for cultural or spiritual activity; work must not rule our lives to the exclusion of everything else. If we are able to find the right balance and keep work in its place, work thereby becomes a means and not an end.

There is a further possible explanation. Saying “six days shall you work” and “six days shall work be done” shows us that there are two issues, the worker and the work. The worker must not expect to rest on the Sabbath day or any other time unless they have earned the rest by work. But the nature of the work is also important. As the sages point out at the end of Tractate Kiddushin, one’s work must be clean, constructive and honest.

Every now and then, like this week, we read two portions on a given Shabbat. The synagogue congregation do not always appreciate it, especially when it comes to Vayakhel-P’kudei, the longest of the double portions. It prolongs the service and some would argue that it is boring and repetitive, reiterating material about building the Tabernacle which we have already covered over the last few weeks – though this time it is in the past tense, pointing out not what Israel had to do in order to build a Tabernacle but how precisely everything was carried out.

An extra dimension comes with the second sidra, which not only informs us how well the work was done but adds that there was an inspection and accounting. Everything was checked and double-checked and only then (actually in next week’s reading) could the Tabernacle ritual begin.

On a personal note I have to say that I saw the tremendous wisdom of this procedure – plan, implementation and inspection – when Jerusalem had a bad winter one year and we turned on our reverse-cycle air conditioning to get some extra warmth, and the air conditioning unit blew up. We had been away when the work was done on our apartment and did not know until that moment that not everything had been double-checked before the contractors left. Maybe we had presumed too much, maybe we hadn’t. Still, we should have remembered that the Torah has both Vayakhel and P’kudei.

Q. What does the Talmud mean when it says that whoever acquires a servant acquires a master over himself?

A. The source is Kiddushin 20a. In the literal sense it probably means that an employer is at his/her workers’ mercy. The workers know the business cannot continue without them, and they can be tempted to exploit this fact. That is why Jewish law has strict rules designed to prevent workers taking advantage of their employer. They have to work efficiently and energetically and not waste their employer’s time or money. But at the same time the employer must not take advantage of an employee. A boss must not behave like a tyrant or bully, believing (and telling the staff) that their and their families’ lives are in his/her hands and they have to accept what he says or else they’re out.

Labour/management issues are central to Jewish ethics. Neither party is permitted to exploit, cheat or undermine the other. The employee must not feel like a slave; nor, in the colourful rabbinic phrase, is it right that the employer has the feeling of having acquired a master. Both parties need each other. They should feel they are partners, crucial (and appreciated) parts of a team. The question of who pays the wages is not the main issue. Armies need generals; they also need privates. Teams need captains; they also need players. Orchestras need conductors; they also need instrumentalists. Schools need teachers; they also need pupils.

The alpha and omega – or alef and tav – of good labour/management relations is the way they speak to one another. It must always be with respect, propriety and restraint. The Jewish model is Boaz and his reapers in the Book of Ruth; when Boaz came into the field he said, “The Lord be with you”, and they responded, “The Lord bless you” (Ruth 2:4).

As a warning to a boss who speaks to the staff in a high-handed fashion and throws his weight around, Jewish ethics would quote another passage in the Talmud, “Whoever shames his fellow human being in public is as if he has shed his blood” (Bava M’tzia 58b).

In today’s economic climate, when CEOs take away huge salaries whilst retrenching large numbers of staff, there is also a stern warning in the Book of Isaiah, “Woe to those who join house to house” whilst God “looks for righteousness (tz’dakah) and behold, a cry (tz’akah)” (Isa. 5:8,7). A CEO or employer who does not heed the cry of the members of the staff team is like “those who have ears but do not hear” (Psalm 115:6).

The first thing that has to be protected if a business is facing difficulties is the staff. The last thing a CEO should want is a multi-million personal pay packet; as the Yiddish phrase says bluntly, you can’t sleep in two beds at once or eat two meals at the same time. So what if other CEOs are taking out massive salaries? If there is spare money around, the moral thing is to use it for the benefit of the whole staff team.

Q. Can you explain the terms deism, theism, pantheism and panentheism?

A. Deism: belief that God is completely beyond the universe.
Theism: belief that God is both within and beyond the universe.
Pantheism: belief that God is identical with Nature.
Panentheism: belief that everything is in God.

Each concept has its own history and its own proponents. Deism and pantheism are problematical for Judaism. Chassidism tends towards panentheism.

Only a few verses – but what difficult theology! Moses asks God, “Show me Your ways” (Ex. 33:13). Rashi thinks Moses is asking what reward God will give to those who believe in Him.

Maimonides (Moreh N’vuchim 1:54) prefers to understand “ways” as “attributes” or “qualities”, but we are still not certain why the question is raised at this particular point in the history of the Exodus. It does not help us very much to re-affirm that the Biblical stories are not necessarily in chronological order – Ein muk’dam um’uchar baTorah (Pes. 6b etc.) and hence the historical context may be somewhat irrelevant. Most readers would rather see the Torah as a connected story. Think only of the Akedah (Gen. 22), which specifically says, “And it happened after these things” (the events related in chapter 21).

Bearing this in mind, it is likely that in our chapter the leader, embarking upon a long relationship with the led, is anxious to know how to govern the people. Since Moses has been appointed by the Almighty, he needs to know which qualities the Divine Master utilises in managing His world so that the earthly appointee can exercise his own responsibility according to God’s wish and policy.

This explanation fits in with God’s promise, “All My goodness shall pass before you” (Ex. 33:19). The view of Maimonides is that God is about to give Moses a bird’s-eye view of the whole world, about which the Book of B’reshit says, “God saw everything He had made, and behold it was very good” (Gen.1:31). Seeing the world would allow Moses to get a glimmering of where Israelite history – and his own career – fitted into the Divine picture. It is also possible that “goodness” can be taken literally and that God was about to show Moses the moral principles that had to be followed on earth in order to make the world worthy of its Creator.

The text goes on to say that God has a place where Moses can stand and see, not God Himself, but the traces He leaves in history. If that place is Sinai, it once again suggests Moses getting a picture of the world as God wants it. If “place” is metaphorical, as Maimonides believes can be the case, it refers to God Himself. One of the rabbinic names for the Almighty is HaMakom, “(He who is in every) place”. In this light we can understand the text to be another reference to God’s nature and qualities.

One further problem, though the issues we have discussed are far from exhausting the content and message of the parashah. In verse 20, God says, “No man can see My face and live”. Yes, we know that God has no bodily form or physical characteristics, and words like “see My face” cannot be taken literally. But “face” can be applied to God in a spiritual sense, as the priestly blessing (Num. 6) makes clear. God’s “face” = His favour. No man can “see” His “face”? The idea is that no human can fully perceive God’s ways; our human intellect is limited. It also means that no man can fathom how God runs His world and on what basis He makes His decisions. Thus the text says, “I will be gracious to whomever I will (choose to) be gracious”. We can yearn to know and understand all the details of the Divine mind, but we are asking too much.