The Perils and Power of Advice

It’s not easy to take advice from other people.  There are many reasons why we resist and many ways to resist.  Sometimes we doubt the motivation of the person giving the advice.  Sometimes we question whether the advice is sound altogether.

The Torah describes a moment where one person gives advice to another.  Not just any two people, but Yitro, Midianite priest and Moshe, leader of the Israelites and Yitro’s son-in-law.

You are overwhelming yourself and others by judging all of the people directly, Yitro tells his Moshe.  You need to delegate.  

Moshe follows the advice.  He delegates.  He handles the difficult cases and he appoints others to handle the simpler ones.  

The Torah records no vocal response on Moshe's part and doesn't externalize his thought process.

However, in keeping with our people’s long-standing interpretive impulse, I’m going to ask a few questions of my own about that which the Torah does not explicitly state.

The Power of the People

Assuming we’re not “in the room where it happens.”  Assuming we are not serving in one of three branches of national government, assuming that we are not in a position that gives us access to the halls of power.  How do we face each day, take our temperature, assess ourselves and our surroundings, and determine what we want to say and do given national events?

The story of the Exodus describes the showdown between two main characters, leaders on the stage in the room where it happens, leaders whose actions have the capacity to impact entire nations.

Moses and Pharaoh have an extended showdown, a dance of ego, will and destiny that the Torah describes in dramatic detail.

But of course most of the people were neither Moses nor Pharaoh.  They were figuring out how to manage each day, how not to be literally and figuratively beaten.

US Refugee Policy: Beyond Echo Chambers Toward a More Powerful Voice

I'd like to discuss the recent US executive order regarding refugees but before I do, I want to reference two events I participated in recently within a span of several days.  The events reinforced for me the ideological diversity that exists in the Jewish community and the relative lack of fruitful exchange that occurs among people of diverse viewpoints.

I attended an informative briefing sponsored for NY rabbis by AIPAC to review the UN resolution and its implications.  

And I attended an impressive conference on Jewish-Muslim relations organized by the Hartman Institute.

Both programs allowed for questions and conversation.  And yet to me they felt at times like echo-chambers. 

The presenters at the AIPAC meeting gave a helpful, informative overview of the dynamics behind the recent UN resolution.  When they expressed criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to Israel they were not significantly challenged in that assessment.  I would argue that more challenge than what I witnessed will be helpful in yielding a deeper understanding of US-Israel relations past, present and future.

Those attending the Hartman conference were largely supportive of Jewish-Muslim dialogue and reinforced one another in their opposition to anti-Muslim rhetoric and policy. I was glad to see considerable efforts toward Jewish-Muslim dialogue continuing to bear fruit.  However, it will be helpful for the Jews and Muslims involved in dialogue to articulate challenges and disagreements more vociferously than what I witnessed.  (I did not see every session).

The AIPAC briefing and the Hartman conference both felt comfortable in their respective, relative homogeneities. However, moving forward in these two crucial realms (the Israel-US relationship and Jewish-Muslim relations) and others, it will be most effective, I believe, to deliberately create settings where diverse ideological perspectives and even profound disagreements can more comfortably be voiced and thoughtfully considered.