Making Sense of the Sedra: Ki Tissa

“They crowded against Aaron and said: Get up, make a god for us, who will lead us…”(Exodus 32:2-3)

In this week’s parsha, Ki Tissa, we read that Moses was missing. Rather than send out a search party to look for him, a pressure group formed to install a new leadership altogether. Some were tired of Moses already because he was not Israelite enough. His brother seemed a better bet as a leader to trust. Then again, the lobby who approached him had no intention to move over a liberationist theocracy from Moses into Aaron’s hands.

Far from being Israelite in character, the cult of the Golden Calf was pro-Egyptian. Perhaps this was an allegiance to one of the three bullgods of Egypt, Hapi-Ankh. Essentially, the Israelites grew nervous. How could they survive on their own, untied to a supporting economy? Egypt had been a spiritual and financial parent to the escaping hoard of slaves.

It seemed madness to leave Egypt without a financial plan. Now, nervousness spilled over and became fear. When the people approached Aaron, they had genuine fear.

The vote to leave the European Union split the nation. Some vehemently wished to leave, others with equal vehemence wished to stay. In the centre there may have been a large number unsure of what was best but wondering why it might not be an idea to go it alone. Naturally, independence, legal self-determination at every level, and freedom to negotiate one’s own deals are understandably attractive ideas. However, as with all major societal changes, there needs to be a clear plan and a fallback plan; an Option A and an Option B in every circumstance of organisational operation.

This is not a judgment call on the choices of the British electorate with respect to the European Union. Rather, it is an illustration of concerns over choices; a parallel between the struggle our nation has with belonging, affiliation, financial security and safety, ideals and values, and the struggle for the same that the Israelites of ancient times underwent.

Above all, is the matter of strong leadership focused on achieving outcomes to benefit more than one party that appeals to the people. Aharon was a mediator, a leader who predominantly saw both sides to a story and sought to seek a mutually beneficial outcome. The ideal scenario is one where Moses does not disappear, and Aharon knows exactly where he is at all times and how to contact him. Moses’ strengths lay in vision, Aharon’s in implementation. Brexit has had much vision, and many now question its ability to have seen clearly. Regrexit has every reason to focus on preparing for sustainable implementation, now that the UK’s economic fortunes are being sorely tested.

Our leaders and representatives – elected and employed, spiritual and temporal – need to listen even more carefully to the people. Further changes may need to be made, and all parties should cooperate on achieving an outcome that the people can live with.

Rabbi Abel has contributed this piece in honour of his wedding anniversary