The Challenge of Accepting Less-than-perfect Leadership

And it was in the days of the judging of the Judges, and there was a famine in the Land.  And a man went from Bait Lechem of Yehudah to sojourn on the Plains of Moav – he and his wife and his two sons.  (Megilat Ruth 1:1)

1.  The strange formulation of Megilat Ruth’s first passage

The above passage introduced the Megilah of Ruth.  The passage begins by describing the period during which the events of the narrative take place.  These events in the Megilah occurred during the period of the Judges.  The title Judge refers to those individuals who led the nation from the death of Yehoshua until the prophet Shemuel.  This period began in approximately 1300 BCE and continued for almost 300 years.  The passage continues and explains the context of the narrative.   A famine struck Land of Israel and a man – who will later be identified as Elimelech – left the Land to seek relief from the famine in the Land of Moav.  The Megilah will relate that in the Land of Moav, his sons took as wives two women from the nation of Moav.  Elimelech and his sons died. They were survived by Elimelech’s wife Na’ami and the wives of his sons.  One of these wives returned to her own people.  The other – Ruth – remained with Na’ami and returned with her to the Land of Israel.  The narrative focuses on the relationship between Ruth and Na’ami and Ruth’s experiences after joining the Jewish nation.

The commentators raise a number of questions regarding the message and the construction of the above passage.  Among them are the following:

• The Megilah describes the events of the narrative as occurring during the era of the Judges.  It seems that the intention of this statement is to identify the historical period of the events.  However, the era of the Judges encompassed 300 years.  If the Megilah’s intention was to identify the historical period of the events, it should have identified the specific leader of the Jewish people at the time.
• The passage is oddly structured.  In a single sentence, the term va’yehi – “and it was” or “and there was” is employed twice.  The sentence should have been simplified:  And it was in the days of the judging of the Judges, there was a famine in the Land.
• The passage describes the period as “the days of the judging of the Judges.”  Again, this is a rather tortured expression.  The passage could have simply stated:  And it was in the days of the Judges.

2.  The Talmud’s criticism of the Judges

This final question is discussed by the Talmud.  The Talmud explains that the pasuk has an alternative translation.  It can be translated as follows:  And it was in the time that the Judges were judged.  The passage is revealing that the events of the narrative occurred at a time in which there was a lack of confidence in the leadership.  The people had judged or evaluated their Judges and found them to be deficient.  The Talmud provides additional details.  One of the responsibilities of the Judges was to provide the nation with moral guidance.  This required that, at times, they critique and criticize the behaviors of the people.  In order for the Judges’ rebukes to be effective, their own moral character had to be untarnished.  However, not all of the Judges succeeded in securing this high regard.  When these less respected Judges criticized the nation, the people were unmoved by their rebuke.  They responded to the Judges that they had no right to judge others when they themselves were flawed![1]

Rashi adds that the people were not merely imagining these flaws in their Judges’ behaviors in order to excuse themselves from heeding their message.  Some of the Judges were actually disappointing in their personal conduct and the people were responding to real defects in their leaders’ characters.[2]

In short, the passage is constructed in its cumbersome style to communicate a dual message.  It communicates the era in which the events of the Megilah unfolded and it tells the reader something about the era.  It was an era in which sometimes the leadership did not have unquestionable moral authority.  Because of their own shortcomings, the leaders were not respected moral guides.

3.  The Midrash suggests that even a flawed leader may deserve our attention

The Midrash discusses this same difficulty in the passage as the Talmud but responds to it somewhat differently.  It states:  Woe unto the generation that judges its judges.  Woe unto the generation whose Judges, themselves, require judgment.  Like the Talmud, the Midrash is attempting to unravel the message of the difficult phrase, “And it was in the day of the judging of the Judges”.[3]  The Midrash accepts the basic approach of the Talmud.  The passage has a dual meaning.  It is intended to identify the era of the events and also comments on the nation’s assessment of its leaders.  The people judged their leaders and were disappointed.  However, in the Midrash, another issue is added.  It seems to criticize the people for their scrutiny of their leader’s behavior.  This issue is difficult to understand.  If the leaders were, in fact, deficient in their own behavior, then why should the people respect their moral guidance?

Clearly, according to the Midrash, the leaders’ deficiencies were not so great as to justify the people’s dismissive response to their criticisms.  However, their flaws were adequate to provide the people with an excuse to ignore their leaders’ rebukes.  The message of the Midrash is that ideally a leader should possess moral and ethical excellence.  The leaders own example will inspire others and encourage the people to seriously consider his messages.  However, not every generation merits to be provided with leaders that match this ideal.  In many generations, the leaders are less than perfect; they have real flaws.  However, these flaws do not justify rejection of their message.  Instead, the people of the nation must realize that their leaders are human – not super-human.  They are less than perfect.  Nonetheless, they have important messages and these messages should be considered.

In other words, it is true that some leaders so thoroughly compromise their own moral standing they do not have the right and authority to correct their followers.  However, often the flaws that we identify in a leader are not of such great significance.  These flaws are a reflection of the reality of the leader’s humanity.   Rejection of the leader’s message in response to these lesser flaws is not justified.  In such cases, the flaws are being seized upon as an excuse for not taking seriously the leader’s message.

4.  The message of the passage – rejection of the leadership led to famine

Based upon this analysis, Rav Moshe Alshich resolves the various difficulties in the passage.  He explains that the passage is not intended to identify the specific era of the events.  Instead, it is designed to identify their antecedents.  The pasuk opens by describing the period as one in which the people rejected their leaders.  They focused on their leaders’ flaws and seized upon these flaws as an excuse to reject their messages.  Without moral guidance, the nation degenerated.  This was punished by a famine.  In response to this famine, Elimelech took his family out of the Land of Israel and traveled to the Land of Moav.[4]

The message of this passage – as interpreted by the Midrash – is very applicable to our own times.  Some of our supposed leaders are so corrupt as to deserve our disdain.  However, in many instances, our criticism of our leaders focuses on flaws and deficiencies that merely reflect their humanity.  We exaggerate the significance of these failings; we become virtually obsessed with each and every one of their flaws.  When we do this, we are not only undermining their leadership.  We are also seeking to excuse ourselves from listening to their messages.

 

[1] Mesechet Baba Batra 15b.

[2] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on the Talmud, Mesechet Baba Batra 15b.

[3] Midrash Rabba, Megilat Ruth 1:1.

[4] Rav Moshe Alshich, Eynai Moshe – Commentary of Megilat Ruth, 1:1.