Follow the Leader, or Not
And Hashem spoke to Moshe and to Aharon and He commanded them regarding Bnai Yisrael and Paroh, the king of Egypt – to take forth Bnai Yisrael from the Land of Egypt. (Sefer Shemot 6:13)
Patience with the Jewish people
In the above passage, Hashem commands Moshe and Aharon regarding the Jewish people and Paroh. The passage does not specify the content of the commandment. Rashi explains that Hashem commanded Moshe and Aharon to lead people gently and to endure them.[1] The midrash elaborates. Hashem told them that the people will be contrary and troublesome. Moshe and Aharon must accept that the people will curse them and even pelt them with stones.[2]
In other words, Hashem described to Moshe and Aharon the challenges they should expect. Their decisions and actions will not always be appreciated. Sometimes, they will be intensely questioned. They can expect confrontations with the people. These may be bitter and fierce. Moshe and Aharon must accept these challenges and burdens.
And they said to them: May Hashem appear to you and judge. For you have made our odor foul in the eyes of Paroh and in the eyes of his servants – to place a sword in their hands to kill us. (Sefer Shemot 5:21)
Losing faith in Moshe and Aharon
Why was this commandment communicated to Moshe and Aharon at this point? Perhaps, the answer lies in the events immediately preceding it. Moshe and Aharon asked Paroh to allow Bnai Yisrael to travel into the wilderness and serve Hashem. Paroh rejected the request. He accused Moshe and Aharon of idling the people from their labors. He placed new, more onerous expectations upon Bnai Yisrael. In the above passage, Moshe and Aharon are confronted by the people. They blame Moshe and Aharon for their increased suffering. This encounter may explain Hashem’s commandment. Moshe and Aharon were commanded to endure these criticisms. They must be patient and persevere.
And Paroh saw that there was relief. He made his heart heavy and he did not listen to them – as Hashem said. (Sefer Shemot 8:11)
Respect for Paroh
What was the command that Hashem gave to Moshe and Aharon regarding Paroh? Rashi explains that He commanded them to treat Paroh with respect.[3] This commandment presages coming events. Moshe and Aharon will bring plagues upon Egypt. Under the pressure of a plague, Paroh will agree to release Bnai Yisrael, only to repudiate his commitment with the ending of the plague. The above passage is one instance of this behavior. Paroh appealed to Moshe and Aharon to remove the plague of frogs. In exchange, he promised to allow Bnai Yisrael to travel into the wilderness and serve Hashem. Moshe prayed to Hashem and the plague ended. The passage describes Paroh’s response. Once relieved of suffering, he refused to allow Bnai Yisrael to serve Hashem. Moshe and Aharon were commanded to treat Paroh with respect, regardless of his behavior.
It is interesting that Hashem gave these commandments to Moshe and Aharon at this point. The challenges they would encounter were foreseeable. Why did Hashem not command them in these matters when He first appointed Moshe and Aharon to their roles?
These are the heads of their family. The children of Reuven, the firstborn of Yisrael were Chanoch, Phalu, Chetzron, and Charmi. These are the families of Reuven. (Sefer Shemot 6:14)
The lineage of Moshe and Aharon
The above passage introduces a strange section of the parasha. The section appears immediately following Hashem’s commandments to Moshe and Aharon regarding Bnai Yisrael and Paroh. Its passages outline the families of the tribes of Bnai Yisrael. The outline begins with the tribe of Reuven. Then, the families of the tribe of Shimon are identified. Finally, the families of the tribe of Leyve are discussed in detail. Specific attention is given to the lineage of Moshe and Aharon. What is the significance and message of this section?
Rashi explains that the focus of the section is upon the lineage of Moshe and Aharon. Why, then, are the families of Reuven and Shimon described? Rashi suggests two solutions. The first is cryptic. Rashi simply treats the inclusion of the families of Reuven and Shimon as obviously necessary. In his second solution, Rashi acknowledges that the inclusion requires explanation. He explains that when Yaakov addressed his sons before his death, he spoke harshly to Reuven, Shimon, and Leyve. The Torah, here, gives the tribes, descendant from these sons, special attention. The message of this treatment is that, despite Yaakov’s harsh words, the tribes of these sons retained their importance.[4]
Both of these responses present obvious problems. The first response asserts that the reason for including in the outline the families of Reuven and Shimon is self-evident. What is this “self-evident” explanation? The second response concedes that explanation is needed. The tribes of Reuven and Shimon are given attention to demonstrate their importance. This response explains why the tribes of Shimon and Reuven require the Torah’s attention. The response does not explain why this attention is given at this point.
A leader with seniority
Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno’s interpretation of the commandments given to Moshe and Aharon differs from Rashi’s. He explains that Hashem did not give Moshe and Aharon specific commandments at this point. His “commandment” to them was their appointment to positions of authority over Bnai Yisrael and Paroh. They were given the authority to direct the actions of Bnai Yisrael. Eventually, Paroh, too, would acknowledge their authority and submit to their directives.[5]
Based upon this interpretation, Sforno explains the Torah’s outline of the families of Bnai Yisrael. According to Sforno, this section is related to the appointment of Moshe and Aharon as the leaders of Bnai Yisrael. Leadership of the nation was assigned to the senior, suitable individuals. Seniority, was not determined by the age of the individuals; it was determined by their standing in the hierarchy of the tribes and their families. The most senior tribe was Reuven – the eldest son of Yaakov. The second most senior was the tribe of Yaakov’s second son, Shimon. The third most senior was the tribe of Levye – Yaakov’s third son. A hierarchy of seniority also existed within each tribe. The family of Reuven’s eldest son was most senior. The family of the next eldest son was second in seniority, and so on.
The Torah includes this outline of the families of the three most senior tribes as part of its description of the appointment of Moshe and Aharon. The Torah is revealing that they were the most senior qualified leaders. In other words, in the tribes of Reuven and Shimon there were no individuals who were their equals. Neither were equals found in the tribe of Leyve.[6]
Sforno’s comments explain the significance of this section. His comments explain why the families of Reuven, Shimon, and Levye are outlined but no other tribes. Also, Sforno’s comments resolve the questions on Rashi. Rashi explained that in the Torah’s outline of the families of Bnai Yisrael focuses upon the lineage of Moshe and Aharon. He suggested that given its focus, there is a self-evident reason for beginning the outline with the tribes of Reuven and Shimon. As Sforno explains, this section is related to the appointment of Moshe and Aharon as the leaders of the nation. A discussion of their place within the system of seniority is directly relevant to their appointment. Rashi accepts Sforno’s explanation of this section. Because Rashi understands the section as related to the appointment of Moshe and Aharon as leaders, he treats as “self-evident” rationale for inclusion of the families of Reuven and Shimon. This rationale is the explanation developed by Sforno.
Rashi also suggests that these passages establish that despite Yaakov’s harsh comments to them, the tribes of Reuven, Shimon, and Leyve retained their standing. Why is this message communicated at this juncture? Sforno’s insight provides a response. The inclusion of the tribes of these sons – specifically in this account – establishes that they retained their standing. They are acknowledged as the senior tribes of the nation!
He will speak for you to the nation. He will be your spokesman and you will be his lord. (Sefer Shemot 4:16)
The first appointment of Moshe and Aharon
The above is one of the concluding passages in the Torah’s description of Moshe’s first prophecy. Hashem tells Moshe that he and Aaron should reveal to Bnai Yisrael their coming redemption. Also, they are to speak to Paroh on the nation’s behalf. Aharon will be Moshe’s spokesperson and Moshe will instruct Aharon in the message. It is clear from these passages that Moshe and Aharon were appointed as leaders in Moshe’s first prophecy. Sforno explains that our opening passage describes their appointment as the nation’s leaders. Why was this second appointment necessary? Moshe and Aharon were already appointed to their leadership roles in Moshe’s first prophecy. Apparently, there is a very significant difference between their initial appointment and the new appointment. What is this difference?
Imposed and elected leaders
Let’s reconsider Rashi’s comments on our opening passage. Hashem commanded Moshe and Aharon to lead with patience and tolerance. He warned them of the abuse they would experience and directed them to bear the people’s misconduct. Also, He commanded them to treat Paroh with respect. Why were these commandments given at this time? Responses to this question are presented above. However, a new explanation now emerges.
The authority of a leader can be imposed upon the followers or it can emerge from consensus. A leader who derives his authority from the consensus of the group is not required to endure its censure. His authority is derived from the group. If the group is not satisfied with his leadership, his authority is nullified. He has every right to abandon his role as leader. In contrast, a leader whose authority is imposed, does not require the approbation of the group. Whether they approve of their leader or are critical of him, his authority persists.
Hashem’s commandment to Moshe and Aharon signaled that He was now imposing their leadership upon the people. Originally, they were sent to Egypt to assume leadership through consensus. They were not obligated to continue in their roles once the people became dissatisfied with them. Neither could they continue to exercise authority once their followers rejected them. The people asked Hashem to judge Moshe and Aharon for the harm they had brought upon the nation. This was a rejection of their leadership.
Now, Hashem is appointing Moshe and Aharon as the leaders of the nation. Their authority is independent of the approbation of the people. Also, they no longer have the right to abandon their roles when the people oppose or abuse them. Hashem has directed them to lead the people. They must be patient and endure them.
Their roles as appointed leaders of Bnai Yisrael also impacted their relationship with Paroh. When they first confronted Paroh they were supplicants. They spoke as the representatives of his slaves. Now, they will speak to him as the appointed leaders of the Jewish people. Like Paroh, they are leaders of a nation. Hashem instructs them that they may not allow their appointment to impact their treatment of Paroh. They must continue to address him with respect.
Partners and passive followers
In short, Hashem sent Moshe and Aharon to the people and directed them to speak to the nation. They were to announce the approaching redemption. The people placed their trust in them and followed them. When the people could not sustain this trust, Hashem appointed Moshe and Aharon as the leaders of the Jewish people. This progression suggests that Hashem preferred Moshe and Aharon to lead by consensus. He did not wish to impose their authority over the nation. This measure was taken only when the people lost faith in Moshe and Aharon.
There is an important lesson in this progression. Leadership by consensus is preferable to an imposed leadership. Those who follow a leader in whom they believe are active participants in the leader’s initiatives and programs. They are the leader’s partners. This relationship provides the members of the community with greater ownership in and responsibility for decisions. Also, it encourages and facilitates broader participation and input. Because of these factors members of the community have a greater opportunity to grow.
Imposed leadership is, by definition, more authoritarian. Authoritarian systems are sometimes more efficient than participatory systems. However, the members of the community are more passive; they are followers. They have less ownership in decisions. Because participation in and input into decision making is less common, members of the community have less opportunity to grow.
This narrative also reveals the challenge of establishing leadership by consensus. The process requires a leader who can effectively communicate a vision and inspire the community. Also, the members of the community must be willing and able to invest time and attention into understanding the issues confronting the community and the leadership’s proposals for addressing them. In other words, the leader must be an effective communicator. The members of the community must be effective listeners. This level of community commitment and involvement is not easily secured. Sometimes, members of a community prefer to follow rather than make the investment required to effectively participate in decisions and partner with their leader. They will forsake ownership to not be burdened by responsibility. However, when members invest in the affairs of their community, they transform the community from a flock into a partnership. ________________________________
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 6:13.
[2] Sifrei Parshat BeHa’alotecha, chapter 91.
[3] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 6:13.
[4] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 6:14.
[5] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Shemot 6:13.
[6] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Shemot 6:14-25.