A Moral Voice

Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: Speak to Aharon and say to him: "When you light the lamps, the seven lamps shall cast their light toward the face of the Menorah." (Sefer BeMidbar 8:1-2)

I. Addressing Aharon’s concern

Parshat BeHa’alotecha opens with further instructions to Aharon regarding the kindling of the Menorah of the Mishcan – the candelabra of the Tabernacle. Our Sages wonder over the placement of these instructions. The Torah previously described the offerings brought by the leader of each shevet – tribe – to initiate the Mishcan. Why do the instructions for kindling the Menorah follow the account of these initiation offerings? The Sages provide various explanations. Ramban – Nachmanides – quotes a number of these. Let us focus on one.

Aharon was disturbed that he was not included among the leaders and did not participate in bringing the initiation offerings. Hashem responded to Aharon that in the future his descendants will have a role far greater than these princes in the establishment of a sacred sanctuary. In the time of the Hashmonaim, the Bait HaMikdash – the Sacred Temple – will be defiled by the Assyrian Hellenists. The House of the Hashmonaim – kohanim descendant from Aharon – will lead the nation in overthrowing the Hellenists. Through them, Hashem will perform miracles. The rededication of the Bait HaMikdash will be associated with them.

The instructions for kindling the Menorah allude to these events. The most overt of the miracles of that time will involve the Menorah.[1] Of course, these events are those commemorated by the celebration of Hanukah.

II. Ambivalence over the Hashmonaim

Ramban’s opinion on the Hashmonaim is nuanced. He applauds their courage and initiative. He credits them with being Hashem’s vehicle for the expulsion of the Hellenists and the rededication of the Bait HaMikdash. Also, he asserts that were the Hellenists not overthrown by the Hashmonaim, the Jewish people would have completely assimilated.[2] However, he also criticizes them. He explains that they sinned in assuming kingship over the Jewish nation. They violated two laws. First, kingship belongs to the house of David. It cannot be appropriated by another family or shevet. Second, it is specifically inappropriate for a kohen to take on the role of king. The kohanim are assigned the duty and privilege of serving in the Bait HaMikdash. A kohen may not assume the additional duties of a sovereign.[3]

They shall teach Your ordinances to Yaakov, and Your Torah to Yisrael. They shall place incense before You, and burnt offerings upon Your altar. (Sefer Devarim 33:10)

True teaching was in his mouth, and injustice was not found on his lips. In peace and equity he went with Me, and he brought back many from iniquity. For a priest's lips shall guard knowledge, and teaching should be sought from his mouth, for he is a messenger of Hashem of Hosts. (Sefer Malachi 2:6-7)

III. Kohanim are teachers

Let us further consider this second law. Why can a kohen not assume two roles? Why can he not be a priest in the Bait HaMikdash and also a king? One possibility is that the kohanim must be completely dedicated to their tasks and responsibilities. They cannot assume the role of political leadership because of its burdens. The responsibilities of a political leader are enormous and inevitably will interfere with the kohen’s assigned duties. Furthermore, aside from this practical consideration, the kohen has a designation. He is Hashem’s selected servant. He may not assume another role that is not an expression of this designation. Kingship is regarded by the Torah as a role contrary to the kohen’s designation as the selected servant of Hashem.

The above passage suggests another important concern. What is the role of the kohen as a servant of Hashem? He serves in the Bait HaMikdash. However, in the above passage, Moshe assigns another task to him. He and the members of his shevet – the tribe of Leyve – are to be the teachers. They will instruct the other members of the nation in the laws and mitzvot of the Torah.

The prophet Malachi in chastising the kohanim of his generation focuses upon this function. The kohanim are to instruct and also “bring back many from iniquity.” The kohen must teach the people and be prepared to rebuke them for their failings.[4] The kohen’s responsibility to teach and to rebuke may also contribute to his unsuitability to serve as a ruler.

Yehoshua the son of Perachia and Nitai the Arbelite received from them. Yehoshua the son of Perachia would say: Assume for yourself a master, acquire for yourself a friend, and judge every man to the side of merit. (Mesechet Avot 1:6)

IV. An objective voice

Rav Chaim of Volozhin comments on the above mishne:

“Acquire a friend from whom to seek advice – even in matters of [one’s] service to Hashem. [This is] because even if in your own opinion you are a wise person, the evil inclination is able to blind you. It will make [seem] straight that which is [actually] crooked and uneven. Therefore, seek advice from your friend for your evil inclination is not so intimate to him as to cause him to err.” (Ruach HaChayim, Mesechet Avot 1:6)

According to Rav Chaim, the message of the mishne is that we cannot be completely objective about our own affairs. We are influenced by our instincts and drives. A friend can provide an objective perspective and help us make proper decisions.

This consideration suggests another reason a kohen cannot serve as king. The role of king and kohen must be kept separate from one another. The king is the political leader; he cannot also be the teacher and spiritual/religious/ethical guide. Separating these two roles assures that an independent voice is present to guide and even oppose the king.

V. Standing up to the king

The importance of an independent source of guidance is apparent from an incident involving our first king – Shaul. Shaul was commanded to wage war against Amalek. He was to completely destroy the nation and its possessions. No spoils were to be taken in this war. Shaul failed to carry out the command. He spared the king of Amalek and he allowed his troops to keep spoils from the campaign. The prophet Shmuel challenged Shaul. He rebuked him for failing to completely heed to Hashem’s instructions. An interesting dialogue ensued.

Shaul claimed that he had not disobeyed Hashem’s instructions. The people insisted on preserving some of the cattle. They intended to sacrifice these animals to Hashem.

Shmuel responded, “Is it not that although you regard yourself as a small person, you are the leader of the tribes of Israel. Hashem anointed you as King of Israel.”

The dialogue continued and eventually Shaul acknowledged his sin. “I have sinned for I violated the mouth of Hashem and your word. [I did this] because I feared the nation and I listened to their voice.”[5]

VI. A king’s concerns

What was Shaul’s fear? He was afraid that through opposing the people he would undermine his own authority. The people would disregard his instructions and he would be marginalized. Rather than oppose the people’s initiative to retain the spoils, he ignored their behavior.

Shaul was confronted by Shmuel, not by a kohen. But Shmuel played the role that the Torah assigns to the kohen and demonstrated its importance. The considerations that influence a king’s decisions include political concerns. Shaul made the decision he felt necessary to preserve his authority. He did not have the confidence to resist the people and he fretted over undermining his own status. These political consideration “made the crooked and uneven appear straight.”

Shmuel rebuked Shaul. His message can be paraphrased. “You are not an elected leader who needs to pander to his constituency. You were appointed by Hashem. Your authority does not derive from the approval of the people. Your authority is granted by Hashem. You think that you will preserve your stature as king by placating the people. No! You can only be king of Israel if you fulfill Hashem’s commandments!”

VII. Effective leadership

This incident is a moving illustration of the importance of preserving an independent voice of instruction and even rebuke. If the kohen becomes the king, then the institution of teacher and religious/spiritual/moral guide is compromised. Now, this voice is influenced by political considerations and is no longer an objective source of guidance.

This discussion is relevant to anyone who takes on the role of leader. It is important to be skeptical of one’s own objectivity. It is essential for a leader to establish a person or group of people who serve as a sounding-board and provide objective feedback. It is also important that those selected to serve this function are independent and free to challenge the views and decisions of the leader. When this model is in place, the leader can have far greater confidence in the soundness and ethics of his or her decisions.[6] Shaul’s example is an important reminder for any leader. Hashem selected Shaul to be the king of His nation. Certainly, Hashen selected a righteous individual. However, Shaul’s personal righteousness did not protect him from the fears and anxieties that come with political responsibility. He could not see the straight path until Shmuel forcefully rebuked him.

[1] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer BeMidbar 8:2.

[2] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 49:10.

[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 49:10.

[4] See Rav David Altshuler, Metzudat David on Sefer Malachi 3:6.

[5] Sefer Shmuel I, chapter 15.

[6] A few illustrations will be helpful. Shaul’s example illustrates that the leader’s desire to preserve his or her authority can lead to poor decisions. However, more subtle is the leader’s determination to preserve and further the interests of his or her organization. This is especially a problem when the organization’s mission expresses an important value – for example, in the case of a religious/Torah organization or institution. The leadership can easily make the mistake of identifying the organization with its mission and regarding them as one and the same. When this occurs, the leadership will take measures to further the interests of the institution that are justified because of the importance of its mission. This is a mistake. The organization is only a tool, a vehicle, for the furtherance of the mission. It is the mission that is important, not the organization 

This distinction becomes relevant when the mission might be better served through some means that is not in the best interests of the organization. Because the leadership identifies the organization with the mission and sees little or no distinction between them, it will be unable to fully recognize this conflict or to respond to it objectively. As a result, it will promote the interests of the institution at the expense of the mission for which it was created. 

Specifically, the leadership may make decisions that are not reflective of or in accordance with the values the organization was created to promote. This is because it believes that the preservation of the institution or organization is at stake and it is incapable of clearly distinguishing between the organization and its mission. Leadership paradoxically concludes that values may be compromised to preserve the institution – whose importance rests solely upon the values it was created to promote. 

This situation illustrates the importance of the leadership’s openness to an objective outside voice. This must be a voice that understands and shares the commitment to the mission but does not have an interest in the welfare of the institution.