We live in a time when,
sadly, we are no longer surprised to see those who lead religious
institutions, yeshivahs and communities in the news for unethical
behavior. While actions done to raise money to help others can at
least be somewhat explained away, misusing positions of leadership
for personal gain can not. In 2008, Chaim Saiman, a law professor at
Villanova, wrote an article
for the Forward about the Madoff scandal and its religious
implications for Yeshiva University. Taking that a step further, I'd
like to look at the Torah's expectations for leaders, by dealing with
a number of questions on this weeks parsha.
Parshas Korach tells the
story of how a large group of men, theoretically led by Korach,
attempted to gain positions of leadership and influence within Bnei
Yisrael. It begins with the passuk
וַיִּקַּח
קֹרַח בֶּן־יִצְהָר בֶּן־קְהָת בֶּן־לֵוִי
וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב
וְאוֹן בֶּן־פֶּלֶת בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן
All commentators ask the
same question. The pasuk begins with the word וַיִּקַּח,
which
means "And he took", without saying what exactly was taken.
Furthermore, it is written in the singular despite ostensibly talking
about more than 200 men.
Furthermore,
in pasuk טו
when
Moshe pleads with God not to accept Korach's offering he says
וַיִּחַר
לְמֹשֶׁה מְאֹד וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־יְהֹוָה
אַל־תֵּפֶן אֶל־מִנְחָתָם לֹא חֲמוֹר
אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָשָׂאתִי וְלֹא הֲרֵעֹתִי
אֶת־אַחַד מֵהֶם
"I
have not taken a single donkey from any of them and not done badly to
them". Why does Moshe feel the need to justify himself? Even
stranger is the fact that this statement seems to be the basis for
the choice of the haftarah of the parsha.
As
Shmuel HaNavi, who has been the leader of Bnei Yisrael, is coming to
the end of his life, he is asked by the people to appoint a king to
rule over them. As he goes to annoint Shaul, Shmuel gives a
valedictory address. At the beginning he says:
הִנְנִי
עֲנוּ בִי נֶגֶד ה'
וְנֶגֶד
מְשִׁיחוֹ אֶת ־שׁוֹר ׀ מִי לָקַחְתִּי
וַחֲמוֹר מִי לָקַחְתִּי וְאֶת־מִי
עָשַׁקְתִּי אֶת ־מִי רַצּוֹתִי וּמִיַּד־
מִי לָקַחְתִּי כֹפֶר וְאַעְלִים עֵינַי
בּוֹ וְאָשִׁיב לָכֶם
Echoing
Moshe's words, Shmuel asks the people to confirm that he has taken
nothing from them. What are Chazal trying to emphasize?
Finally,
at the end of the parsha, the Matnos Kehuna V' Leviyah, the gifts
that the Kohanim and Leviyim receive from Bnei Yisrael, are listed.
Going on the assumption that halachos that are introduced after a
narrative episode have a thematic connection, what do these gifts
have to do with the story of Korach and his co-conspirators?
Korach
saw leadership as a way of getting things. He assumed that a leader
would be in position to accrue wealth, comfort and luxury for
himself. He wanted to have such a position for himself. He, along
with his group wanted to rule in order to be able to take for
themselves וַיִּקַּח
קֹרַח.
Even as they came together to complain, each one wanted power for his
own benefit and thus וַיִּקַּח
is
written in the singular.
Moshe
and Shmuel, in contradistinction to Korach and his men, recognized
that to be a true leader was to be a selfless giver, with the goal of
helping the flock rather than themselves. They sacrificed comfort,
family and more all for Bnei Yisrael. In return, they took nothing,
not even a donkey.
At
the end of the parsha, in discussing the various gifts, the Kohanim
and Leviyim are given the task of guarding the mishkan to keep Bnei
Yisrael safe. In return, they are given certain gifts. At first, this
seems to suggest that serving God leads to personal gain. HaShem
stresses
וַיֹּאמֶר
ה'
אֶל־אַהֲרֹן
בְּאַרְצָם לֹא תִנְחָל וְחֵלֶק לֹא־יִהְיֶה
לְךָ בְּתוֹכָם אֲנִי חֶלְקְךָ וְנַחֲלָתְךָ
בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
"You
will not receive a portion of land in Israel. I, Hashem, am your
portion". Land was the primary way of accruing wealth in an
agrarian society. The gifts are given to the Kohanim and Leviyim for
sustenance. Their job is to serve, not to accrue gain for themselves.
HaShem, who is the ultimate giver, the נתן
התורה is
their inheritance, and thus, their role model.
A
leader's goal must be to help those who leads, not himself. To give
to others, and not to take for himself. Perhaps it is time to reasess
our goals in choosing leaders in our community.
No comments:
Post a Comment