Thursday, July 09, 2009

what makes a great Jewish leader: the transition from Moshe to Yehoshua

The Chasam Sofer (Shu"t O.C. 12) discusses whether a Rabbinic should be inherited by a son after his father's passing. He cites a Midrash from our parsha:

יפקד ה' מה ראה לבקש הדבר הזה אחר סדר נחלות? אלא, כיון שירשו בנות צלפחד אביהן, אמר משה: הרי השעה שאתבע בה צרכי, אם הבנות יורשות, בדין הוא שירשו בני את כבודי. אמר לו הקב"ה (משלי כז): נוצר תאנה יאכל פריה, בניך ישבו להם ולא עסקו בתורה, יהושע הרבה שרתך והרבה חלק לך כבוד, והוא היה משכים ומעריב בבית הועד שלך, הוא היה מסדר את הספסלים והוא פורס את המחצלאות, הואיל והוא שרתך בכל כחו, כדאי הוא שישמש את ישראל, שאינו מאבד שכרו. קח לך את יהושע בן נון, לקיים מה שנאמר: נוצר תאנה יאכל פריה:

Then Midrash explains the relationship between the adjacent parshiyos of Bnos Tzlafchad and the appointment of Yehoshua. When the parsha of inheritance was taught Moshe thought that it would apply to his position as well and his own children would inherit his role. Hashem responded that Moshe's role would pass to Yehoshua who toiled in learning and shimush for years to deserve it, but not his children. A Rabbinic position belongs to the most worthy candidate, not to the offspring of the previous occupant of the position (other Achronim take issue with the Chasam Sofer's conclusion).

The Chasam Sofer's interpretation sheds light on Moshe's hava amina. It was not nepotism that motivated Moshe; it was a halachic concern based on the laws of inheritance.

I would like to suggest another possible approach. Moshe Rabeinu must have known that Yehoshua was the only true possible successor to his position of Rabban of Klal Yisrael. However, Moshe also knew that after his death the people would need to wage a war of conquest. What they needed in a leader, he assumed, was not a Rosh Yehsiva, but rather a general -- a charismatic commander who appreciated the real art of war, not just milchamta shel Torah. Moshe perhaps felt that that role could be filled by his own children.

If I am right about the hava amina, what is the maskana? One can read the conclusion simply as revealing that Moshe's assumption about the changed role of leadership was wrong; a Rosh Yeshiva and not a general as the primary leader was still necessary. Yet, one can also read the conclusion as accepting Moshe's premise that the nature of leadership would change; a general, not a Rosh Yeshiva, would lead the people. However, the Midrash teaches that a general of the army of the Jewish people should be no less steeped in the values of Torah than a Rosh Yeshiva.

Reading the debates in responsa literature regarding whether a Rabbinic position is like the title of king and may be inherited strikes me as odd and naive given the way modern shuls are run. If anything, it is the shul president and board of directors who wear the crowns -- maybe things were different in the old days. Given the reality of our circumstance, I think the lesson of our Midrash is even more compelling. As Moshe anticipated, our organizational leadership is concerned with practical details: who is getting food for the kiddush? Do we have enough in the bank for the air conditioning bill and if not, how can we raise it? What kind of youth program can we run? etc. Even though these roles do not demand the genius of a talmid chacham to fill, I think there is a danger in turning them over to people who are not of the world of the beis medrash and do not necessarily share its values. Dollars certainly are needed to run any organization, but too often they become the raison d'etra instead of just a means to an end. The Midrash highlights not just Yehoshua's learning, but notes that he straightened the chairs and made sure the beis medrash was in order; he was concerned with the practical as well as the other-worldly. Organizational leadership demands the vision to meet the necessities of this world while never losing sight of more spiritual goals.

13 comments:

  1. The vort is good, but just re: the hava amina, we were introduced to Yehoshua first as a general (in parshas Beshalach versus Amaleik)before being a talmid chacham. So I think it would have been reasonable for Moshe to have assumed that he would be an effective general in the war to be waged.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting that Rav Shternbuch, in his Taam Vodaas in Shemos 29, brings from the Chafetz Chaim that the reason the position of Mashu'ach Milchama isn't inherited is that charisma is all that matters in the man whose job it is to give the troops courage, and heritage is irrelevant. Your addition is that af al pi kein, if the previous M'M's son is good enough, he is given priority. Makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous12:16 PM

    anon1: Good point (because I also thought of it). However, the milchama against Amalek was al pi ness, whereas the assumption was that kibush ha'aretz would be al pi derech hatevah. That would negate this argument.

    Also note that the milchemes amalek preceeded the milchemes shiv'a am'mim by almost forty years. It is likely that being areingeton in learning for such a long time would diminish one's battlefield skills.

    One thing has always intrigued my regarding Moshe's choice of Yehushua as the commander of the first milchemes amalek. Why him? How long could they possibly have known each other prior to then? What made him the choice over demonstrated leaders such as Nachshom ben Aminadav?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous12:30 PM

    Apropos of the thesis of this article: note that Ya'akov sent Yehuda le'horos lefanav, and not the brother whom I assume was the greater talmid chacham, Levi.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Regarding yerusha of Rabbinical positions: What did you look at besides for the Avney Nezer?

    ReplyDelete
  6. R' Asher Weiss collects a bunch of mareh mekomos on the topic in his sefer on chumash. There is an important tshuvah of the Maharam Shick but I have to check the siman again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'll save you the trouble.

    http://havolim.blogspot.com/2009/04/here-and-in-titzaveh-shemos-2930-passuk.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks. I should have remembered your post!

    ReplyDelete
  9. AND Reb Asher Weiss has neither the viking battle nor the monkeys fighting over a piece of matza, so there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous7:59 PM

    Chaim B,

    Which teshuva of the Maharam Schick are you referring to ?
    How are you defining "rosh yeshiva" in 2009.
    How are you defining "general" in 2009 ?
    How would you classify the Attorney General, The Mayor and or the District Attorney.
    ( I ask, cuz at this time the guys that I think are/would be the best leaders are as follows ; Eliot Spitzer, Mayor Bloomberg,and Emmanuel Rahm.)
    These guys are brilliant,driven, and work really hard for all the right reasons.
    At the core is the absolute lack of "selfishness" and the unadulterated altruism.

    Also not sure what you mean by "charismatic" but on a somewhat related note, cordial, congenial and polite is so overrated.

    If someone cant handle the truth, couching it in deceptive and polite niceties, will not make the truth feel any better.


    one quick borderline off topic point, clicking on the link provided by leizer, and the case law the chofetz chaim provided concerning kohanim bnei aharon and leaders and inherited ness ( that aharon topic keeps resurfacing,)....
    I noticed the other day that the Bavaria born Tosfos Yomtov, who was a dayan at 19 ! is listed as a ben levi ; "Rabbi Yom-Tov Lipmann ben Nathan ha-Levi Heller"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom-Tov_Lipmann_Heller

    But Aryeh Leib, a fourth generation descendent of rabbi yom tov lipmann is listed as a cohen, "aryeh leib hacohen heller" .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryeh_Leib_HaCohen_Heller

    I just found that interesting, in a inherited levi versus kohain status kind of way.

    Also got a little too excited trying to get a hold of the "Ketzot HaChoshen" thinking I finally found a learned halachist, who dedicated a book to the in-depth study of the gemstones chosen for the Choshen.

    But it is a commentary on the Choshen Mishpat, not sure what Choshen has to do with either of the halachic works though.



    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous3:02 AM

    One quick clarification,as one of the millions of Americans that are purportedly "direct descendants" somehow,somewhere along the line....., of the Tosfos Yomtov,(so now its German and French Litvaks, and the Jerusalem Talmud that rule, halachically speaking ;-), I was just trying to figure out the precise connection.
    And he did have a hard life back in the 1600's.
    And he was brilliant,wrote a commentary on the mishnah and was definitely against hasidicism.

    I was not G-d forbid trying to suggest anything sketchy and or cast any doubt on the Kohen versus Levi thing or whatever.

    just wanted to put that out there....its important to think before pointing stuff out. Its even more important to think ahead about possible conclusions and or inferences that others may conclude with. Thus being the cause of stuff you had not thought about in your wildest dreams. No matter how sincere or honest the intentions are. Life sucks like that sometimes.

    Anyway ,on a brighter and brasher note, right in sync with the gemstones theme and Ktzas Hachoshen,fourth generation descendant Rabbi Aryeh Leib Hakohen Heller's second work was called Avnei Milluim ("Filling Stones") and it was mostly on Even Haezer and marital issues..... what fun !

    I think this clearly proves that female dayanim are a perfectly sound and halachically viable initiative and objective !

    Anyway, I'm clearly not from the tribe of Binyamin, the tribe that knew when to shut up (in a good way)and was awarded the jasper gemstone. For a fun explanation on "yeshpeh" or "yeshEpeh"See Josh Wachsman's recent post.http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/07/plethora-of-pehs.html

    Also, Rabbi Moshe Meir Weiss/Staten Island had an interesting piece about Reuven/Red/choshen gemstone and the color of Sin/ in last week's jewish press.
    First thing I thought of, when I read that piece was "seeing red" as in anger..... but he had other good points too.

    I'm still trying to establish a connection between Novembers birthstone-topaz and the Tribe of Levi-which had some crystal like stone

    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous9:20 AM

    The Tosafot Yom Tov could not have been against "hasidicism" [sic] for the simple reason that that movement began with the Ba'al Shem Tov, who was born in 1698, while the Tosafot Yom Tov was niftar in 1654.
    Granted that the Besht was a miracle worker, but still...

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous11:15 AM

    Anonymous,

    Nice try, but according to Rabbi Yom Tov Lippman Heller's Wikipedia entry
    "Heller was opposed to the popularization of kabbalah, and the use of kabbalistic reasoning in matters of Jewish law."

    What part of hasidicism/rebbes is not primarily based on this ?

    And my point is also supported by fourth generation descendant Rabbi Aryeh Leib Hacohen Heller's wikipedia entry, particularly this ;
    "Rabbi Heller was a prominent critic of the Hasidic movement (i.e., a misnaged- "[one who] opposes.") The Hasidic movement taught that closeness to God could be accomplished equally through intensive study of the Torah as fervent song and dance."


    Clearly, the hasidic movement is a little wrong.



    jaded topaz

    ReplyDelete