Breakfast with Bachye, or When a Leader Leads Others Astray

The other morning, while enjoying my breakfast coffee, toast and marmalade, I was perusing Rabbenu Bachye ibn Paquda’s Chovot Halevavot (Sha’ar Hateshuvah, perek 9). There I found a paragraph that caught my eye. Answering the question whether repentance is available for every type of sin, Rabbenu Bachye writes:

ממה שתקשה התשובה ממנו, מי שהדיח בני אדם בדת שבדה להם, והכריחם להאמין בה, ותעה והתעה. וכל אשר יוסיף העם המאמינים בה, יוסיף עוונו ויוכפל

כמו שאמרו רבותינו זיכרונם לברכה

כל המזכה את הרבים, אין חטא בא על ידו

וכל המחטיא את הרבים, אין מספיקין בידו לעשות תשובה

ואמרו: ירבעם חטא והחטיא את הרבים, חטא הרבים תלוי בו

שנאמר (מלכים א טו) על חטאת ירבעם אשר חטא ואשר החטיא וגו

[In English: And repentance is even harder for a person who led others astray by inventing a religion for them and making it necessary for them to believe in it. That person went astray and made others go astray too—and, the more people believe in it, the increasingly serious is that person’s iniquity. As our rabbis of blessed memory said: “One who causes the community to be meritorious, no sin will come by his hand, but whoever causes the community to sin is not given the opportunity to repent. Moses was meritorious and caused the community to be meritorious, so the community's merit is attributed to him; as it says, "He did God's righteousness, and His laws with Israel" (Deuteronomy 33:21). Jeroboam the son of Nebat sinned and caused the community to sin, so the community's sin is attributed to him; as it says, "Regarding the sins of Jeroboam, who sinned and caused Israel to sin" (I Kings 15:30)”].

The citation from the rabbis of blessed memory will be instantly recognised by many Pirkei Avot enthusiasts as the anonymous mishnah from Avot (at 5:21).

Rabbenu Bachye’s citation of this mishnah is in accord with his regular practice of bringing source materials to support his statements, and he often cites Avot. But what is interesting here is the fact that the cited mishnah itself cites sources.

The first citation is at first glance a strange one, since the words of the Torah do not refer to Moses at all. They are actually spoken by him and refer to the tribe of Gad, which Moses is in the process of blessing. It is only through midrash that they are linked to Moses himself. But let’s pass over that citation and move to the second one.

The reference to Jeroboam sinning and causing others to do is entirely appropriate here. Jeroboam’s sins are well recorded in Tanach, even though there is no explicit account of him being unable to effect repentance on the ground that he made others sin too. But what is of interest is the use to which Rabbenu Bachye puts this verse when applying the mishnah.

The mishnah at Avot 5:21 does not refer to any particular sin and, on the face of things, can apply to them all. This position seems to be assumed by most commentators. However, by applying the mishnah specifically to the situation in which a person invents a new religion, a situation analogous to avodah zarah (idol worship), Rabbenu Bachye is effectively contextualising it through the Jeroboam quote. We know that Jeroboam instituted idol worship by setting up no fewer than three golden calves (1 Kings 12:28-33). This offence is the counterpart of Moses’ righteousness (alluded to in the first verse cited), since he descended from Mount Sinai and destroyed the original golden calf. This interpretation of the mishnah as applying specifically to idol worship thus justifies the pairing of the two supporting citations.

Rabbenu Bachye however appears to be unusual among Jewish scholars in giving this mishnah so narrow a construction. Rabbenu Yonah, Rambam, Bertenura, the commentary ascribed to Rashi and Midrash Shmuel are among those who vest it with a wide meaning, imposing no limitation in terms of the sort of sin that a leader might be inducing the general public to follow and modern commentators—if they have anything to say on the subject at all—tend to do likewise, concentrating on issues such as the extent to which a person is responsible for another’s good or bad deeds.

Admittedly, Rabbenu Bachye’s objective is not to provide a commentary on Avot but to provide an in-depth focus on the significance and consequence of a person’s thoughts. Even so, his approach raises a bigger interpretational question relating to how we should handle Avot’s proof-verses.

Verses from Tanach cited in some mishnayot and baraitot are plainly relevant on the face of things. Others are of little obvious relevance and others again are clearly cited out of context. Yet the very fact that they have been incorporated into the teachings of Tannaim means that they cannot be ignored and, if no obvious reason should be found for citing them, it is incumbent on us to look more deeply into them. We also have to accept that, while the same verse may appear in Tanach and in Avot, commentators on Tanach rarely if ever make any reference to the use of that verse in Avot, and commentators on Avot appear most reluctant to take note of explanations of those verses in their original context as part of the written Torah.

Ultimately, what one does with proof verses cited in Avot reflects one’s view of their function. Some scholars start with the mishnayot and seek to work back into their historical or religious context. Others head in precisely the opposite direction, projecting possible meanings and interpretations into social and political circumstances that would have been quite unfamiliar to their authors. No single approach is “correct” or “incorrect” and all ways of reading a Mishnah can enrich our appreciation of them and help us reach a higher understanding.

Leadership challenges and failure at the highest level: a matter of honour

Following a week in which Israeli news has been dominated by political intrigue and unlikely alliances, the Torah directs our attention to Korach’s failed challenge to Moshe and Aharon’s leadership of Israel. Can this parashah offer an ethical commentary on Israel’s contemporary leadership battle, now that a cross-party campaign to dethrone another long-time leader seems poised to succeed?

When Korach tells Moshe that he has taken too much upon himself as the people’s leader (Bemidbar 16:3), he is not the first person to have made this point. Moshe’s father-in-law Yitro does so in no uncertain terms when he criticises him for making the people stand around all day while he judges their cases (Shemot 18:14). Moshe not only concedes Yitro’s point but, shortly before Korach’s challenge, he pointedly and eloquently complains to God that he cannot perform his leadership role unaided (Bemidbar 11:9-15).

Unlike most of the Torah’s flawed characters, Korach is not described as being evil. Midrashim recognise his wisdom (Bemidbar Rabbah 18:3), and the Torah itself testifies to his family pedigree as a senior Levi and to his charisma. Despite his wisdom and his talents, he is a man who is always losing out. He does not become a Prince; he is not appointed as a Kohen. Some 70 elders receive the gift of prophecy but he does not. When leading tribal personalities are appointed to spy out the Promised Land, his name is not among them. Somehow he is always passed over.

A Mishnah (Avot 5:20) describes Korach’s dispute with the established leaders as being the paradigm of a dispute that is “not for the sake of Heaven”, in contrast with the disputes between Hillel and Shammai whose arguments sought to clarify God’s will. Yitro had nothing to gain from his criticism of Moshe, any more than Hillel and Shammai stood to gain if one of them should out-reason the other. Korach however sought a wider distribution of powers and responsibilities within the Israelite camp that would enable him to enjoy greater kavod (honour) and status in the eyes of others—an aim that could scarcely be described as “for the sake of Heaven”.

Korach was a member of the generation that received both the written Torah and its oral counterpart, of which Avot is a key component. That tractate contains much guidance that could have steered Korach away from his path to self-destruction. For example, it would advise him to be content with his lot (4:1, 6:6), to judge Moshe favourably and not view him as seeking to cling on to the reins of power for his own glory (1:6). If this was insufficient, he would be warned against seeking power and authority (1:10) unless there was no-one else to lead the people (2:6). On a positive basis, he would have appreciated that it is those who work on behalf of the community “for the sake of Heaven” who derive assistance through the merits of their forebears (2:2): with a little introspection he might have asked himself whether in all honesty he possessed this quality.

Where does this leave Israel’s disputatious and fissiparous politicians? There is a widely-held perception that politicians are ambitious, self-seeking and concerned only to promote the sectarian interests of their supporters for the sake of their own glorification. But is kavod today still just a, simple reflection of one’s power and authority?

In the modern era, the public perception of leading politicians has become increasingly critical and even cynical. Recent events appear to show that they now have to earn kavod through what they do and how they do it, rather than expect it as a perk that accompanies their status. Fortunately, for anyone who wants to acquire honour, Avot has a recipe for that too. Asking the question, “Who is honoured?”, Ben Zoma answers “He who honours others”. When politicians truly respect and honour one other, despite their differences in political, religious, economic and social ideologies, they will have taken the first steps towards earning the respect of the electorate too.

For better or verse?

The mishnah at Avot 5:21 contrasts those who cause the community to act in an upright and responsible manner with those who lead them down the path of sin and error. Translated, it reads like this:

One who causes the community to be meritorious, no sin will come through his hand, while a person who causes the community to sin is not given the opportunity to repent.

Having stated the basic principles, the mishnah then brings verses in support of them: 

Moses was meritorious and caused the community to be meritorious, so the community's merit is attributed to him, as it says "He did God's righteousness, and His laws with Israel" (Deuteronomy 33:21). Jeroboam the son of Nebat sinned and caused the community to sin, so the community's sin is attributed to him, as it says, "Regarding the sins of Jeroboam, which he sinned and caused Israel to sin" (1 Kings 15:30). 

The two support verses appear to be cited in order to suggest that Moses caused others to do good while Jeroboam (illustrated, right, by Fragonard) did quite the reverse. Do they actually provide this support? Neither verse actually refers to the consequences of Moses' positive leadership and Jeroboam's adverse reign. Moreover, the first verse does not even refer to Moses. From its context in Deuteronomy it is clear that it refers to the tribe of Gad. Any connection between this verse and Moses himself is purely midrashic, since it seems to date from Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 28. 

The fact that this verse does not, scripturally speaking, apply to Moses does not appear to trouble the major commentators. Rambam, the commentary ascribed to Rashi, Rabbi Ovadyah Bartenura, Tosafot Yom Tov and Rabbi Shmuel di Uceda are among the many luminaries who pass no comment on this at all. 

Keeping cool, Avot-style

The theme of "Community Voices: Be Cool" by Rabbi Robert Kravitz, posted on City Sun Times, 22 March 2021, is not hard to guess. We live in what he describes as "panic mode."  He adds:

All around are internecine fights, arguments, challenges to authority, revolutions, overthrows, melting glaciers, wildland fires, demagogues and more. All heat, seldom light. ... When two sticks are scraped against one another rapidly, heat and even fire is produced. When two angry individuals argue violently, again heat erupts, and sometimes violence. Molten lava flows and destroys everything in its path. So too with words that emanate from enraged individuals. And speech, with all of today’s volatile verbiage, often yields violent actions.

After asking, "What is the possibility of cooling the temperature, of lowering the volatility, of calming the rage?", he states:

In the Talmud there is a section called Ethics of the Fathers, Pirke Avot in Hebrew. (Today, we would probably re-title it as Ethics of the Parents, or something similarly egalitarian.) In Avot we learn that anywhere where there is no one acting appropriately, it is our personal obligation to be the one to act appropriately, to do what is seemly [see below for reference to the mishnah and what it literally says]. Hence in this world of disorganization and turmoil, a planet melting from human violence and discord…we each have the obligation to cool it down, lower the heat, begin to rationally resolve the issues. Each of us has the personal opportunity — some would say the obligation — to be the one who makes the difference. To begin a process of reconciliation; to start to change the level of malevolence that is all around us.

To be the one who stands up and acts appropriately; to tie up the fraying ends of a world that is disintegrating; to be the individual who will promote facts and values that we as human beings must share. To finally commence ending the panic, dropping the temperature, and beginning to create light — not more heat — as we save ourselves and preserve our planet.

The mishnah in question is Avot 2:6, where Hillel teaches that, in a place where there are no men, one should strive to be a man. An alternative citation might have been the same Tanna's exhortation at Avot 1:12 to be like Aaron -- loving peace and pursuing it. 

Avot and leadership: practical applications for ancient advice

I am always pleased so see people taking the ancient sayings in Pirkei Avot and applying them to our current lives and lifestyles. That's why I was happy to read Randi Braun's post in the Jewish Journal, "What Does Leading With Heart Look Like in Modern Life?" This piece looks at Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai's question to his five top talmidim (Avot 2:13): "what is the good path that a person should stick to?", together with their various answers. Rather than just discuss the "winning" answer, the author considers the virtues of all five within the context of leadership and making an impact on others.