Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky, two of the most important scholars of leadership in the world, argue that a true leader must be willing to confront the face of danger. In fact, the Heifetz and Linsky argue that leaders who cannot face danger are destined to fail. They write:
“The hard truth is that it is not possible to experience the reward and joy of leadership without experiencing the pain as well. The painful part of the reality is what holds so many people back...the dangers of leadership will come from many people and places, and take many forms, not only from known adversaries, but also from the betrayal of close associates and the ambivalence of trusted authorities” (Ronald A. Heifetz, Marty Linsky, Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading, 227).
While it may seem cold to assume that leaders must accept hard choices and succeed, or avoid hard choices and fail, the reality is that this choice confronts all of us from time-to-time, and is reflected in a painful object-lesson from Parashat Shemini, where the dedication of the mishkan is tarnished by the death of Aaron’s sons Nadav and Abihu. Commentators struggled for generations over why the two sons were killed, and a common answer reflects our tradition insistence that Nadav and Abihu died so that the Israelites might learn the harsh lessons of what it means to be a leader of God’s people.
The midrashic tradition about the Nadav and Abihu holds that the two brothers died because they were intoxicated while entering the mishkan. Rashi cites this midrashic tradition as one of of two possible interpretations for the passage, “A fire came forth from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord” (Vayikra 10:2):
“A fire came forth”—” R. Eliezer says: The sons of Aaron did not die but for the fact that they rendered a decision in the presence of their teacher Moses (i.e. they did not consult Moses). R. Yishmael says: Intoxicated by wine, they entered the Sanctuary. You can know for after their death, [the Torah] warned the remaining [Kohanim] that they should not enter the Sanctuary intoxicated by wine. This can be compared to a king who had a household member, etc., as stated in Vayikra Rabbah [12:1]” (Rashi on Vayikra 10:2).
This commentary takes the stance that Nadav and Abihu died because they were drunk in the mishkan because of the passage that immediately follows it, where God tells Aaron and his sons that, “You are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you got into the mishkan, or you will die” (Vayikra 10:9). Because this verse is juxtaposed to the passage where Nadav and Abihu died in the mishkan by bringing a “strange fire,” our rabbis assume that mitzvah follows the tragic event of our parasha.
The argument that Nadav and Abihu’s death was due to intoxication is reflected in both our traditional and modern sources. First, Rebbe Nahman of Bratslav asserts that this episode teaches us that there are two ways one can use wine, one which sanctifies the world, and one which causes humanity to descend into the lower realms. He states:
“Through dancing, where he drinks wine that gladdens, which is the source of strength (gevura) in the understanding (bina) which proceeds downward into the feet, that is, where he dances – through that he drives out the externals from there. This is the excitement of dance, and it is "a sacrifice made by fire, sweet savor onto the Lord" (Bamidbar 28:8). But one who dances with the excitement of the their impulses, this is called the sin of Nadav and Avihu, about which it is written: "And they offered strange fire" (Vayikra 10:1)...Excitement in holiness is called wine that gladdens, through which the firstborns are sweetened. And a strange fire is called wine that intoxicates, the excitement of the impulses. There there is, God forbid, room for the externals to take hold, which He did not command” (Rebbe Nahman of Bratslav, Likkutei Moharan, 41).
In this passage, Rebbe Nahman argues that wine is a universal symbol of joy in Jewish tradition, and festive occasions are heightened by including wine. However, Nadav and Abihu used alcohol in a way that heightened their most fragile inhibitions, leading them to behave in a manner completely at odds with the example the priestly class should set for the Israelites. As such, our parasha includes this tragic story to explain the Jewish ideal one must pursue, and how Nadav and Abihu violated it.
Taking a modern, critical approach that embraces a similar theme, Professor James Kugel argues that the context of dedicating the mishkan in Parashat Shemini reveals why Nadav and Abihu’s intoxication would be so problematic, not just for themselves, but the entire Israelite nation. Kugel writes:
“Drunkenness might indeed cause a person to fail to…”distinguish between the holy and the ordinary, and between the unclean and the clean.” If so, this certainly was a grave error. After all, distinguishing between the holy and the ordinary is precisely what being a priest was all about, as Moses had intended to say in citing God’s words “Through those who are near Me I will be kept holy, and [thus] by all the people I will be honored.” It was a hard lesson to have to learn on the sanctuary’s first day, but one that would forever echo in the ears of the temple staff” (James Kugel, How to Read the Bible, Then and Now, 290).
According to Kugel, the job of the priest is to distinguish between holy and ordinary things so that the priest might properly perform the ritual sacrifices brought by the Israelites to serve God. As such, if the future leaders of the priesthood are willing to put themselves in an inebriated state in precisely the place where they will need to perform those duties, God had no choice but to punish them. In this sense, Kugel’s commentary reflects the responsibility of a leader to be an embodiment of a certain set of values to an entire nation.
Each time I read these commentators, I walk away a little sadder, but also little wiser, because I am reminded about how Nadav and Abihu’s death, however tragic, might have been God’s way of sending a message that the leaders of the Israelites must carry themselves with honor or dignity, with no second alternative. Today, we want our students to be leaders and learn how to exercise leadership, but unless we teach how we them how to embrace tough choices, they will metaphorically like Nadav and Abihu, unable to take the leadership mantle. We may embrace the challenging message, so that we might teach our children to be leaders who overcome the face of danger.
Shabbat Shalom!
No comments:
Post a Comment