Who is qualified to be a leader or advise a leader?
Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law, was not a management consultant. Such an occupation did not exist at the time of the Bible. Yet he understood the qualifications for those who are given authority to make judgments for a nation and for those who surround and advise a leader.
This week’s Torah portion tells us that Yitro, a Midianite priest, rejoiced with Israel when it was victorious over its enemies. He brought Moses’ wife and two sons to the wilderness where the Israelites were encamped near Mount Sinai. He saw that Moses was adjudicating matters brought to him by the people from morning to evening. He recognized that Moses was suffering from what we would call burnout. He suggested that Moses appoint judges to relieve him of being the sole authority. Those judges would deal with more minor matters, while only the major issues would come before Moses.
What characteristics will determine who can fulfill the role of judge, being second only to Moses? Yitro says that they must be “…capable men,, God fearers, trustworthy men of truth, who spurn ill-gotten gain…” (Exodus 18:21). It is easy to understand the need for a leader at that time to be God-fearing and certainly all leaders must be trustworthy. I want to go further be studying how the classic commentators on the Torah interpret some of Yitro’s other words. We recently elected a new president, and as I am writing this, many people are being considered for significant roles as advisors to him. Does Yitro’s advice give us some understanding of the qualifications for those who would be in positions of power today?
The first words are “anshei chayal” — capable men. Nahmanidies, who lived in Spain in the 13th century, says that means someone who is capable of “managing a large force of people … wise, energetic, and honest.” That would imply the requirement of real ability, and most likely, real experience in a leadership role as well as being an upright person. It seems fairly obvious. Can we say that those who have been proposed recently to high government positions satisfy that criterion?
Rashi, the classic French commentator of the 11th century, goes in a different direction. He begins by saying those Hebrew words refer to “rich men.” If that was all that Rashi said, we might question such a statement. After all, rich men in positions of power can make decisions that enhance their wealth rather than serving the public good. They can use their authority to increase their wealth or pursue a narrow, selfish agenda. Rashi adds the following, “…rich men who are under no pressure to flatter, or show favoritism to anyone.” He understands that wealth can be a sign of independence, not of self-centeredness. Rashi believes that a leader who is rich doesn’t need to play favorites, caring only about what others do for him or her. He does not surround him or herself with what we call yes men. He or she is not transactional. Wealth leads to the ability to make decisions objectively. I might quibble with Rashi on one aspect of this matter. While independent thought is valuable, might it sometimes lead to a wealthy person suggesting policies that are not just out of the box, but also suggest that the leader is out of his mind? That could happen.
I also see in this interpretation a reflection of the talmudic dictum, “Who is rich? He who is satisfied with his portion” (Pirkei Avot 4:1). Wealth is not measured by the size of a person’s bank account. Those who ceaselessly seek opportunities to increase their wealth can suffer from covetousness, greed, and materialism. Such a person cannot be trusted to be an independent, unselfish public servant.
What does “sonei batzah” — [those who] spurn-ill-gotten gain refer to? There are a number of interpretations. Rashi says that they are people “who despise their own wealth if taken to court” and then he quotes from the Talmud: “A judge who must be hauled into court to pay money he owes to a plaintiff, is no judge” (Baba Batra 58b). A leader simply pays his debts, no questions asked. These are people whose word you can trust. When they say something, they mean it. They don’t deny words they have said or written in the past. They have integrity.
There are those who say that those who “spurn ill-gotten gain” refers to those who reject bribes. The ancient translator of the Bible into Aramaic, known as Onkelos, expands on these biblical words. He says that this phrase refers not just to bribes, but to those who “hate to accept money.” They refuse presents or loans because they might influence their judgement. The Talmud goes further, by warning us that “A judge who is in the habit of borrowing is forbidden to pronounce judgment” (Ketubot 105b). That might create a leader who will make decisions biased in favor of those he or she in indebted to, and that would cloud their objectivity.
The Talmud, on that same page, speaks of the scholar, Shmuel, who was once crossing a river on a narrow ferry. A certain man came along and gave him a hand to help him out of the ferryboat. Shmuel asked, “What are you doing in this place?” The man said to him, “I have a case to present before you for judgment.” Shmuel said to him, “I am disqualified from presiding over your case, as you did me a favor.” Although no money changed hands, a bond was formed between the pair. It was just a very slight favor, but Shmuel knew that even a small act might impair his decision to be an impartial judge for all people. Of course, that is even more true for major gifts, or favors.
We look to a future in our country with new leaders and new appointed advisors to our leaders. We can ask how they fit the model suggested by Yitro and interpreted by our biblical scholars. They should have experience that demonstrates their ability in the field they will lead. They need to be trustworthy, people of integrity who don’t accept gifts, don’t use their power to increase their wealth, or favor those who favor them. May we be blessed with such leaders.
comments