Heroism vs. Leadership

The concept of leadership is very popular at the moment.

It's a buzzword. Nearly every program and every school seeks to teach leadership skills and students proudly boast on their resumes that they are leaders. This despite the fact that true leadership is learned over time, it is earned, and it comes from people who choose to regard you as leader, not simply because you were appointed to run an organization.

Moreover, not all people are fit to be leaders, nor should this be their main goal. Our society would have us think that it is ignoble to follow; I believe this thinking is flawed.

So what is it that people can strive to obtain if not leadership?

Heroism.

Every man can be a hero because one can act the hero in one's own life. Heroism is demonstrated when one's life is a testament to one's ideals. Heroism can be performed on large scale or small, and can be demonstrated by the six-year-old and the eighty-year-old. Heroism is to choose rightly, correctly, with personal integrity, at a time when the stakes are high and it is difficult to do so. Heroism can be performed at the individual level.

Pop culture is currently obsessed with superheroes. Why are they deemed heroes as opposed to leaders? Because they are typically vigilantes, usually working outside of a structure (The Avengers notwithstanding). The hero is the one who both flaunts and flouts the rules and does so for the good of overarching society. Yet it is rare that this society is able or willing to actually allow the superhero to lead. That falls to other men, men who can work within the structures and strictures of society.

Leadership and heroism are different. Leadership is sustained, constant, unending, exhausting. It requires the ability to work with people, manage people, placate, appease, command and cajole people. By its very nature, it involves others- and others who may not even want to be involved in the enterprise.

Heroism, in contrast, can be all those things but often isn't. It is perhaps more commonly found in uncharacteristic acts (driven by extraordinary situations) or alternatively, in the small, everyday decisions that one makes. The decision to stay home and watch the children so that your spouse can attend an event. The decision to say something kind to an ailing, if irritating, person. Heroism takes energy, but it's a different kind of energy. Heroism can exist on the individual level- one can be a hero in everyday life without being a leader of men.

The scene with Moses at the Burning Bush is often read as that of a man who is wary and unwilling to accept the mantle of leadership. And I think there's an element of truth to that. But I think there is often a misread in the way this is taught. Moses was a hero who was totally capable of heroic action on the individual level. His concern had to do with being made a leader- someone who would have to oversee people and quite literally lead them somewhere they did not want to be led. Managing people is hard. 

Moses proved his heroism on three separate occasions. First, he protected a slave from an Egyptian overseer. Second, he sought to break up a fight between two Hebrews. And third, he protected Midianite shepherdesses from the unwanted heckling and abuse of Midianite shepherds. Clearly, this was a man who had no problem intervening when the situation warranted it. However, in all of these situations, he was acting on an individual level, doing something that was right and correct and which he was fully capable of doing on his own. In these situations, perhaps he led by example, but he did not lead a people. He was not involved in the mess of politics, hurt feelings, indignation, fear of change and frustration with standards of excellence that leading a nation entails.

Indeed, after fleeing to Midian, Moses took on a life of solitude. He spent his time shepherding the flock, going where they would go, staring out into great desert vistas. He was familiar with nature. He brooded. He thought. Overall, he saw. The Burning Bush was a test. The first thing Moses says is that he will turn aside to "see this great sight, why this Bush is not burnt." Moses is no cynic, jaded and tired by life. He could be. He's a runaway, a refugee. He could say that no good deed goes unpunished and lament his life. He could look at a burning bush with dull eyes, determine it a mirage or something not worth investigating, and continue on his path. But he does not do these things. Because Moses, a man who communes with nature, an introspective, thoughtful man, sees. 

And upon seeing, he is tasked with a vast and impossible mission. You are no longer to act the hero alone, God says him. Now, you must lead. Moses is not afraid of decisive, important, heroic action on an individual level. But he is very afraid of leading a people. All of his arguments reflect this. He begins by saying, "Who am I?" - Who am I to be given this very public job? I don't have the right qualifications. I don't know how to lead. He continues by relating objections that the nation will raise, certain that they will inquire as to what God's name is, will not believe his fantastical claim, and will not be persuaded by him because he is כבד פה which at least some interpret as not a gifted orator.

If you pick apart Moses' arguments, what you notice is that his concern is with the communal, national implications of this job. You want me to go as a vigilante, picking off men one by one in heroic, one-strike efforts? That I can do. But this- taking a teeming mass of people and leading them out of Egypt to an uncertain future? I don't have the skills for it. You've got the wrong man. Send someone else.

If you view Moses' fear as the fear of any man who has been forced to transform from a productive employee at the individual level to someone tasked with management responsibilities, other decisions he makes become clearer. For example, his seeming impatience with the people likely stems from a lack of true understanding of them. He looks at them through the eyes of one for whom life is utterly clear, the eyes of a hero- this is correct, this is incorrect- how can you not see? How can you be so blind? When he is able, he takes advice from others more qualified than himself, such as Jethro. At other times, he wishes to give up, declaring that he cannot bear this heavy burden, that the nation has sucked him dry.

And of course, there is Moses' great flaw - the incident at the rock. At least one commentary reads that scene and informs us that hitting the rock was not the problem. The problem was that Moses cried, "Listen up, you rebels!" Since he persisted in calling the nation rebels- מורדים- he was not fit to continue to lead them to the next stage of their journey. He was looking at them with eyes that could not be sufficiently compassionate. And like ר שמעון בר יוחאי, who had to learn not to burn people with his eyes, Moses must learn that sometimes developing others is more important than the destination.

All people who begin their work roles as productive individuals struggle when they are given a group of other individuals to manage. They are used to impossibly high standards which they themselves set, standards to which they expect the group to adhere. They become frustrated and irritated- both with themselves and the group- when these standards are not met. Two options appear. The first is to develop the group and the talents of the individuals within the group, even though this may mean a slower pace. The second is to charge full-tilt to reach the end goal, often with the productive individual doing the bulk of the work. The ostensible goal of Moses leading the Israelites is to get them to the Promised Land. This task is certainly made easier (and quicker) without constant complaining and squabbling. However, in his concern to get the Israelites to Israel, Moses misunderstands the true goal. The people need to reach their full potential, to be developed as much as they can be in fear and love of God. Reaching the Promised Land is the secondary goal. If Moses sees the nation's shortcomings- their rebelliousness- and cannot discover and develop their potential, does not respond with love in that moment, he is not succeeding in his most important work. God sees this and punishes him with the natural consequence- you may not enter the Promised Land. You need to think instead about the work that I am giving you to accomplish here in the wilderness. Develop these people. Help them to become the people they can be. I am relying on you...

The Burning Bush, The Simple Jew & The Tzaddik

This is an excerpt from Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi by Nissan Mindel, pages 69-73.

~
The main strictures which the Mithnagdim leveled against the Beshtian doctrines centered on two points:

Firstly, the teachings of the Ba'al Shem Tov accorded especial esteem to the prayers and Tehillim-recital of the unlearned and untutored Jew, even though he did not know what he was saying. This attitude, the Mithnagdim contended, tended to give the am ha'aretz and ignoramus a sense of undeserved self-importance, and lowered the prestige of the talmidei-chachamim. It seemed to ignore the Talmudic saying that "all calamities that occur in the world are due to the amei-ha'aretz."

Secondly, according to the doctrine of the Ba'al Shem Tov, even a Gaon and Tzaddik have to serve G-d in the way of Teshuvah. The Mithnagdim took strong exception to this doctrine, arguing that it placed the sainta nd scholar in the category of ordinary sinners and repenters. Such a notion surely undermined the honor of the Torah and the dignity of the talmidei-chachamim. The Mithnagdim further concluded that this notion was in contradiction to the view of the Torah, Written and Oral, which described the Tzaddik as the "foundation of the world" and the talmidei-chachamim as those who "increase peace in the world" and as the true "builders" of the Jewish nation. The Beshtian notion of requiring them, too, to do penance was humiliating, and most objectionable.

Rabbi Schneur Zalman replied to the said two main contentions of the Mithnagdim as follows:

"The basis of the doctrine of the Ba'al Shem Tov and of the teachings of his successor, my teacher and master the Maggid of Miezricz, which illuminate the way of Divine service, followed by all the disciples of our master the Maggid, is to be found in the first Divine revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu.

"My teacher, the Maggid of Miezricz, taught me the following doctrine, which he had received from the Ba'al Shem Tov:

It is written, "And the angel of God appeared (vayyera) unto him in a flame of fire from the midst of the bush. And he saw that the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then said Moshe, 'I will turn aside and see this great sight" (Exod. 3:2-3).

The Targum renders the word vayyera ("appeared") by v'itgali ("revealed himself"). The meaning of "revelation" is that it comes within the perception of everyone, to each one according to one's capacity, down to the lowest levels. Thus, the Targum also renders the word vayyered in Exod. 19:20 ("And G-d came down on Mount Sinai") by v'itgali ("revealed himself"), though elsewhere, e.g. Gen. 38:1 ("And Judah came down"), the word vayyered is rendered by v'nahat ("descended"). Similarly in Gen. 11:5 the Targum gives a corresponding rendition in the sense of "revelation," as in the case of the revelation at Mt. Sinai.

Now, just as the revelation at Sinai was intended for all the people, from Moshe down to the Jew of the most humble station, so must "revelation" be understood in the other instances, including the first revelation to Moshe out of the Burning Bush. Here, too, we must assume a revelation which can be perceived on all levels, down to the lowest, as already mentioned.

The words b'labat esh are rendered by Rashi by b'shalhevet shel esh, libo shel esh ("in a flame of fire; the heart of fire"). Thus, the message of G-d (i.e. "G-dliness") is to be found in the "heart of fire," i.e. in the earnest and sincere inwardness of the heart, where the fiery embers of G-dliness abide.

The words "from the midst of the bush" elicit Rashi's further commentary: "But not from another [more stately] tree, alluding to the verse, 'I am with him in distress (tzarah)'" (Ps. 91:15). Tzarah (literally "narrow place") alludes to this material world, which is so called because it is limited in space; and also because the Light of the En Sof is concealed therein in Nature, and is thus "confined" and "constricted," as it were. By contrast, the supernal worlds, where the Light of the En Sof shines forth manifestly, are called "wide, open spaces."

However, the design and purpose of the creation of this physical world is to illuminate it and convert it from צרה to צהר- "light"- by means of the light of the Torah and the Mitzvoth, to be studied and observed in the daily life.

It is written, "Man is like a tree of the field" (Deut. 20:19). There are fruit-bearing trees, to which, according to Rabbi Yochanan, the talmidei-chachamim are likened (Taanit 7a); and there is the sneh, a humble bush that bears no fruit. Yet the "fiery flame" was manifest in the sneh. To be sure, the talmidei-chachamim, the students of the Torah, are filled with fire, since the Torah is called "fire" (Deut. 33:2), but it is not the inextinguishable kind of fire which burned in the sneh. The talmidei-chachamim can, and do, quench their inner fire by the intellectual gratification which they derive from their Torah studies, from the new insights which they discover, and from original innovations in the interpretation and exposition of the wisdom of the Talmud.

Not so the ordinary and unlearned Jew, the sneh- in whom burns an inextinguishable fire, and unquenchable longing for attachment to G-d. The only spiritual expression that the simple and untutored Jew can find, is in prayer and the recital of Tehillim. And though he may not know the exact meaning of the sacred words he intones, they contain the full force of his sincerity and wholeheartedness.

The only motivation of these humble Jews is their simple faith in G-d, which creates in them the burning and insatiable desire for Torah and Mitzvoth, a desire which, of necessity, remains unsatisfied and unquenched.

That is why the eternal "fiery flame" (labat esh) is to be found precisely in the hearts of these simple, sincere folk.

It is written, "And Moshe said, 'I will turn and see this great sight'" (Exod. 3:3) which, according to Rashi, means "I will turn from here, to come closer to there." This indicates that Moshe Rabbeinu understood the Divine message of the Burning Bush which emphasized the unique quality of the ordinary Jew- the Labat esh being found precisely in the sneh, rather than in the cedars of Lebanon. The realization of this evoked a sense of Teshuvah in him, and a change of outlook and direction ("I will turn [ashuva] from here to come closer there").

Now, Moshe Rabbeinu was a perfect Tzaddik. The course of Teshuvah of the perfect Tzaddik is quite different from that of the ordinary repenter. It is effected in the manner of "I will turn from here to come closer there." In other words, no one, not even the greatest Tzaddik, should be static in his Divine service, however perfect it may seem at any time. There must be a constant striviting toward ever greater heights, turning from one high level to a still higher one, with a constant desire to get closer to G-d. In this progression, which is essentially an infinite process, each higher level attained leaves the previous level, however satisfactory it seemed previously, deficient by comparison. Hence there is room for Teshuvah even for the perfect Tzaddik."

Rabbi Schneur Zalman emphasized that the said fundamental tenets of the Ba'al Shem Tov were based on the first Divine revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu, whom G-d had chosen to be the first deliverer and leader of the Jewish nation and he went on to explain the precedental nature of that revelation:

The Divine revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu was quite different from the Divine revelation to Noah, or even to Abraham. For the Divine revelation to Noah was a personal one, due to special Divine grace. Whether Noah was singled out for this Divine love because "Noah found favor in the eyes of G-d" (Gen. 6:8), or because he actually merited it, as it is written, "For I have found thee righteous before Me in this generatoin" (ibid. 7:1), it was, nevertheless, a personal revelation, confined to him only.

The Divine revelation to Abraham was quite different. It contained certain instructions as to Divine service, and was attended by extraordinary tests and trial. It was, obviously, on an altogether higher level, though it, too, came as a result of special Divine love, as it is written, "For I know him (Rashi: love him) that he will command his children and his household after him, that they observe the way of G-d, to do righteousness and justice," (Gen. 18:19). In the Midrash Abraham was also called the "Supreme King's favorite" (B.R. ch. 42). Be it as it may, G-d's revelation to Abraham was also, essentially, a personal one.

However, the Divine revelation to Moshe Rabbeinu- Rabbi Schneur Zalman explained- was not merely a personal one, but rather a general one, serving as a guideline for all future leaders of our people. This revelation showed that a Jewish leader should look for the labat esh in the sneh- among the ordinary people. The leader must try to discover this spark in the heart of the simple folk and fan it into an all-consuming flame.