Leadership, Loyalty and Reliability
Rabbi Eliezer Shenvald – The Parasha in our everyday life - Balak - 5781
Recently we have been witnessing a rewrite of the public scale of values. Among other things, politicians are given a public 'exemption' from telling the truth. A claim against a politician that deceived his constituents, that asked to be elected because of a certain platform and when he was elected he did the exact opposite of what he promised, is answered by a long list of politicians who broke their promises. From trivial promises to principled promises on which a complete worldview is based. It is no longer a shame for a politician to stand in front of the public after breaking his promises in the expectation that he will be accepted with understanding. Not only politicians make ''exemptions" for themselves, but also the public. When the breach of promise serves the interest of a particular public (usually from the rival party) it tends to justify. And when that public is cheated by its 'own' politician, it is furious and shouts 'Gevald'!
In the face of criticism of the immorality of deception and breach of promise, the justification is often voiced: "Politics is the art of the possible". (A statement attributed to the 19th-century German statesman Otto von Bismarck. In 2015, the book: 'The Art of the Possible' by Edward Keenan was published, which deals with fundamental issues in politics). Meaning that, politics is conditioned by the possibilities on the agenda. And according to them, sometimes seeing no alternative, the promises cannot be fulfilled, nor can you stand idly by, so there is no choice but to break the promise, and therefore it is not an immoral act!
However, shouldn't the politician know this in the first place?! And if so why does he make promises knowing that he might not be able to fulfill them?! And what about a politician who misled the public, and, when he asked to be elected, and made promises, he had no intention of keeping them to begin with?!
In a democratic state, politicians are the leaders who make fateful decisions for the state and its citizens. Their power stems from the public confidence that relies on them and trust that their considerations are made out of loyalty to the public and the state, and not to their own narrow interests. How can the public continue to trust a leader who lied?! This can be an existential strategic problem: leaders are often required to engage the public in demanding moves such as going to war, which can have a heavy price. They need to explain to the public the necessity. What if the public lost faith?!
Leaders, MKs and ministers should set a personal example! An exemplary role model behavior for the public! What personal example do they give when they lie?!
And besides: are the military and security fields not the 'art of the possible'? And the business world? Etc. Can we also exempt those who deal with them from the duty of 'reliability'?!
At the end of our Parasha we read about Israel’s sin with the daughters of Moab on the advice of Bilaam and the elders of Midian (Ramban Bamidbar 25: 1), in which twenty-four thousand of Israel perished. The closing of the circle with the Midianites will be in Parashat Matot, with Hashem's command to Moshe:
נְקֹ֗ם נִקְמַת֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מֵאֵ֖ת הַמִּדְיָנִ֑ים אַחַ֖ר תֵּאָסֵ֥ף אֶל־עַמֶּֽיךָ׃ וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר מֹשֶׁה֙ אֶל־הָעָ֣ם לֵאמֹ֔ר הֵחָלְצ֧וּ מֵאִתְּכֶ֛ם אֲנָשִׁ֖ים לַצָּבָ֑א וְיִהְיוּ֙ עַל־מִדְיָ֔ן לָתֵ֥ת נִקְמַת ה' בְּמִדְיָֽן׃
“Avenge the Israelite people on the Midianites; then you shall be gathered to your kin. Moshe spoke to the people, saying, “Let men be picked out from among you for a campaign, and let them fall upon Midian to wreak Hashem’s vengeance on Midian.” (Bamidbar 31:2-3)
Moshe's death depends on the revenge on Midian. If Moshe Rabbeinu had seen only his self-interest, he would have acted to postpone it as much as possible, in ways that no one could have known. But Moshe was faithful to the people of Israel and their future and therefore:
אַעַ"פִּ שֶׁשָּׁמַע שֶׁמִּיתָתוֹ תְלוּיָה בַּדָּבָר עָשָׂה בְשִׂמְחָה וְלֹא אֵחַר
“Although he had heard (v. 2) that his death was associated with this matter, he did it gladly and did not delay” (Rashi ibid)
Loyalty and reliability are two sides of the same coin.
On Moshe Rabbeinu’s attribute of truth and prophecy it is said:
מֹשֶׁה וְתוֹרָתוֹ אֱמֶת
“Moshe and his Torah are true” (Bava Batra 74:1).
G-d testifies on Moshe’s loyalty:
לֹא־כֵ֖ן עַבְדִּ֣י מֹשֶׁ֑ה בְּכׇל־בֵּיתִ֖י נֶאֱמָ֥ן הֽוּא׃
“Not so with My servant Moshe; he is trusted throughout My household.”
(Bamidbar 12:7).
כולם מחזיקים אותו כנאמן כי אני מדבר עמו
"Everyone holds him faithful, for I speak to him" (Bekhor Shor ibid).
"... אך באמונת לבבו אינו עושה מאומה. ולא שייך לומר נאמן אלא על מי שיש בידו לעשות ואינו עושה וכו'”
The meaning of loyalty is that Moshe behaved as required, although if he had wanted to, he could have done differently:
"... but in the faith of his heart he does nothing. And it is not appropriate to say faithful but about one who has in his hand to do and does not do, etc.” (Haamek Davar ibid).
Give us reliable and faithful leadership.