Essay on Parshat Vaera in Jerusalem Report

1. THE JERUSALEM REPORT JANUARY 26, 2015 47
Moses made up in competence what he lacked in charisma
AS WE endure yet another
election season, leaders and
leadership are on our minds – as
they have been since the birth of
our nation.
Of all the leaders the Jewish
People has enjoyed or endured,
Moses was one of the greatest,
and one of the most reluctant.
From the outset, Moses doubted
both his suitability and his abili-
ty to speak for the people, or to
the people. Words did not come
easily to him.
What sort of leader would he
be without eloquence and elo-
cution? God had to cajole and
practically plead with Moses,
and to appoint his brother Aar-
on as his assistant, to convince
Moses to accept the job. Even so,
Moses continued to question his
own leadership, and occasionally tried to return his mandate.
As the story of the exodus unfolds, we might wonder if Moses actu-
ally had “the right stuff” for the job. As he had feared, upon arriving in
Egypt, the Israelites rejected him, and Moses questioned how he would
manage to sway Pharaoh if he was unable to convince even the Israelites.
Perhaps Aaron, the older brother, the man who spoke the language
of the people and to whom they turned for counsel and comfort, would
have been a better choice? Apparently not. When Aaron was forced to
take the reins in Moses’ absence – the result was the Golden Calf. Aaron
had charisma, eloquence and the common touch, but he could not stare
down an angry mob.
There is, however, a third leadership model to be found in Va’era;
mentioned in passing, it slips by almost unnoticed. In the midst of
Moses’ repeated attempts to demur we find a short, select genealogy of
those destined to leave Egypt, culminating in Aaron’s nuclear family.
This genealogy is intended to establish Aaron’s credentials, but the list is
not what we would have expected.
Describing Aaron’s family, a unique formulation is used. Not only is
Aaron’s wife Elisheva mentioned, which is somewhat out of the ordi-
nary, but so is her father, and, most unusual of all, her brother. “Aaron
married Nachshon’s sister, Elisheva, daughter of Aminadav. She bore
him Nadav, Avihu, Eleazar and Itamar.”
Noting this anomalous formulation, Rashi explains that Elisheva’s
brother Nachshon is included in order to teach us a life lesson. When
choosing a spouse, bear in mind that the children will inherit personality
traits from their mother’s brothers.
What do we know about Elisheva’s brother Nachshon? He, too, was a
leader, but his leadership differed from that of Moses or Aaron. While
Moses was reticent, Nachshon was a descendant of the charismatic
Judah, known for being direct, even
impetuous. While Aaron led with
words, Nachshon led with deeds.
He was the first of the tribal leaders
to bring an offering the day the Tab-
ernacle was consecrated, because,
the Midrash tells us, he had been the
first to leap into the sea.
Pursued by the Egyptians,
with their backs to the wa-
ter, Nachshon was the first to
take a leap of faith, leading the
Israelites into the Red Sea before
it split to clear a pathway for their
escape. Nachshon is the prototype
for commanders who lead by exam-
ple, jump first into the fray and cry,
“aharai!” – “Follow me!”
For his bravery and faith, for
leading by example, Nachshon
was rewarded the day the Tab-
ernacle was consecrated. Once
again, he was first.
But something else happened on that day. Two of Aaron’s sons were
consumed by a heavenly fire. Without waiting for instructions or per-
mission, they brought an unsanctioned offering. When viewed through
the prism of Rashi’s haunting comments, we begin to see their impetu-
ous behavior from a new perspective. They had, indeed, inherited their
uncle Nachshon’s personality traits, but unlike him, they had misused
their gifts.
There is a time and a place for this type of leadership, but Nadav and
Avihu were led astray by this same impetuousness, and were consumed
by their own desire to blaze new trails. On the very same day Nachshon
was rewarded, his impressionable nephews followed his example, leap-
ing forward – with disastrous results.
This, then, is the third model of leadership in Va’era. Nachshon was
charismatic, idealistic, strong and brave, but lacked self-restraint. His
style of leadership was exciting, energizing – and somewhat dangerous.
Aaron was eloquent and popular, but he was also non-confrontational,
and lacked the strength to lead.
In the final analysis, Moses’ hesitation and humility make him more
attractive as a leader. He was never interested in the spotlight or the trap-
pings of leadership; he assumed the role thrust upon him out of a sense
of responsibility. He was convinced, after some effort on God’s part, that
no one else could get the job done. Moses made up in competence what
he lacked in charisma. 
Ari Kahn is a rabbi, author and educator, who lives in Givat Ze’ev,
and directs the Program for Overseas students at the Faculty of
Jewish Studies in Bar-Ilan University. His latest book is ‘Spies,
Subversives and other Scoundrels’
Lessons in leadership
The Torah portion Va’era is read on Shabbat, January 17
THE PEOPLE THE BOOK ARI KAHN
PEPEFAINBERG