Spark of Jewish Experience

Does the reader agree?
Perhaps the reply of “a public figure has no privacy” is rooted in this week’s parsha. In parshat Emor, it teaches us special laws and obligations that the Torah places upon the High Priest, he Kohen Gadol. He is limited in his marriage choices, his bereavement behavior and in other matters of seemingly personal life. Is it not sufficient that he perform his duties – especially his detailed Yom Kippur duties – in a competent and efficient manner? After all, is not one entitled to a private and personal life, even if one holds high public office? Apparently the Torah does not feel so. Being the High Priest is not a job. It is not even what our non-Jewish friends refer to as “a calling.” It is rather a position of moral leadership and a role model stature in Jewish life. What is the lesson involved in these restrictions and guidance of the High Priest?

The scrutinizing of the High Priest has may have been a springboard for all leaders thought history to be hounded and examined with a magnified glass, but in truth there is no comparison between the High Priest and other leaders. That is because the High Priest’s chief scrutinizer is none other than G-d. Evidence of this is that if he has skeletons in his closet, G-d will smite him on Yom Kippur.

As explained by the historian Rabbi Berel Wein: One of the signs of corruption that doomed the Second Temple Commonwealth of Judea (Bais Sheni) was the unethical behavior of many of the High Priests who served in the Temple during that period of Jewish history. The Talmud teaches us that many of them died when entering the Holy of Holiness because of their unworthy private behavior. There where Kohanim that seemingly had the confidence of the people however “G-d examines the hearts.” He determines which Kohen Gadol is worthy and moral. For this reason a rope was attached to their leg so they can be pulled out in case they perish. Nobody but the Kohen Gadol is allowed in the Holies of Holies.

The public figure, the leader has been the object of the paparazzi and the National Enquirer ever since.

A question is posed: With the exception of Kohen Gadol, is it fair to judge personal behavior of a leader, such as Rabbi, head of State, or congressmen to determine if they are suitable for such a lofty position? Shouldn’t we look at other factors – economic issues, issues concerning our rights to live as Orthodox Jews, religious freedom, and liberty issues? There are issues that relate to bringing resources into our communities. There are other issues, too. Who services the constituency best? Who is most likely to be responsive to individual phone calls for assistance on individual matters? Aren’t these issues just as important as morality?

We need to look where the leader stands on other issues, such as the resource issues, the economic issues, the religious liberty issues, and accessibility. You have to judge a candidate based on the totality of the situation. Though moral issues are certainly a relevant factor, they are not the only factor.

THE MORAL ISSUE
Reflecting what we discussed earlier, morality is the classic Jewish tradition of picking a leader. Interestingly, there was clever message conveyed by a Politian (scholar) who felt the importance, or for that matter non-importance, of the moral issue: “The Jewish children in exile were always dependent on intermediaries to represent their interests in the countries where they sojourned…. Such an intermediary is nothing more than a messenger. No one ever checked the morality of a messenger, or was interested in his private life, as long as he gave the desired results-i.e., the proper representation of Jewish interests.”

That was the language of an ad that ran in Der Yid, a Satmar paper based in Williamsburg, during a re-election campaign for Fred Richmond, the congressional representative for Williamsburg during the late ’70s and early ’80s. Richmond had a depraved personal life; the ad was promoting the idea that the chassidic readers of the paper, who were so careful in their own lives about any hint of immorality, should overlook Richmond’s immorality because he was helping the community with its needs. The ad was obviously countering those who had objected to Richmond on those grounds.

RESPECT
Dr. Abba Goldman mentions the number one factor is that the leader has to earn the respect of the people. Perhaps, he says it might override in some instances the morality importance.

King David didn’t care about his honor by dancing with the Torah; he did it for the sake of G-d. Michal, his wife, who witnessed this, didn’t think it was dignified to do so. She thought it was unbecoming that the king dance and show a glimpse of his legs. The act shows a disregard for modesty and would hamper the respect and dignity of the King. Nevertheless, G-d was honored by David’s devotion and Michal was punished for criticizing. It’s not an easy understanding for Michal’s train of thought was in line with her father, Shaul’s, philosophy of modesty and respect.

Not with standing, one sees at what degree our ancestors value modesty and respect of a leader. Here is another example pertaining do King David again: When Shimi ben Gerah insulted King David the incident was not forgotten. On his death bed the King instructs his son Shlomo to “do what is right”. At the end Shimi ben Gerah was executed and the King’s honor had been defended.

Dr. Goldman and many relates that the blame and failure of 9/11 should be pointed to the Clinton administration. A year before, there was a terrorist attack against the United States Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG-67) on 12 October 2000, while it was harbored and being refueled in the Yemeni port of Aden. 17 American sailors were killed, and 39 were injured. This event was the deadliest attack against a United States Naval vessel since 1987. The terrorist organization al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack. Clinton had such a poor relationship with congress following the Lewinsky debacle that any proposal including how to deal with Al Quade would and did go on deaf ears. Congress had no respect for the President and in turn he was ineffective.

Part of the blame has to be directed to the press for reporting and making a mockery of the Clinton/Lewinsky incident. Interestingly, John F Kennedy was just as immoral as Clinton, however he was an effective President. The press never reported his indecency even though it was occurring regularly in the White House.

Can one imagine if they did report the indecency and made light of the President? Does one think Cuba, neighboring communist country at the time, would have backed down and pulled their missiles?

As an example, in Syria, before the civil war there, it was a crime to make fun of the president of the country. No comedian was immune. This concept was taken to an extreme where no one was permitted to laugh in Nevuchadnetzar’s Babylonia, for the king had an inferiority complex and thought they were laughing at him for being short. It was ‘respect through fear’ that these leaders tried to force on their people. Seemingly respect is needed to have an effective leader. Astonishingly, respect is what Ronald Reagan received without the use of force and with the late night comedians whose job it was to ridicule politicians and the establishment.

One of our beloved leaders who had to admit an embarrassing moment in his private life was Yehuda, Yaakov’s son. Even though his act was considered lowly, Yehuda admitted and faced up to his guilt and was hailed in high regards for doing so by his brothers and by G-d. He took responsibility for his action. Yehuda is a prime example of “nobody’s an angel, but be a man and pick up the pieces”. For reward for his admission he and his genealogy were appointed royalty, leaders of the Jewish people forever

ABILITY TO GET ALONG
Some say there are more crucial character traits we should look for then to poke into the private life of a candidate. One of the aspects of a good leader is the ability to get along with others. This character trait is a must when dealing with subordinates, heads of state and so forth. In the up and coming election, there happens to be such a person. One has to ask can he make rational decisions if he has constantly dismissing and berating everyone. Can his subordinates do the optimal best in their field dealing with such mental abuse?

NIXON AND RABBI AVIGDOR MILLER

In the late 60’s many religious Jew broke from the mold and voted Republican. Although, the Democrats supported Jewish cause and education the Jewish Rabbinical leaders including Rabbi Avigdor Miller were vocal in voting for Nixon. “Don’t make calculations concerning the yeshivas – it’s not a concern because the Ribbono Shel Olam feeds and gives sustenance to all. Don’t rely on princes. They are not a source of parnassah. G-d has many messengers. The reason to vote” – this was even with Nixon – “is because Nixon is against Russia, and Russia was the enemy of Hashem. It says, ‘Ohavei Hashem sinu ra.’ Comunist were atheist. [Those who love Hashem hate evil.]’ He said, ‘I have no love lost for Nixon or for any of them, but when I come to shamayim, they’ll ask, “Did you stand on my side?”

Rabbi Avigdor Miller said that when we vote, we vote the same way. He said, ‘I’m not afraid of Russia personally. The President, who is against Russia, is against them for his own reasons, because they are the Big Bad Wolf and they are having an arms race with nuclear ballistic missiles. Our interest has nothing to do with that. We’re not afraid of them; we just have to stand against them because they are kofrim [deniers] in Hakadosh Baruch Hu.’ That was his position.

It is important to note many clarify the moral issue: not so much the moral personal life of the candidate but what does he/she morally stand for. Perhaps that is the moral issue!! This brings us to the other prime candidate of this election. Perhaps it’s commendable that she had taken the abuse and humiliation of her husband and stuck with the marriage, however does she approve of same sex marriage and abortion, which is directly against the Torah?

Traditionally Jews in this country have always voted Democrat for they help financially to our Yeshivas. We value a Torah education which is our prime directive. However the Democrats of today are in favor of same sex marriage and abortion, someplace they weren’t 20 years ago. It seems like though todays Republicans are yesterday’s Democrats.

We can learn much from the two king that Avraham and Sarah visited. Both were immoral. Avimelech did everything in secret while Pharoah was not discreet and shameful, he did everything in the open.

On the last meeting between Avraham and Pharaoh, Pharaoh suggested something to Avraham which the latter acknowledged “This place is not for you.” In other words, we have different moral values. Perhaps, we should take some of the suggestions of some of the prominent Rabbis who denounced President Clinton. If he can do what he did and not feel remorse, it’s time we should depart this country. However there are those that say “Let’s remember we are in a non-Jewish state, what do you expect?

We see that although traditionally the primary decision on a leader was the moral issue many Rabbi’s or heads of communities look for other factors in picking a leader. Perhaps yes or perhaps not the private lives of leaders is best be left alone and not disclosed there are other important issues? That is a hot debate in today’s times.