At the Brisker Rav’s
grandson’s bris, one of the speakers made the following comment.
It is written that the reason Moshe Rabbeinu did not designate Pinchas
as the leader of the Jewish People was because Pinchas was a “kanoi,”
i.e. a zealot, thus making him unfit for leadership. The Brisker Rav
immediately reacted in disbelief and asked, “Where do Chazal make
such a statement?” The speaker thought for a moment, but was at
a loss to find the source. Upon returning home, it is reported, the
speaker was able to find the source, albeit not in Chazal but in a contemporary
sefer. I don’t know which sefer the speaker found, but I am familiar
with a sefer that makes such a statement. In “Amud Ha’Emes”,
an anthology of the Kotzker Rebbe’s insights, it says that originally
Moshe Rabbeinu planned to designate Pinchas as his replacement. However,
upon seeing Pinchas’ act of zealotry, Moshe rejected him, for
a zealot cannot be a leader.
The simple understanding of the Kotzker’s
comment is that a leader must be capable of understanding and tolerating
a multi-faceted and diverse community. The zealot’s myopic focus
and aggressive attitude preclude him from achieving balanced leadership.
I would like to advance a completely different understanding of the
Kotzker, zt”l. The value and effectiveness of a mitzvah is determined
by the sincerity and intent of its practitioner. The Rambam says that
a single Mitzvah performed completely “Lishma,” i.e. with
proper intent, has ample merit to reward an individual with eternal
life in Olam Haba. Most of us, however, rarely fulfill our Mitzvah obligations
with total sincerity. The Gemorah in Pesachim (50b) tells us that even
so, we should not be discouraged and desist from Mitzvah performance
because of our limited sincerity. “A person should always occupy
himself with Torah and Mitzvos, though it is not for their own sake,
for out of doing good with an ulterior motive, there comes doing good
for its own sake.” Eventually, with continued Mitzvah observance,
we will reach the proper intent.
There is one exception to this rule, Rabbeinu
Yitzchak of Kurbil tells us in his “Sefer Mitzvos Katan (Smak)”
the following original halacha. The Torah teaches us that if an individual
is pursuing another, either to murder him or to perform an act of immorality,
we are enjoined to kill the pursuer, preventing him from fulfilling
his evil designs. However, this Mitzvah of killing the pursuer may only
be done by an individual who, both now and in the future, is totally
free of the sin that the pursuer is about to perform. If not, says the
Smak, the act of punishing the pursuer is tantamount to murder. To paraphrase,
complete sincerity in a Mitzvah is imperative only when the Mitzvah
entails punishing and correcting another, which is the main function
of the zealot. Similarly, the Netziv zt”l explains Moshe Rabbeinu’s
call of “Mi LaHashem Alie,” “Whoever is with Hashem,
join me,” as an invitation to those who were totally free of any
nuance of idolatry. This condition would qualify them to participate
in the punitive killing of their fellow Jews for the performance of
the sin of the Golden Calf. Only one who is totally sincere and consistent
may perform a punitive action against another Jew.
This, I believe, is the reason a zealot may not
be a leader. A leader is to be emulated and copied by his constituency.
It is unacceptable for a leader to be a zealot because the masses will
perforce emulate his zealotry but often without the prerequisite sincerity
that their leader possesses. This would create a following of insincere
zealots, a completely intolerable scenario in the view of Torah theology.
|