Parsha Vayikra 5768: The Motivations of True Leaders Vs The Spin of Frauds

We are told how Hashem, Kav’yochal, would call gently, affectionately “Moshe, Moshe” in a voice for Moshe Rabbeinu’s ears only and Moshe would respond “Here I am.” (Rashi on Perek 1, posuk 1 Metsuda Linear Chumash & Rashi with footnotes)

Moshe, always shirking honor, kavod, special treatment, or the perception of special treatment, fought “tooth to nail” that
this first word, which would typify Hashem’s greeting when he wanted to speak privately with him in the Mishkan, should read “Vayikar” as when Hashem “happened to meet Bila’am” (Rashi on Perek 1, posuk 1) later, in Parsha Balak.

But Hashem’s wish for “Vayikra” carried the day, although he made the concession of the small “aleph.” The dialogue speaks volumes about the Dar’chim of humility, modesty and selflessness of Moshe Rabbeinu; his dedication to Hashem and to the people he leads, the B’nei Yisrael. But let kindness and humility not be confused with weakness. For we learn that Moshe Rabbeinu was a strong, yet just leader.

“The Midrash Says” (Sefer Vayikra, pages 1-5) goes further than Rashi’s understanding regarding the beginning of our parsha and the dialogue between Hashem and Moshe Rabbeinu about “Vayikra”.

“Midrash Says” begins by speaking about Moshe’s all-pervasive humility which led him at various junctures to shy away from leadership feeling that “a more suitable substitute might be found.”

It then outlines the scene of the crowd of extraordinay distinction assembled in front of the newly completed Mishkan. There was Aaron HaKohen, Uri, Betzalel, the Seventy Elders, the Nesi’im of the Tribes. Surely, Aaron HaKohen, the one chosen to serve and to be the conduit for Brachot to the B’nai Yisrael — surely it would be Aaron who would be chosen to enter with Hashem. Or Uri or Betzalel from whom the Malchut would later be descended. But Hashem called out to Moshe Rabbeinu to enter, as witnessed by the dignitaries and by the entire B’nai Yisrael. Hashem called on Moshe Rabbeinu and told him that his work was beginning — to learn and to teach the people the instructions concerning the korbanos (sacrifices).

Hashem tells Moshe “Your teaching of Torah is dearer to Me than their donations of gold and silver and the jewels donated by the nesi’im.”

This author holds that it is against the meaning and background of Vayikra; the very first word of our Parsha, that later in the Parsha, Torah states the posuk, “If the King commits a sin by unintentionally violating one of Hashem’s Commandments which he should not have done …” (Vayikra Perek 4, posuk 22). Rabbi Pliskin in “Growth Through Torah” (page 238) comments “When in a position of power, have the courage to admit your mistakes.” And Rashi explains on the posuk; Fortunate is the the generation whose leader is concerned to bring an atonement [offering] for his inadvertent transgressions — all the more so that he regrets his intentional transgressions.

Rabbi Pliskin adds the comment that “the king was a person with much power, and power gives a person such high feelings about himself that he is unlikely to admit that he has done anything wrong. For this reason, when the king with unlimited power admits that he erred and regrets what he has done, it is fortunate for his generation.” (Attributed to Maskil Ledovid.)

When a leader can be sooo colored, in his decisions and actions, by his own self-interest and/or self-aggrandisement that he will do anything and everything and at all costs — including bribery, graft, influence peddling, doing special favors for his friends and more in order to maintain his office, his title, his personal prestige and self-enrichment, how can we not question the true motivations of that leader at every step of his ill-gotten career? How can we not wonder what cynical sinat chinom lurks behind his total divorce from Torah, from his roots in Eretz Yisrael? How can a leader, as Shem Mishmuel put it, “defile Klal Yisrael both in the physical and spiritual sense?” (Shem Mishmuel, Parsha Zachor, page 159)

And is this seemingly willful complicity and systemic appeasement of Amalek-like Arab Terror by way of Kassam or Katyusha Missiles and Islamikazi Suicide bombers, in fact, cover for the true agenda of the nation’s failed leaders and politicians? Is blind sinat chinom toward anything Jewish, in and of itself not Amalek-like in its attempt at defilement? Are the regime leaders hiding their misguided hatred of anything Jewish behind the facade; “I’m too tired …?” Is not an Amalek within the camp, who knows our tendencies, more potent yet than the external Amalek?