“Vayedaber Hashem el Moshe ve-el Aharon, vayetzaveim el Benei Yisrael ve-el Paroh melech Mitzrayim lehotzi et Benei Yisrael me-eretz Mitzrayim” (Shemot 6:13). This seemingly superfluous pasuk, as we have previously in parshat Shemot already been informed of Moshe and Aharon’s liberation mission, is perceived by Chazal as a broader designation-installation of Moshe and Aharon to the formal leadership of Benei Yisrael. The Sifrei (Bamidbar chapter 13 on verse 11:12, also cited by Rashi op cit), commenting on Moshe’s lament about the burden of leadership - “Heanochi hariti eit kol ha-am hazeh, im anochi yeliditihu ki tomar eilai saeihu be-hekecha…” - identifies the origin of that responsibility with our verse - “ve-heichan diber lo kein? Beshaah she-amar lo vayetzaveim el Benei Yisrael - al menat she-tikablu aleichem she-yihiyu mekalelim ve-soklim etchem”. Rashi (Shemot 6:13), citing the Tanchuma, alludes to this link and broader mandate when he remarks “tzivah aleihem lehanhigam be-nachat ve-lisbol otam”.
Given the magnitude of this historic moment of defining national leadership, the Torah’s intriguing depiction assumes greater significance. It is curious that the verses that identify the ultimate paradigm of Torah leadership (Shemot 6:13-28) are bracketed by Moshe’s relentless concern with his flaws as an articulate national spokesman (6:12 - “v-ani aral sefatayim”, 30 - “hein ani aral sefatayim”). Moreover, the apparent interruption of the narrative to genealogically locate Moshe and Aharon – “Eileh roshei beit avotam” (6:14) - is striking. The fact that this yichus does not focus exclusively on shevet Levi, but scrolls through the three tribes of Reuven, Shimon, and Levi, highlighting specific personalities in the process, is noteworthy. Finally, the Torah concludes (6:26,27) this apparent tangent and reconnects to the dramatic events of the mission of liberation with a seemingly gratuitous and puzzling emphatic double declaration that also flips the order of the leadership – “Hu Aharon u-Moshe asher amar Hashem lahem hotziu et Benei Yisrael mei-Eretz Mitzrayim al tzivotam. Heim ha-medabrim el Paroh melech Mitzrayim lehotzi et benei Yisrael miMitzrayim’ hu Moshe ve-Aharon.” Several perspectives on Torah leadership emerge from an examination of these phenomena.
On one level, the Torah’s presentation simply further reinforces the Sifrei’s conclusion that Moshe and Aharon’s appointment extended beyond this specific mission to encompass enduring leadership of Benei Yisrael. The midrash (Midrash Rabah Bamidbar, Naso, chapter 13) notes that only these three tribes demonstrated the propensity and qualifications for leadership – “kol hashevatim lo hinhigu serarah be-Mitzrayim, ve-Reuven, Shimon, ve-Levi hinhigu serarah beMitzrayim.” [See also the different views of R. Yehudah and R. Nehemiah regarding the singular qualities of these three shevatim that perhaps further qualified them for this kind of role. The emphasis on a principled, uncompromising posture in the face of pressures and challenges, as well as the capacity to absorb ingratitude and stubbornness (reflected by the midrashim cited previously) were undoubtedly part of this calculus.] The Griz (Chiddushim al ha-Torah, Vaera, Shai la-Torah op cit) posits that the leadership theme explains the urgent need to establish the yichus of Moshe and Aharon, as yichus is a sine qua non for rabbinic-judicial authority – “ein memanin ela min hameyuchasim”. [He invokes the passage in Talmud Yerushalmi Kiddushin 4:5 – “kol shetemanhu alecha lo yehei ela min haberurim she’be’achicha.” See, also, Sanhedrin 36a in which this requirement is specifically derived from Moshe Rabbeinu. The Griz sees these appointments in the framework of shoftim-dayanim. Or ha-Chayim further suggests that both Aharon and Moshe were coronated as sovereigns and links this status with the need for yichus. Netziv posits that while Aharon’s appointment was linked to the stature of shevet Levi, Moshe’s authority was intrinsic and sui generis.] In this vein, it is conceivable that Moshe’s persistent concern with his “aral sefatayim” status may be linked to the fear of broader serarah disqualification due to physical blemish. The yichus factor reflects the role of perceived stature as a facet of effective leadership. Leadership roots may also foster greater responsibility and a more acute instinct for appropriate governance. In any case, the history and framework of the three shevatim was deemed a consequential legacy in the appointment calculus.
Abarbanel underscores a different facet of this pivotal paradigm of leadership. In his introduction to Shemot, he argues that the unique leadership of Moshe contrasts sharply even with the formative role of the avot, asserting that this development defines Shemot and distinguishes it from Bereshit! He later (Shemot 6:14-15) explains that the yichus chronicling that locates Moshe and Aharon within the three leadership shevatim conveys that the selection process that produced this unsurpassed quality and stature was exhaustive and entirely merit-based. Moshe and Aharon’s chosen status emerged only after a rigorous, objective search untainted by any extraneous considerations. One may add, that this maximalist aspiration requiring rigorous effort and elevated standards unequivocally excludes the superficially idealistic, facile, but deeply flawed leadership doctrine later espoused by Korach, precisely in his challenge of Moshe’s and Aharon’s enduring leadership, that “kol haeidah kulam kedoshim u-betocham Hashem” (Bamidbar 16:3).
Rav Hirsch, too, asserts that these pesukim describing the historic and paradigmatic appointment of Moshe and Aharon demonstrate that Torah authority is a meritocracy that demands uncompromising excellence. At the same time, he registers an equally important dialectical counterweight. By locating the leadership team in the framework of their natural, tribal and family context (this is the first time that Moshe’s parentage is explicated!), also reinforcing the fact that a selection process was undertaken, the Torah projects the human factor in Torah leadership and avodat Hashem. By humanizing Moshe and Aharon, situating them within their historical and ancestral origins, the Torah subtly but unequivocally precludes a misconception common to other religions and cultures- the notion of supernaturally endowed authority. This “certificate of origin” may explain why Moshe is sometimes referred to as “Moshe ha-Ish”. [It is noteworthy that this phrase is emphasized in the chet ha-egel (Shemot 32:2) precisely when this misconception was egregiously and tragically manifest. See, also “ve-hasish Moshe”- Bamidbar 12:3, as we shall briefly discuss.] Furthermore, it may underpin the recurring focus on Moshe’s physical imperfection - “hein ani aral sefatayim” - even as he is anointed the enduring political and spiritual leader of Kelal Yisrael. In any case, the appointments occurred despite and because of the full integration of Moshe and Aharon into the national, tribal, and family framework of Benei Yisrael – “hu Aharon u-Moshe…heim ha-medabrim…hu Moshe ve-Aharon”.
There is an additional dimension crucial to historic national leadership and authority that is magnificently embodied by Moshe Rabbeinu and implicit in the Torah’s presentation of Moshe’s ascendency. As noted, these verses are bracketed by Moshe’s anxiety that his physical and verbal limitations might disqualify or at least diminish his leadership. Abarbanel and Rav Hirsch note the Torah’s double use of a rare expression - “vayedaber (vayomer) lifnei Hashem” (6:12, 30) - when this concern is expressed. The usage conveys authentic soul searching and personal self-doubt, not actual communication with Hashem, eliminating any semblance of posturing. Ramban (6:12) identifies this self-doubt with humility, a trait that fundamentally defines Moshe Rabbenu (Bamidbar 12:3) – “ve-ha-ish Moshe anav meod mikol haadam asher al penei haaretz”. Moshe’s humility further emphasizes his humanity (ha-ish), but even more significantly it qualified him to be the preeminent leader of Benei Yisrael. A leader who aspires to be both principled and incorruptible (see Sanhedrin 6a - “yikov ha-din et ha-har”), as well as flexible and empathetic (ready absorb slings and arrows - see Rashi and midrash cited above - savlanim, mekubalim mekalelim ve-soklim) must cultivate the elusive yet absolutely essential quality of humility. Moreover, humility fosters a perspective that promotes clarity of purpose even amidst turbulence and complexity; it promotes a core commitment to avodat Hashem lishmah, notwithstanding a multitude of challenges. Moshe’s singular leadership entailed also the challenge of integrating seemingly disparate roles - as rabbeinu, as the preeminent and inimitable navi, as king, and as kohen gadol. Only his unparalleled perspective of humility enabled him to magnificently balance these charges. The Avnei Nezer (Shem mi-Shmuel, Shemot, p. 66) posits that Moshe’s hachna’ah and anivut was not only a catalyst for hashraat ha-Shechinah but also enabled his unrivaled depth in Torah knowledge. Thus, according to Chazal, perhaps Moshe Rabbeinu alone could truly fathom the chok of parah adumah. [He suggests that while Shlomo ha-Melech could match Moshe’s intellect, it was the quality of authentic humility that accessed yediat Hashem - yediat Torato.] The impact of humility is perceived not simply as credit for cultivating an elusive yet crucial middah, but derives from the penetrating perspective it affords.
The urgency of humility and the perspective it cultivates is particularly indispensable to authentic leadership, which is particularly exposed to the powerful forces of the ego (the middah of gaavah). Chazal declare (Sukkah 52a) that great men are more spiritually vulnerable – “kol ha-gadol me-havero, yitzro gadol heimenu”. The challenges of appropriately exercising power and authority particularly test character, sincerity, and especially purity of motive (lishmah).
Rashi (Shemot 1:5) comments on the verse “ve-Yosef hayah be-Mitzrayim” that Yosef was celebrated for his consistency and piety, a remarkable achievement given the challenges of political power that he wielded in Egypt (“lehodiacha tzidkato shel Yosef. Hu Yosef ha-roeh tzon aviv, hu Yosef she-hayah be-Mitzrayim vena’asah melech ve-omed be-tzidko”). One might have entertained the notion that spiritual leadership, focused as it is on implementing Divine Will and a Torah vision, might be invulnerable to these challenges and impulses. [See Chiddushei ha-Grim who also articulates this insight and refers to the analysis of Chovot ha-Levavot, Shaar Hachna’ah.] Yet, Rashi and Chazal (see Megilah 11a) share an even more forceful articulation of these sentiments with respect to the integrity, consistency, and piety of Moshe and Aharon throughout their tumultuous journey: “heim she-nitz’tavu, heim shekiymu; heim be-shlihutam u-ve-tzidkatam mitchilah ve-ad sof”. Rabbeinu Bachya Ibn Pekuda (Chovot ha-Levavot, Shaar Hachna’ah, chapter 5,9) develops the theme that the demand for hachna’ah and anavah (humility) to ensure absolute sincerity and a posture of lishmah is, in some respects, even more urgent in the exercise of power and authority in the spiritual realm. In this respect, the Torah’s assertion: “Hu Aharon u-Mosheh…heim ha-medabrim…hu Moshe ve- Aharon” emerges as the perfect depiction of seminal and paradigmatic Torah leadership.