Parshat Behalotekhah registers Moshe Rabbeinu’s extreme frustration with the Jewish people (Bamidbar 11:11-15), as well as his urgent conviction that he could no longer shoulder the crushing burden of leadership alone. [The contrast to Moshe’s initially reluctant response to his father-in-law’s efficient proposal to diffuse and delegate authority in Parshat Yitro is striking and significant in its own right.] The Torah proceeds to delineate the methodology of investing spiritual leadership. Surely a close examination of these pesukim provides an invaluable window and insight into halachic thought as some of the indispensable elements required for halachic authority are identified.
It is axiomatic that Moshe exemplifies the ideal of Jewish leadership and that he is not fully replaceable. His unique stature as a prophet is codified in the Rambam’s 13 principles of faith. Moreover, Moshe Rabbeinu is the model for and source of rabbinic authority, as the gemara (Sanhedrin 13b) indicates and as the Rambam (Hilchot Sanhedrin 4:1, and see 2:1 and Kesef Mishneh) rules. At the same time, these pesukim are cited as a basis for the continuity of halachic authority, particularly with respect to the highest halachic court (Mishneh, Sanhedrin 2a) and are therefore consequential in any assessment of the character of rabbinic leadership. Indeed, the Rambam (Hilchot Mamrim 1:1) depicts the multiple functions of Sanhedrin ha-Gadol and then records that anyone who believes in the leadership of Moshe Rabbeinu and is committed to the Torah he conveyed must accept the authority of this court modeled after the process established in these pesukim. Let us briefly examine three of the important ingredients reflected in the parshah.
The Torah records that seventy elders were required to partner with Moshe. The Mishneh (Sanhedrin 2a) records a debate whether sanhedrin ha-gadol requires exactly seventy (R. Yehudah) or seventy one (as it includes Moshe). The gemara (Sanhedrin 3b) notes that the view of seventy defies the normal requirement that a beit din be composed of an odd number of judges to insure a decisive outcome. The Ran asks how R. Yehudah could conclude that seventy suffices given this principle when the gemara elsewhere simply assumes that an additional judge should be added to the number implied in the pesukim based on this rule. He responds that the fact that the Torah explicates the number seventy in this context is significant and precludes applying the standard odd-number rule. The Ran’s comment can be understood in light of the Ramban’s explanation of the significance of the seventy elders. Ramban (11:15) notes that the requirement corresponds to the full range of nations-cultures and languages. The Torah powerfully conveys that rabbinic leadership in the model of Moshe Rabbeinu, and the sanhedrin by extension, must exercise halachic leadership with a breadth of vision. According to R. Yehudah the theme embodied by this symbolic number outweighs the rule of an odd-numbered court. The normative view that requires seventy one elders also accepts this principle but actually goes a step further in its ideal ambition for halachic leadership since Moshe initially presided over the seventy!
The need for breadth of vision in halachic leadership obviously extends to single rabbinic authorities striving to emulate the model of Moshe and the zekenim to the best of their ability. At the same time, the prospects of achieving that vision is daunting and the ability to apply it is significantly more challenging. Halachic leadership demands more than a careful reading of texts and a discerning eye toward application. Many halachic issues defy easy classification and assessment. In the complex world which we inhabit this is particularly true, as we struggle to incorporate and integrate the halachic ramifications of technological innovation and thorny social and ethical conundrums. Moreover, much of halachic-decision making revolves around broader halachic value and policy issues that require both vision and clarity. Halachists are obligated to be roeh et ha-nolad, to assess the likely long-term impact of their decisions. Their responsibility is a dual one: to the matter at hand and its immediate constituency, as well as to future generations. These considerations are sometimes misconstrued and inaccurately portrayed as either peripheral or political. In fact, these factors have always been an integral component of halachic leadership and in many respects their proper integration into the halachic process distinguishes the truly great poskim. One of the first lessons conveyed in the mesorah of massechet Avot is the need for a "seyag la-Torah." Chazal (See Avot de-Rav Nattan Avot 1:2) note that this has a dual meaning that underscores two opposing but complementary tendencies- to protect the Torah by erecting fences (seyag) around it when called for, and to refine or purge (sig) the halachah by rejecting counterproductive overprotective measures that are not sustainable or that clouds the halachah itself and makes in inaccessible . The ability to differentiate between productive protection counterproductive overprotection requires discernment, clarity and a breadth of vision.
The choosing of the seventy elders, which serves as a precedent for the appointment of the Sanhedrin and by extension all rabbinic authority, reflects a related dimension of halachic leadership, as well. It was important for Moshe to share some of his transcendent spiritual personality- "ve-atzalta min ha-ruach asher alechah" with those who would share the burden of leadership and ultimately succeed him. The Rambam (Hilchot. Sanhedrin 4:1) notes this link with the shechinah in his introduction to the institution of semichah, rabbinic authorization. Moreover, the Rambam (Hilchot. Sanhedrin 2:1) continues to cite Moshe and the appointment of the seventy elders as a paradigm for the requisite qualities of judges, despite the fact that Moshe and the initial seventy also served in a political and prophetic role. [See Kesef Mishneh’s question based on Sanhedrin 36b.] We may conclude that rabbinic leadership is not confined or even primarily relegated to the formal realm of halachic decision making, but constitutes national leadership. The stories cited in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 14a) confirm this conclusion. The halachist is neither a narrow legal technician nor is he simply an effective and efficient decisor. He is a spiritual guide and authority who is attuned to halachic values and principles by virtue of his immersion and dedication to Torah, and thus, constitutes a proper representative of Klal Yisrael’s interests. The gemara (Sanhedrin 13b) defines semichah as conferring the title "rebbi", implying a stature of leadership, as well as providing for a license to judge in the realms of kenasot (penalties) and capital crimes. [The relationship of these two components needs to be examined more closely.] Rambam (Hilchot. Sanhedrin 4:8,10) rules that one cannot be authorized for classic ordination unless he is versed and capable or rendering decisions in all realms of halachah even if his license to practice is going to be a more limited one. Because halachic leadership draws from the total commitment to and understanding of Torah, transcending the function of actual halachic rulings, this broader idealistic requirement is essential. It is obvious that it also contributes significantly to a more precise rendering of halachic decisions, one that is informed by breadth of vision and by an acute sense of the presence of the shechinah, rooted in Moshe’s atzilut ha-ruach.
Finally, we should note that because rabbinic leadership in the model of Moshe does transcend judicial competence and efficiency, it does not tolerate fundamental inconsistency, compartmentalization or a breach in reverence- yirat shamayim. The commentators debate the details but generally explain that Yehoshua perceived that the conduct of Eldad and Meidad was disrespectful to Moshe. His response - "kelaeim- hatel aleichem tzorchei zibbur" (Sanhedrin 17a) (impose upon them the burden of leadership and they will be neutralized)- is intriguing and suggestive. Tosafot (ad loc) explains that Yehoshua’s strategy to terminate their prophecy was based on the principle that prophecy cannot abide the burden of a beleaguered leader. This perspective is more than ironic, since Moshe himself, was both the ultimate prophet and the singular leader of Klal Yisrael! Moreover, it was precisely his visceral sense of burden that motivated the entire episode which lead to Eldad and Meidad’s breach! Upon further reflection, however, it is evident that Yehoshua was projecting a profound insight into the fundamental character of Jewish and halachic leadership. Ultimately, one cannot be a spiritual guide-prophet and public leader unless one is able to integrate the two themes. A prophet-halachist who perceives his role in terms of the spiritual interests of Klal Yisrael, past, present and future, may maintain and even enhance his spiritual capacity through a leadership role, notwithstanding the distraction and burden. And only a public leader who is motivated and shaped by the spiritual values of halachah-nevuah and is able to integrate these with his leadership calling will emerge as an ideal leader of Klal Yisrael.