‘How Fortunate’  Parashat Vayikra 5785

The Book of Vayikra is also called the “Laws of the Priests (Torat Kohanim)” and for good reason: The first two portions pertain nearly exclusively to the laws of sacrifices offered up by – you guessed it – the priests. In this essay, we will zoom into the laws of the Sin Offering (Chattat) owed by a person who sins accidentally. The Torah describes four kinds of Sin Offerings: One given by a “regular” person, one given by the High Priest, one given by the king, and one given when a majority of the population sin due to an incorrect ruling by the High Court. The Sin Offering of the king begins with the following words [Vayikra 4:22]: “When it is a chieftain (Nasi) who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of G-d ought not to be done and he realizes guilt…” In the eleven English translations found on the Sefaria site, five of them translate the word “Nasi” as “leader”, four of them use the word “chieftain” or “chief”, and the other two use the word “ruler”. According to the Talmud in Tractate Horayot [11a], this term refers to a person who is at the top of the ruling hierarchy with no ruler above him – the King.

The Torah’s description of the inadvertent sin of the king is different than its description of the other three inadvertent sins. In the other three cases, the Torah uses the word “If (Im)”. If  John Q. Public sins, then this is what he must do. If the High Priest sins, then this is what he must do. But with the sin of the king, the Torah uses the word “Asher (When or That)”, as if to say, “Whenever the king sins, this is what he must do”. The Seforno[1] is sensitive to this and he explains that whereas a regular person might sin, we can be certain that a king will sin. He cites the verse [Devarim 32:15] “Jeshurun waxed fat and revolted”. This is one of the truths of the ages, most famously articulated by the Lord Acton[2], who said: “Power corrupts”. The Netziv[3] takes the Seforno a step further, asserting that Scripture is making an accusation that monarchy leads to the transgression sins of such severity that a person who is not a king would not normally commit even inadvertently. Rabbi Yissocher Frand[4] comments that the average Jew would never consider practicing idolatry. But the king has such power and operates in such circles that not only is it feasible that he could commit this kind of sin but that it is nearly a certainty. I have come across many religious diplomats who wear a yarmulka at home but not when engaging in diplomacy. While this is not tantamount to idolatry, it does illustrate how the vagaries of public office can force G-d to play second fiddle, even temporarily[5]. This idea of the Netziv is very much in line with the second part of the above-quoted saying of the Lord Acton: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Let us continue down this path. The Talmud in Tractate Horayot [11a] notes that the word “Asher” from the verse of the sinning king is connected to the Hebrew word “Ashrei”, meaning “fortunate” or “happy”. The Talmud reinterprets the verse as, “How fortunate is the generation whose leader takes care to atone even for an inadvertent act, how much more so for his wilful sins.” Looking back at the comments of the Seforno and the Netziv, it is most fortunate when a ruler who is, by dint of his title, biased towards sin, willingly and publicly atones for them. The greatest example of this is King David, who abused his power to marry Batsheba, who was at the time married to Uriah the Hittite. When David is approached by Nathan the Prophet, who admonishes him for his deed, he responds with only two [Hebrew] words [Samuel II 12:13]: “I have sinned to G-d”. Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik[6] explains that David choked with remorse and these were the only two words he could get out of his mouth. David took extreme ownership of his behaviour. How fortunate is his generation.

Waitaminute. Why does the Talmud state that it is the generation that is fortunate when the king atones for his sin? Would it not have made more sense for the Talmud to state that it is the king himself who is fortunate? In fact, the generation would be more fortunate if the king did not sin at all. When King David takes a census against G-d’s will[7], seventy-thousand innocent people are killed in an ensuing plague. David immediately atones for this sin, as well, but it doesn’t bring the dead back to life. The word “fortunate” seems out of place here.

A solution begins with a famous Hassidic adage: “There can be no king without a nation”. This means to say that the very sum and substance of a king – not only his majesty and glory – depends on having subjects. Hassidic thought projects this concept onto the relationship between G-d and the Jewish People but the adage can also be understood according to its simple meaning. Here is a philosophical question: If a king does not have any subjects, is he still considered a king? Think of a king in exile: no land, no people, yet still called “king” by loyalists or lineage. But without anyone to govern, it is a ghost title. Authority needs a target. No subjects, no deal. Even so, according to Torah law, a king does not require subjects to be considered king. He is divinely elected. His title is passed on to one of his son’s upon his death [Devarim 17:20] “So that he may prolong [his] days in his kingdom, he and his sons, among Israel”. Special laws pertaining to the respect and treatment of a king must be enforced regardless of the number of subjects he does or does not have.

While the common people cannot elevate the king, they can most certainly drag him down. Jews have traditionally not owned a stellar record in their treatment of their leaders[8] – religious, political or otherwise. This began  with their first leader, Moshe, who tells G-d [Shemot 17:4] “What shall I do for this people? Just a little longer and they will stone me!” Speak to any community rabbi, Federation President, or Israeli Member of Knesset and they will describe constant second-guessing, rabble-rousing and vitriol. Admittedly, particularly in the case of Israeli politicians, some of this might be well-deserved. And yet, like the idolatrous king, a large chunk of the behaviour of our leaders can be directly attributed to their status. It comes with the job. Golda Meir, the former Israeli prime minister, once told the American president, Richard Nixon: “You are the president of 150 million Americans; I am the prime minister of six million prime ministers.” Our criticism might be factually correct, but our tone and focus is all too often overly cynical.

The Torah refers to the sinning king as “Nasi”. Nasi can mean “elevated”, like a leader, but it can also mean “unfurled (mitno’sess)”, like a flag flying in a stiff breeze. Without that wind, the flag will lie limp. How fortunate is the generation that provides their leaders with a tail wind, when they treat their inadvertent actions as mistakes and not as Casus belli. Because at the end of the day, their success is our success.

Ari Sacher, Moreshet, 5785

Please daven for a Refu’a Shelema for Shlomo ben Esther, Sheindel Devorah bat Rina, Esther Sharon bat Chana Raizel, and Meir ben Drora.

[1] Ovadia ben Jacob Seforno, known as “The Seforno,” lived in Italy at the turn of the 16^th century.

[2] John Dalberg-Acton, the first Baron Acton, was a British Historian and politician who lived in the 19^th century. The full quote is “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority”.

[3] Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Berlin, known as the Netziv, was the Dean of the prestigious Volozhn Yeshiva in Lithuania in the 19^th century

[4] Rabbi Frand is a contemporary lecturer and author. He teaches at Yeshivas Ner Yisroel in Baltimore.

[5] A notable outlier was Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was buried on Shabbat. Begin was determined to honour his partner from the 1979 peace treaty by attending the funeral in Cairo while observing Shabbat. Begin stayed at the Railway Club near the procession route, walked 900 metres to the burial site under tight security in Cairo’s heat, and returned on foot afterward, avoiding any Shabbat violations.

[6] Rabbi Soloveichik was the leader of Modern Orthodox Jewry in North America during the 2^nd half of the previous century.

[7] The Torah does not explicitly prohibit taking a census. It merely states [Shemot 30:12-13] “When you take a census… each shall pay a ransom… so no plague comes among them”.

[8] The discussion to this point pertained to only the king. The last Jewish King of Israel, Antigonus II Mattathias, lived nearly 2000 years ago. Certain Torah scholars hold that the Prime Minister of Israel holds the role of king. I have taken the liberty of expanding the definition of king to include any Jewish leader.