|
|
May 12, 2000/7 Iyar 5760, Vol. 52, No.36
Private, public behavior must be in harmony
Torah Study
RABBI JONATHAN BIATCH
Emor, Leviticus 21:1-24:23
What kind of moral exemplars must our leaders be? Should we be concerned about their private affairs? These important questions painfully occupied us when President Clinton faced impeachment a little more than a year ago. We might want to bear in mind the lessons that emanated from that disturbing episode whenever it comes to selecting our civic and religious leaders.
Should we insist that leaders be blameless and free from fault, or can we accept leadership from those who have experienced moral lapses? And what kind of teshuvah (repentance) would be required for earning back public trust?
This week's Torah portion, Parashat Emor, provides some insight: "God spoke to Moses, saying: Instruct Aaron and his sons to be scrupulous about the sacred donations that the Israelite people consecrate to me, lest they profane my holy name. ... Say to them: Throughout the ages, if any man among your offspring, while in a state of uncleanness, partakes of any sacred donation that the Israelite people may consecrate to God, that person shall be cut off from before Me. I am Adonai' " (Leviticus 22:1-3).
As in most of the book of Leviticus, God is attempting here to define the boundaries of holiness. This parashah speaks specifically to the ritual status of the priests, those who served as religious leaders to our ancestors. And we learn that while they were in a state of ritual impurity, they could not even come near the sacrifices or otherwise officiate at the rituals for which they had been selected by birth.
When it came to a priest's ritual status, presumably that priest and God knew whether he was ritually clean. As far as the people were concerned, however, a priest's status - whether he was ritually clean or unclean - was probably a private matter. When the priest was seen in public, one could only speculate about his contemporaneous ability to function in the context of Temple rituals. If a priest approached a sacrificial offering, one would rightfully assume that he was doing so for sacramental purposes. And one would therefore suppose that he was in a state of ritual purity.
The same standard should apply to our leaders. When we observe them performing official duties (which is most of the time), we should be able to assume that their moral status is consistent with what they are doing. And if we discover that the opposite is the case, we are at best disappointed and at worst filled with a lack of confidence in our leader and in the system itself.
When our leaders err, then acknowledge that they have done so, perhaps we should require them to take a hiatus from their sacred work until their transgression has been resolved, just as the priests had to undergo a ritual and a waiting period for their purity to return. In such a case, the issue that we must ponder is whether we will be able and willing to acknowledge them and their leadership when they return.
And here is another point for us to consider: Our priests regained ritual purity by performing various ablutions and waiting a certain length of time. How might we define standards of teshuvah when judging our leaders and considering whether they should return to public service after committing some transgression?
Jonathan Biatch is the associate rabbi at Beth El Hebrew Congregation in Alexandria, Va. Torat Hayim, made available by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, is available on the Internet at www.uahc.org/growth.
|
