Avraham breathed his last, dying at a good ripe age, old and contented; and he was gathered to his kin. Bereshit 25:8
The day that Avraham our father departed from the world, the great men of the nations stood in line and said: Woe to a world that has lost its leader, and woe to a ship that has lost its captain.[1]
What is the difference between a leader and a captain to which this Midrash seems to elude? Are they not the same? And if so, why did the Midrash state both? If one is the mashal, the parable, and the other the moral, the Midrash should have first mentioned the captain (parable) and consequently the leader (the moral). We must therefore conclude that the Midrash tries to hint at a profound difference between these two roles which throws light on the personality of Avraham.
There are two distinctive differences between a leader and a captain. A leader always walks in front of his followers; he is the first, while a captain is the last to leave the ship. Secondly a leader has a personal interest in his destination, while a captain does not.
A leader is not only a leader by virtue of his followers but also because he is part of the group he leads. Their destination is also his. He needs to get there as much as they do. As such he does not behave out of character. He himself benefits from leading the others. His self-actualization comes about through emotionally participating in the actual journey.
This however is not true for the captain, who has no personal interest in her destination. Her task is to bring her passengers to their destination, and in all likelihood will immediately turn around and head back from whence she came. She has no part in the group’s desire to reach a specific objective. She only travels with them for their sake.[2]
Leadership and walking in front often entail a neglect of those who were are left behind. The general is unable to turn around to take care of his last soldier at the back of the battalion. His mind is on his destination, and his mission is accomplished when he reaches it. That some people pay the price for getting there is not his concern.
The captain’s concern is a totally different one. She wants to take care of all her passengers and will ensure the safety of the very last passenger before abandoning the sinking ship.
It is a combination of these two qualities which we find in Avraham’s personality. As a spiritual leader who started a revolution which turned the world around, he initiated a movement which until this day has had an unprecedented effect on mankind’s attitudes and behavior. His devotion to monotheism and ethics is legendary. As such he was an unparalleled leader and walked in front of everybody else. But he was also a captain who cared for the underdog and who pleaded with God not to leave the wicked people of Sedom and Amora behind. While his eyes were focused forward, his heart was alert to what happened behind him.
In the introduction to his magnum opus Ha’emek Davar, the Netziv[3] asks why the sages also called the book of Bereshit “Sefer HaYashar”, the “book of those who are straight.” His response tells us a great deal about the Jewish view of leadership:
The reason for this is on account of the great praise which the Torah bestows on the patriarchs. They were not only righteous and pious in ways far above the norm, but also uncompromising when it came to straightforwardness and honesty. The patriarchs dealt pleasantly with the most heinous idol worshipers of their days and were concerned with their welfare. This we can see in the case of Avraham, who prayed for the wellbeing of the wicked people of Sedom (Bereshit, chapter 18) although he hated their deeds. In the same way a man may hate the wicked deeds of his son, but still seek his wellbeing. Therefore Avraham was called a “Father of the Nations”. And so we see in the case of Yitzhak, who appeased the wicked shepherds who stole his wells; instead of having a battle with them, he moved somewhere else (chapter 26). Or in the case of Yaakov who handled his wicked father-in-law, Lavan, with great mercy while the latter constantly deceived him and would have destroyed his family…(chapters 29-31)
Netziv goes on to say that this is the reason why the book of Bereshit is called “Sefer HaYashar”. While very few mitzvot are found in this book, the outstanding example of the patriarchs is a constant reminder of what is demanded from Jews: an ongoing concern even for the wicked. This does not mean that one should not fight the wicked when they become a real threat. Not to do so is clearly forbidden. Even Avraham waged a war against several wicked kings and killed them (chapter 14), but at the same time he revealed an unusual sensitivity for even the wicked once he established that they did not constitute a real threat.
Simultaneously Avraham was a leader who shared in some of the goals of his generation and showed them the way in their own personal lives. Above all, however, he was the man who traveled with his passengers, often getting involved in issues in which he was not instrumental and had no wish to be. On such occasions he was as selfless as a captain.
To be a Jewish leader is to be a captain as well.
Questions to Ponder from the DCA Think Tank
- Rabbi Cardozo writes of Avraham: “While his eyes were focused forward, his heart was alert to what happened behind him.” One might see this metaphorically as being emotionally “tuned into” the spirit of the times, while intellectually striving to set new trends. Do you see this as characteristic of all great leaders?
- Theologian Paul Tillich wrote: “There were only a few thousand people in all Europe who brought about the Renaissance. But these were the people who were conscious of the situation and who became the intellectual leaders of the future.” [4] Do you see Avraham as leading a comparable renaissance?
- Was Avraham’s impact due to his personality, or due to his being chosen by God to play a particular role in history?
Notes
[1] Bava Batra 91a.
[2] See also Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook, Midbar Shur, Chayei Sara.
[3] Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin z.l., the last Rosh Hayeshiva of Yeshivat Volozhin, the most prestigious Talmudic Institution of Eastern Europe before the second World War.
[4] Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought: From Its Judaic and Hellenistic Origins to Existentialism, (1967, 1968), page 349.
