Moses and the Demands of Leadership

After a long hiatus, Parashat Beha’alotekha marks the resumption of the narrative of Israel’s desert sojourn, detailing a series of confrontations between Moses and the Israelites. While there was complaining from the beginning of the desert period in Exodus, the problems here have grown more severe, moving from grievances about food and leadership to a general sense of despair about the very possibility of achieving the goal of Canaan. This downward spiral reaches its climax in Numbers Chapter 20, where Moses dishonors God before the people and is sentenced to die outside the promised land. The people’s demand for meat in Numbers 11 has much in common with the earlier story in Exodus 16, where they receive manna from heaven (and meat as well – see Exod. 16:12-13). There, too, they grumble about food and complain about Mosaic leadership, but in the end God grants them food from heaven on a regular basis.

The entire process of food gathering and preparation progresses peacefully. The supply of manna serves as a tool for teaching the people about the Shabbat, and compliance with the rules seems to have proceeded with little disruption. If one hoarded too much, it spoiled by the next day; if another went to gather on Shabbat he quickly saw there was no manna to be had. The emphasis is on constant, orderly feeding, on the routinization of a divine gift. There were complaints, but there was no punishment of the people.

But things change; the desert is not a static place, and Israel’s situation a year into their journey has become much more difficult. The people will not be easily assuaged with a simple gift from heaven, but instead have exaggerated, nostalgic memories of plenty in Egypt, of eating a rich and varied diet of fruits and vegetables.

We remember the fish we used to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic (11:5).

Moreover, the nature of Mosaic leadership emerges here as a central and critical issue. In chapters 11-20 Moses confronts a series of challenges by the people, and the range of his responses gives the reader some insight into his abilities and his failings. In the face of disputes about food and authority, confronting insubordination and despair, Moses asserts his authority in a variety of ways. Some of these conflicts are solved peacefully, but others are resolved violently, with serious aftershocks which continue to trouble the Israelites throughout their passage through the desert.

I would like to explore some of these issues through the lens of Rashi’s commentary, specifically his remarks on Moses’ reaction to God in Num. 11:21-22. Using midrash Sifre Bamidbar as his source, Rashi presents a series of interpretations of Moses’ words in those verses which illustrate the dilemma of the biblical leader caught between fidelity to God, allegiance to the people, and the constraints of his own immediate needs.

First the narrative itself. Following the people’s complaint in vss. 4-6, the narrator recounts God’s great anger and Moses’ displeasure (11:10). In vss. 11-15 Moses adds his own complaint, describing his difficulty in bearing the entire burden of the people by himself. Using the image of a nursing mother he argues that his situation is untenable:

Did I conceive all this people, did I bear them, that You should say to me ‘Carry them in your bosom as a nurse carries an infant’ to the land that You have promised on oath to their fathers.

The complaint is severe in its tone, unlike anything Moses has said in the past; he concludes his remarks by asking to be put out of his misery, a not so veiled request to die. The relationship between the two complaints is complementary; both the people and Moses are in desperate need of relief in order to continue to function. Both express their need for diversity, whether it be in diet or in leadership.

The answer given by God is twofold. On the one hand Moses will be assisted in some unspecified way by a group of 70 elders. They will be granted a portion of Moses’ spirit and thus relieve some of the strain which Moses finds untenable (11:16-17). The people, too, will be answered: they will be fed quail to broaden their physical diet, but the promise contains the threat of punishment as well, for this “blessing” of quail will be given to them ad nauseum , “until it comes out of your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you” (11:18-20).

Moses’ response in 11:21-22 shows no immediate reaction to God’s anger at the people or to the consecration of the 70 elders, but focuses instead on the logistics of feeding.

“But Moses said: The people who are with me number 600,000 men; yet you say ‘I will give them enough meat to eat for a whole month’. Could enough flocks and herds be slaughtered to suffice them? Or could all the fish of the sea be gathered for them to suffice them?”

On a literal level Moses seems to be doubting God’s ability to provide for the people, but we must inquire into the larger significance of this response. To what extent does Moses share God’s pique at the people’s complaints? Is he against giving them meat, or does he see it as their right to request diversity in their diet? And does he see God’s threat of punishment of the people as desirable or justifiable?

The first interpretation of 11:21-22 brought by Rashi, attributed to R. Akiba, is that Moses has actually questioned God’s ability to provide for the people:

“All [of Moses’ words] are meant literally – who could possibly supply them with enough?”

According to this reading Moses is uncharacteristically skeptical about God’s ability to fulfill the promise he has made. Moses’ incredulity here is not very different from the people’s attitude in questioning divine sustenance. It is not unreasonable to see a certain equivalence between Moses’ complaint in vss. 11-15 and the people’s complaint about the manna. Both statements are a direct challenge to divine authority and promise. Indeed, Moses spells out his own sense of despair in the harshest possible terms, both in having to lead the people alone, as well as in the basic task of providing sustenance: “Where am I to get meat to feed all these people” (11:13).

Moses’ despair at his own inability to solve this most immediate problem leads to him questioning God’s ability to provide. Judging from God’s response in 11:23, “Is the Lord’s hand too short?”, God seems to understand Moses’ question as a direct challenge to his authority/ability, and responds by saying “I’ll show you”. Akiba criticizes Moses’ sense of self-importance, comparing Moses’ words here to his breach of faith at Meribah in Numbers 20. There he explicitly exalts himself and questions God’s ability before the people by saying “Shall we get water for you out of this rock?”. The tone of the rhetorical question and his pairing himself with God as a worker of miracles portray a leader who is both at the end of his patience and too convinced of his own importance. For that offense Moses is punished; in the case on Numbers 11 Moses’ slight is allowed to pass since he did not publicly impugn God.

But beyond the question of Moses doubting God, this interpretation reflects a leader who is suffering from a lack of vision, from an inability to belief that there can be a creative response to a difficult situation. Dynamic and successful leadership demands that the person in authority maintain the ability to pursue new solutions to a problem without falling into the trap of despair. A leader who has lost the ability to imagine a positive outcome is on the verge of being burnt out. Moses is not oblivious to this problem, as his request for additional leadership indicates. Indeed, the 70 elders may be able to offer new possibilities which he himself is unable to suggest. Nonetheless, Akiba correctly understands that even here Moses’ ability to lead the people was diminished by his lack of belief.

A second interpretation (actually the third offered by Rashi) presents Moses as extremely cynical. R. Gamliel understands Moses not as challenging God’s ability, but as turning against the people.

“It is impossible to take them at their word, since they are only seeking a pretext; You will never satisfy them, and they will contend with you no matter what. If you give them beef they will say that they asked for mutton; If you give them mutton they will say they asked for beef, for fish, for grasshoppers.”

No matter what God would do on their behalf, it would be insufficient. The people are a thankless lot who can’t be pleased and can’t be satisfied. Moses here argues that it is not worth God’s while to give them meat because they will simply find another reason to complain. While the biblical source of this position is not entirely clear, it can possibly be found in the mention of Moses’ displeasure in 11:10:

“Moses heard the people weeping, every clan apart, each person at the entrance of his tent. The Lord was very angry, and Moses was distressed.”

The object of Moses’ distress is unclear in the biblical text, but R. Gamliel’s reading suggests that Moses’ is even more disturbed by the people’s words than God is. The absence of any challenge to God’s anger at the people in vs. 21 indicates that not only does Moses agree with God’s anger, but he feels that even giving them quail is too great a concession.

The type of failure described here reflects the leader who no longer believes that the people he is leading are worth the trouble. That Moses has lost faith in his constituency is more of a comment on the leader himself than on the people. The group will always be in need of guidance and support, and will frequently express its dissatisfaction by complaining, and even by rebelling. The degree to which the leader considers it important to respond to these things is a direct reflection of his belief in the value of what he is doing, and of his trust in the people themselves. For the leader to have lost the belief that his followers are sincere in their request, that their displeasure must be listened to and responded to, is a sign of failure which is even more serious than the previous case. Woe to the leader who does not care about his people, for he cannot possibly attend to their needs.

A third position is presented by R. Simeon, who says that Moses’ doesn’t doubt God for a moment, but is protesting His intention to punish the people after feeding them.

“This is what Moses implied: The people among whom I am are 600,000 on foot, and yet You have said ‘I will give them meat that they may eat a whole month’, and then You will kill such a great nation as this?

Will flocks and herds be slaughtered for them that they should be slain, so that this eating should suffice them forever (i.e. be their l ast)? Will this redound then to Your praise? Do people say to an ass: Take this measure of barley and then we shall cut off your head!”

Here Moses stands up for the welfare of the people, acting as their champion before a God who would grant them their wish only to punish them for asking. While the biblical story makes no explicit mention of Moses arguing with God on the people’s behalf, support for this position may be found in the same vs. 10 quoted earlier. Given the fact that in 11:11-15 Moses does argue with God, one could understand Moses’ distress in vs. 10 as directed at God’s anger at the people. While God is concerned with his reputation before the people (11:23 – “Is there a limit to the Lord’s power?”), Moses is here concerned with the lives of the Israelites themselves. Moses is the people’s advocate in their moment of need, the leader who is ready to challenge God’s displeasure at the people’s behavior.

In and of itself this is very laudable, but the continuation of this account in the midrash reveals a different problem in leadership. According to Rashi, Moses went back to the people to try to get them to accept a compromise position (11:24 – “Moses went out and reported the words of the Lord to the people”), but they were unresponsive to his request. It is all well and good for the leader to speak on behalf of the people, but if he has lost his credibility in their eyes and is unable to persuade them, then his good intentions are for naught. The leader who does not succeed in carrying out his ideas because he cannot persuade his constituency displays another type of failure, the inability to follow through and bring a plan to fruition. Not only does this indicate a lack of ability, but it reflects a lack of trust by the group. Just as a lack of vision betrays the shortcomings of many a would-be leader, so the inability to persuade, to secure a compromise between two warring camps, can also be a recipe for disaster. Expectations are aroused, and when they fall short because of a failure of leadership, the sense of disappointment is all the worse. The leader here has the best interests of the people at heart, but he has lost his effectiveness and cannot bring the dilemma to a positive resolution.

In all three cases – a loss of vision and hope, the loss of faith in his constituency, and the inability to persuade – the failure of the leader indicates a deep crisis in Israel’s situation. The immediate problem may be resolved but the deeper crisis remains. Without both capability and vision, leadership grows tired and unresponsive and must give way to new solutions.

The Torah Portion Beha’alotekha is analyzed by Dr. George Savran, Kekst Fellow for 2003-2005. Dr. Savran is a lecturer in Bible Studies at the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies and coordinator of the Schechter MA Track in Interdisciplinary Jewish Studies. His latest book, Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative, has just been published by T & T Clark International.

Photo: Moses Breaking the Tablets of the Law by Rembrandt