Haftorah: Whose Donkey Have I Taken?

Haftorah: Whose Donkey Have I Taken?

הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר

One of the obvious connecting points between this week's Parsha and its Haftorah is Shmuel's declaration that he did not take anything from Bnei Yisrael: "Whose ox have I taken? Whose donkey have I taken? Whom have I robbed?" (Shmuel I 12:3) In this statement he echoes a similar declaration made by Moshe in our parsha, "I have not taken even a single donkey of theirs!" (Bamidbar 16:15) Rashi quotes the Midrash Tanchuma, "Even when I traveled from Midyan to Egypt, carrying my wife and children on a donkey, and I should have taken that donkey from them -- I took only of my own!"

This declaration requires explanation. Is it something for Shmuel to boast about that he did not steal or accept bribes from the nation? Similarly, when Moshe took Am Yisrael out of their servitude in Egypt, should he have been particular whether the donkey belonged to the "government travel agency" or it was his private donkey? Was Moshe planning on presenting G-d with his expenses for the donkey's fodder?

The answer to these questions is rooted in the definition of "leadership" and the traits of a proper Jewish leader according to the Torah. The key to this is found in Moshe's request of G-d, after he was commanded as to his death, "May Hashem, G-d of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the assembly." And what will be the main trait of that leader? "Who shall go out before them and come in before them." (Bamidbar 27:16, 17) Rashi explains: "Not like the manner of the kings of the nations who sit in their houses and send their soldiers to battle. Rather, like I did, that I fought against Sichon and Og ... and as Yehoshua did ... and, so too, David ... going out at the head and coming in at the head."

The idea inherent in this is that leadership means sacrifice; it means giving and commitment through extra danger. The leader doesn't take advantage of his position of authority in order to live an easier and more pleasant life. Just the opposite! He works harder than the nation that he leads. The Gemara in Horayot (10a) summarizes this idea as follows: "Do you think that I am giving you authority? I am giving you servitude!" Similarly, based on the analogy of the Kuzari (I:93) -- "Yisrael amongst the nations is like the heart amongst the organs" -- the heart, the most important organ, works harder than the rest of the body. Whereas the rest of the parts of the body have times of rest, the heart works constantly. The heart is the main part of the body and its leader; therefore, it has more obligations than the rest of the body.

In Parshat Pinchas, Rashi illustrates this principle in the military realm. The Jewish leader goes out at the head of his soldiers and endangers his life, in contrast to the kings of the nations who sit in their houses and send their soldiers to battle. This was true in the ancient past, and it is true in the IDF of today. (This is evidenced by the battle cry, "Follow me!," and the high percentage of casualties amongst the officers.)

This week's Parsha and its Haftorah point out this principle of leadership in the financial realm. The Jewish leader does not seek to pamper himself with excessive financial benefits. The donkey that Moshe took to Egypt is merely an example of the financial "sacrifice" that the leader makes for the purpose of his mission. Shmuel, as well, did not take advantage of his high position; he did not take an ox or a donkey from the public coffers even when he deserved it in capacity of a circuit judge: "He would travel year after year, circling to Bet-el, Gilgal, and Mitzpah, and judging Israel in all these places." (Shmuel I 7:16) Chazal explain in the Yalkut Shimoni, "Everywhere that he would go -- his house was with him and he would pay his own expenditures."

In this manner we can also understand the ending of the story of Elisha and the tzaraat of Naaman. Elisha became angry at Gehazi, his servant, for taking a small payment from Naaman, and transferred Naaman's tzaraat to him. This was because through his actions Gehazi destroyed the wonderful moral that Elisha taught by refusing to take a gift from Naaman. The moral was that Elisha's level of prophecy is not utilized in order to increase his wealth and to improve his financial situation (despite the fact that the prophets needed it). Gehazi destroyed this moral, and therefore he was sentenced to take the tzaraat of Naaman, since leadership is not authority but rather servitude.

 

 

קוד השיעור: 3805

סרוק כדי להעלות את השיעור באתר:

לשליחת שאלה או הארה בנוגע לשיעור:




הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
ע
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
ע
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
ע
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
ע
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
ע
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
ע
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
ע
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
הרב אברהם ריבלין, המשגיח הרוחני לשעבר
ע
הרב גבריאל סרף <br> ראש הישיבה
הרב גבריאל סרף
ראש הישיבה
E
הרב נתנאל ברקוביץ
הרב נתנאל ברקוביץ
ע
הרב אהרן פרידמן <br> ראש הישיבה
הרב אהרן פרידמן
ראש הישיבה
ע
הרב מרדכי גרינברג <br> נשיא הישיבה
הרב מרדכי גרינברג
נשיא הישיבה
ע
הרב מרדכי גרינברג <br> נשיא הישיבה
הרב מרדכי גרינברג
נשיא הישיבה
ע
הרב מרדכי גרינברג <br> נשיא הישיבה
הרב מרדכי גרינברג
נשיא הישיבה
ע