The question can be asked, why is there a Moses and an Aaron leading the Jews in the desert; there is no partner to Abraham, Issac, or Jacob, as such, nor to any of the prophets. The reason, I think, has to do with the poverty of verbal teaching, but also on Moses’s unique role as king, and the unique status of Sinai.

Moses was the king of Israel at the exodus and the leader of all things moral and military. He said, “Do this”, and people were supposed to do it. As king and absolute leader, Moses was supposed to command, and could not allow deviation. Sinai was a unique experience and the people had to get things right now or  they never would. Unfortunately, as king and absolute leader, Moses could not demonstrate most of the desirable behaviors of human behavior: he could just command them and teach verbally. Moses could not show humility, nor friendship, nor love. Aaron was his partner because someone had to demonstrate these behaviors. Aaron was there as Moses’s parter because of the importance of a personal interest in people and their problems. He had to show a desire to lower himself to help them. Moses could not do this, or his status as king would be ruined. Moses is called the most humble of men. I trust he was, but he could not behave that way. Because of kingship, people could not learn from Moses by example. His Torah was just words. There is a big difference between hearing about good behavior, or good intentions, and seeing the good behavior up front. Aaron demonstrated the behavior that others were supposed to follow. Moses had to commanded in words that this was God’s law, direct from Sinai, not an optional guideline. Abraham and Issac were not kings, and thus could behave more like Aaron.

It bothers me that many leaders of today, and of the last few generations, like to take on the airs of kingship. To back them up they claim that Abraham and Moses were both kings, and that so were the prophets. But, as best I can tell, they are wrong in their claims about Abraham, and overstating the comparison when talking about Moses. Abraham, as best we can tell, taught by example. He served guests himself; he saddled his own donkey, he went off to fight personally, and negotiated the purchase of Machpela, his burial site. His students mostly watched, it seems, and listened. His students are never mentioned explicitly, and no mention is made of whatever words he said to them. These are lost to posterity, for good reason, I would say. Example is the better teacher, and it requires a living example.

I find the same lack of kingly airs in the behavior of the prophets. Aside from repeating some of Moses’s verbal teachings, telling people (largely unsuccessfully) to avoid idolatry, be kind to the weak and strangers, and be honest in your businesses and your courts, they mostly led by example. Their words are not descriptive of new things for the most part, just repetition and exhortation to just behavior. To the extent there is anything new in the prophets, it’s their warnings against leaning too heavily on the merit of going to the temple and their warnings that the temple would be destroyed soon. Judges, they point out, should stay home and judge honestly. Charity collectors should distribute to the poor, and not use what they collect to support themselves, or to bring sacrifices in Jerusalem. Judges, and charity collectors, prophets and teachers are not to act as mini-kings and pietists, it seems to me, but rather to set examples for what it means to be humble and holy. Where words are used, they should be understood. 

Robert E. Buxbaum, Sept 13, 2013. If you liked this, here are some more thoughts on Jewish leadership. In a day or two, I plan to add a link to some thoughts on Democracy in Judaism and on miracle stories.