World of Leadership

In this week's Torah portion, one simple word causes much debate.

By ED PRINCE
Torah 311 (do not publish again) (photo credit: avi katz)
Torah 311 (do not publish again)
(photo credit: avi katz)
A SINGLE, SIMPLE WORD IN THIS week’s Torah portion figures prominently in a dispute about Jewish liturgy: vayifga. Usually translated as “he reached” but used in Talmudic idiom as “he prayed,” this word is part of a larger debate that helped shape the structure of Jewish prayer. This word offers profound insight into rabbinic views of power and priorities.
In the aftermath of the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E., the sacrificial service in Jerusalem came to an end. Convening in Yavne to reestablish the Sanhedrin and deal with the critical issues confronting the Jewish people, the leadership of the surviving Jewish community realized that it was unclear if the Temple would be rebuilt soon. Therefore, organized prayer would have to serve as a substitute for the sacrificial rites.
Organized prayer had begun to take root after the destruction of the First Temple almost 600 years earlier. But this time, it was not clear if and when sacrifices would be reinstated. Even though, by the end of the Second Temple period, the high priesthood had become debased through political intrigue and factional fighting, the Temple was nevertheless the single factor that unified world Jewry. Some sages thought that organized liturgy was an effective way to maintain cohesion for what many believed would be an extended period. Thus, the transition from sacrifice to prayer was not easy and to grant it gravitas, the rabbis sought to ground the prayer in a Biblical source.
The Talmud (Berakhot 26b) records a dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yossi ben Hanina at the academy of Yavne.
Yehoshua was one of the oldest and most venerated scholars and his position carried a great deal of weight among his colleagues. Yossi was much younger but had the support of Rabban Gamliel, who was not only the president of the academy but also a direct descendant of the venerated Rabbi Hillel.
Yossi claimed that the source of prayers is based on the prayers of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Yehoshua, however, argued that prayer was established based on the Temple sacrifices and, since there were no evening sacrifices, the evening service was optional. If Yossi’s argument were accepted, communal prayer would be elevated to a Biblical commandment, independent of sacrifices. Prayer would become the central, organizing event of Jewish life.
Yossi cited three verses in support of his argument that three daily services were obligatory: Gen. 19:27: “And Abraham arose in the morning to the place where he stood”; standing he claimed, refers to the act of prayer. Gen. 24:63: “And Isaac went out to converse in the field, at evening;” the speaking, he said, refers to prayer. And Yossi’s proof-text for the night service comes from this week’s portion, Gen. 28:11: “And he [Jacob] reached the place, and he slept there”; according to Yossi “reaching” refers to prayer.
Gamliel, who believed the issue had already been settled, saw this debate as a direct challenge to his authority at a time when unity was critical to the survival of Judaism. Gamliel challenged Yehoshua and forced him to remain standing while he delivered a lecture.
The other sages listened respectfully, but when Gamliel finished, they caucused and deposed him as president of the academy.
Not only was this a blow to the efforts to unify the Jewish people: ousting Gamliel carried a great many risks for the rabbis personally.
Gamliel had many influential friends among the aristocracy of Rome; if he were to call upon them for support, the rabbis would undoubtedly suffer for their actions.
Yet, rather than take revenge on his colleagues, Gamliel continued to participate in the academy’s debates. While he felt that his actions had been justified, he felt that he should not be the source of a schism among the sages of Yavne.
When the question of the evening service came up again, Yehoshua’s position was affirmed. Recognizing that he had been wrong to impose his will on his peers, Gamliel sought out Yehoshua and asked his forgiveness. Not only did Yehoshua forgive his former tormentor, he lobbied for Gamliel’s reinstatement. Gamliel was even accorded the privilege of giving, once a month, the weekly lecture that influenced law and set priorities for the academy, a decision, which Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah (of Passover Haggada fame), the new head of the academy, embraced enthusiastically.
This is leadership at its best: Leaders willing to put aside personal issues for the greater good. The rabbis of the Talmud rarely spoke in terms of absolutes. While not all rabbis saw compromise as admirable, the law, as codified by later rabbinic authorities, views compromise between parties as a mitzva. (Maim. Yad, Sanhedrin 22:4; Tur and Sh. Ar., M 12:2).
There are no zero-sum games here. There are no losers remaining on the outside, allowed only to look in. But sadly, we are witness to an increasing tendency to demonize those with whom we disagree. It is not enough for us to think they are wrong; we assume that they are evil as well.
From one small word in this week’s portion, we learn that working for the sake of the greater good, and assuming that others, even if we disagree with them, are doing the same, is a mitzva.
 Rabbi Ed Prince is an educator and consultant who tweets the Torah portion daily at Rabbiedprince@twitter.com.