The question of what is the responsibility of leadership in the American Orthodox community has engaged and fascinated and worried me for a long time. And my conclusion can be summed up by saying that above all else, leadership requires the taking of risks – not only political and financial and social and psychological risks, but also moral risks. There is a remarkable statement by our rabbis which is quoted by Maimonides: “One who is appointed to a position of leadership by the community here below, is regarded as wicked up above.” A similar thought occurs in the Zohar. To the verse, “if a prince (i.e., a leader) sins,” the Zohar adds these words: He most certainly will sin! You cannot be a community leader without being considered an evil-doer or a sinner. What a strange thing to say – and what a deterrent to public service on behalf of the community! Granted, some leaders abuse their positions and others may be neglectful of their duties; but is that a reason to say all leaders are regarded by Heaven as evil or sinful? Do we not bear enough burdens? Is there not enough to discourage us without this added onus placed upon us? What the rabbis meant, I believe, is this: leadership involves making hard decisions – or better – dirty decisions, choosing between alternatives, neither of which is perfect or clean or pure or desirable or even acceptable, but is the least evil and the least harmful. For Israeli leaders, there is no easy way out of the “Who is a Jew” issue. Clean decisions between good and evil, right and wrong, helpful or injurious – these are risk-free decisions and do not require leadership. Any intelligent and reasonable person endowed with a modicum of moral judgment can make such decisions. A leader must be willing to embrace the risk of being an evil-doer in the eyes of heaven, of being less than perfect in the abstract, of being accused of ideological error or moral truancy, if by so doing he carries out his mission of protecting the interests of …

Our Sidra begins with the words ויגש אליו יהודה, “and Judah drew near to (Joseph),” whom Judah recognized only as the powerful viceroy of all Egypt. We reach, here, the point of highest tension in the entire drama of Joseph and his brothers. If I be permitted the play on words, ויגש can be read not only as coming from the words נגש, “he drew near,” but also התנגשות, collision. For what we are reading about is not only an encounter between Joseph and Judah, but a confrontation; not only a meeting, but a challenge. And the nature of this התנגשות or contest is nothing less than the future leadership of the Children of Israel. Joseph was by all means the favorite of Father Jacob. It is Joseph to whom Jacob had given the “coat of many colors,” the symbol of leadership. Judah was the chosen of the brothers. He was their spokesman and their chief. Which of the two would inherit the mantle of Jacob and become the leader of the tribes, and the progenitor of the future dynasty of Judah and ultimately of the Messiah? The answer, as all of us know, is: Judah. Jacob continued to shower his personal love upon Joseph, but he was forced to concede sovereignty or מלכות to another brother, to Judah.Why is that so? After all, consider the differences between these two personalities. Joseph is handsome, charismatic, a natural leader, seized by powerful ambitions, an accomplished linguist, a man of moral self-control, a diplomat, an economist, a man brimming with diverse talents – a born winner.Judah, contrariwise, strikes us as dull. In considering his personality, I am often led to think of the mentality of an amoral, tired, and jaded upper-middle-aged businessman. He bumbles his way through life. He sees all of existence through the eyes of a ledger, and everything is evaluated in terms of profit and loss. When the brothers want to kill Joseph, his response is מה בצע כי נהרוג אחינו, it will bring in more for us if we sell him rather than kill him. The moral issues were of no concern…

Dear Esteemed Rabbi: As vice president of the Hapoel Mizrachi, may I take the liberty of writing to you today with a request. Since you are a member of the board, I would like to have your opinion on how we can improve the image and standing of our movement. Guided by your expertise and the position you have in the Jewish horizon, we can make our movement what we all dream of.I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Thank you, in advance, for your cooperation.Sincerely,George B. Falk

(1) Major Diff IE, bet – nov + other students are not ת״ח – all of new and, some more/less. Rather – יחיד/רבים... You: about to reupt reopen צבור... (2) hence, miss___ def צבור – theoretically with eye to practical consequences/ 3/ 2 definitions of comm'y – *Jeremy Benthorn: "C = imagine being comprised of indiv. people who considered one organism. The ____ of time thus = sum of ____ of all its constituent members" – is: nominalistic def. *Walter Hyman (e.g.): consider

If one sees large numbers of Jews before him, the Talmudic sages taught (Ber. 58a), he should recite a blessing: “Blessed is He who in His wisdom discerns secrets.” What are these “secrets”? The Talmud explains: no two Jews look alike and no two think alike. It is a divine “secret” how such fiercely independent individuals can pull together as one people. I am moved to recite the same blessing, Barukh Hakham ha-Bazim, as I address this distinguished gathering this evening – some two thousand or more Jews and Jewesses who neither look alike nor share identical opinions, and yet labor together, in unison, for the welfare of our people. That certainly deserves a blessing! My theme this evening is both general and specific. I shall try to trace some of our current problems to a conceptual dichotomy that has been latent for centuries. I shall seek, thereby, to identify two constants that are prerequisite for Jewish leadership and for a viable Jewish community as we move into the closing decades of this century. In his The Great Chain of Being, a pioneering work on the history of ideas published almost 50 years ago, Prof. Arthur O. Lovejoy showed how two ideas conjoined in the philosophy of Plato lived side by side peacefully for about two millennia, only to come into violent conflict with each other as their implications were spelled out over the generations. Even in the realm of ideas, friends can become foes. Compatible ideas can break out into open opposition, and apparently differing concepts can later merge into one. I detect a similar process taking place in the thought and experience of the Jewish people. Two great precepts that lived harmoniously with each other have now become sharpened into two antagonistic forces that threaten to rip apart the fabric of our people. Only a deliberate and conscious effort on the part of Jewish leaders and opinion-molders to establish peace between these ideas – to embrace both of them harmoniously – can restore the wholeness of…

When I was first invited to speak at this Convention, I was unsure of what topic to choose. When I asked the conveners what I should speak about, they gave me two concise answers. First, they said, "speak about 30 minutes." Second, they recommended I speak about "The Responsibility of Leadership in the American Orthodox Community." I shall cheerfully make every effort to accomodate both wise suggestions. The truth is that this theme has engaged and fascinated and worried me for a long time. And I have come to a rather surprising yet significant conclusion which can be summed up by saying that, in addition to and above all else, leadership requires the taking of risks – not only political and financial and social and psychological risks, but also moral risks.There is a remarkable statement by חז״ל which is quoted by Maimonides in his פיה"מ לאבות פ"א מ"ט, although our texts do not carry this dictum as he cites it. It reads: כל מי שהציבור ממנה אותו פרנס מלמטה נקרא רשע למעלה. "One who is appointed to a position of leadership by the community here below, is regarded as wicked up above." A similar thought occurs in the Zohar (III, p.24a). On the verse אשר נשיא יחטא, "if a prince (i.e., a king, a leader) sins," the Zohar adds two words, ודאי יחטא, "he most certainly will sin!" You cannot be a פרנס or a נשיא without being considered a רשע or a חוטא.What a strange thing to say--and what a deterrent to public service on behalf of the community! Granted that some leaders abuse their positions and that others may be neglectful of their duties, is that a reason to say that al 1 leaders are regarded by Heaven as רשעים or חוטאים, as evil or sinful? Do we not bear enough burdens, and is there not enough to discourage us without this added onus placed upon us by the Talmud, the Zohar, and the Rambam What the Rabbis meant, I believe, is this: Leadership involves making hard decisions--or better: dirty decisions, choosing between alternatives neither of which is perfect or clean or p…

Dear Immanuel, Many thanks for your kind words and, especially, for sending me a copy of the talk you gave at the Orthodox Union a couple of days before I gave mine. I read your talk carefully – I always peruse your material with the greatest attention! – and my efforts were amply rewarded. It is an excellent summary of the state of Orthodoxy in the world and deserves wide distribution both here and abroad. I was especially impressed by your cogent distinction between power and influence. It is emet la-amitah.However, that does not mean that I agree with everything you say. I commented to you in my last note that I was not completely happy with the report in the press about your statements concerning Centrist Orthodoxy. Now that you were kind enough to let me see the original text, I am even more troubled.The emphasis on Orthodox Centrism is not intended to be adversarial, building on hostility to the Right. It is based, partly, on the simple human need for an identity. The so-called “Yeshiva world” and the Hasidic world have placed us off-limits. We are shunned by them. I am prepared to give you chapter and verse of humiliations that we have suffered over the past years that are illustrative of the animosity of the Right towards everything that Yeshiva University stands for, but I hesitate to do so lest you quite naturally interpret whatever communal decisions I make as mere reactions to personal offense. But anyway, I shall overcome my hesitation and risk mentioning only a few of them, in the hope that you will not misinterpret my communal policies as mere reactions to petty grievances.The story begins sixty or seventy years ago when Dr. Revel first became President of Yeshiva. Try as he would, and despite some initial successes, we were never wholly acceptable to the “Yeshiva world” of his generation. A petty illustration: when Yeshiva moved from the Lower East Side to its present location, it was attacked for symbolically abandoning true Orthodoxy for the allur…

וכל מי שעוסקים בצרכי ציבור באמונה – הקב״ה ישלם שכרם ויסיר מהם כל מחלה וירפא לכל גופם וייסלח לכל עוונם. Community leadership by people who are genuine and sincere (be’emunah) often yields poor results. We hear the complaints frequently. Yet the promise is made that the difficulties will be overcome and, despite apparent hardships, it is good to assume the burdens. Thus: No one appreciates what you’re doing and there's no reward in it – so: הקב״ה ישלם שכרם – and that’s greater than any human reward or recognition. The worry, the toil, the criticism – it can get you sick and it leaves scars – reply: ויסיר מהם כל מחלה וירפא לכל גופם. You’ve often got to make difficult choices, so that sometimes people are hurt – reply: ויסלח לכל עוונם. People get angry with you and it destroys old friendships – answer: וישלח ברכה והצלחה בכל מעשה ידיהם עם כל ישראל אחיהם ונאמר אמן.

Rabbi Lamm explores concepts of leadership in Jewish thought.

Rabbi Lamm addresses the challenges confronting rabbinic leadership in North America.