Philosophy, Leadership, and the Soul of a Community - קרח

Philosophy, Leadership, and the Soul of a Community

In the heat of Korach’s rebellion against Moses, Moses turned to G-d and requested that He not turn to the offerings of the rebels: 

Moses was exceedingly distressed, and he said to the Lord, "Do not accept their offering. (Numbers 16:15)

But what offering was Moses referring to? 

Rashi, in his second interpretation, says that it is referring to the daily communal offerings, to which each Jew would donate a half coin annually, and the money was used to purchase the communal offerings: 

According to its Midrashic interpretation, he said: “I know that they have a portion in the daily communal offerings. Let their portions not be accepted favorably before You. Let the fire leave it and not consume it.” 

What seems like a straightforward interpretation, “I know that they have a portion in the daily communal offerings”, is in fact quite controversial, and related to a teaching of the Rogotchover, the 20th-century brilliant rabbi, who always sought the underlying “unifying theory” behind many seemingly unrelated disputes. Rogotchover argued that many disagreements between sages of the Mishnah and Talmud actually boil down to an essential philosophical debate related to a controversy between Plato and Aristotle. 

In his theory of forms, Plato posits that every physical phenomenon on earth is a mere reflection of the true phenomenon in the spiritual, perfect, and abstract realm. A chair, for example, is a physical manifestation of the “perfect” spiritual chair, and all chairs on earth are an attempt to capture some imperfect aspect of the “perfect” chair. Aristotle rejects that philosophy outright; to him, there is no “perfect” abstract form. There is no abstract chair that is the source of all chairs. The "essence" and “form” of the chair are not separate from the chair itself. 

Applying this disagreement to the concept of "community", some sages and scholars view “community” in the Platonic sense: an abstract concept, greater than the sum of the individuals that actually make up the community. They therefore believe that an individual cannot claim to have a specific ownership stake in communal property, as the community is a distinct abstract concept. Others share the Aristotelian view, namely, a community is a collection of individuals. Applied to our discussion, an individual can certainly lay claim to personal ownership over communal assets, since he or she is a member of that community.

When the Rebbe taught this Rashi, he explained both sides of the argument and then turned to a subtle word in Rashi that captures the essence of what a true leader is. 

The Rebbe explained that, although in matters of practical law, Jewish law generally takes the view that "community" is an abstract concept greater than the individuals that comprise it, nevertheless, Moses presented the other perspective. Moses said, “I know that they have a portion in the daily communal offerings”. The key phrase is “I know”. Moses was the leader of the community, but unlike many leaders who worry about the “collective”, Moses saw the individual within the collective. To Moses, a community is a place where an individual can transcend and tap into the energy of the collective, while at the same time maintaining his own unique, personal identity. “I know”, said Moses, that a leader must be concerned not only with the collective but with each and every person individually.

Yesterday, the third of Tammuz, was the Rebbe’s thirty-second Yahrtzeit. The Rebbe lived and exemplified the model of Moses, caring about “Klal Yisrael”, the collective Jewish people, while at the same time expressing complete dedication to each individual. May we continue to be inspired by the Rebbe’s teachings and example, and recognize that every individual person, and every individual action, is critical to the Divine purpose of creation.