Moses: A Man for all Seasons
Peter Beyfus
What do you know about Moses? Most people have an image of a man with a long beard, no not God, staff in hand, leading a vast multitude through a wilderness, bound for the Promised Land; and that is not to forget the crossing of the Red Sea, the waters of which were held back to allow the Israelites to cross dry-footed. This popular impression, bolstered by the creative imagination and wonder-works of Hollywood, is about what most lay-people can confidently describe.
In Torah we are given much detail of the man and his deeds, and the Talmud and Midrashim amplify the critical moments in the prophet’s life. In Parasha Shemot we are given an account of the origins of Israel’s greatest prophet, how a child born to Amram and Jochebed became the adopted son of Pharaoh’s daughter, and how on witnessing the desperate state of the Hebrew slaves became a fugitive after killing an Egyptian taskmaster. The life of Moses is fascinating because on the face of it he appears totally unsuited to the role of leader.
The Canadian economist, J. K. Galbraith, who incidentally was an adviser to President Kennedy, said of leadership: “All great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was a willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership”. Perhaps, in our recent history, the man who epitomises this important quality was Winston Churchill. We know Churchill researched and rehearsed his war-time speeches to ensure they made the maximum impact on raising the spirits of the British people, and equally they were designed to show defiance in the face of Nazi aggression. Like Moses Churchill suffered from a speech impediment, a major liability in an aspiring orator, and he worked tirelessly to overcome this, becoming in the judgement of many, an outstanding public speaker. In the case of Moses there is some doubt about how we should interpret the phrase in Exodus: slow of speech, and of slow tongue. Maimonides states this is evidence of Moses’ stammer. Other rabbinic commentators regarded the reference to Moses’ speech as indicating verbal slowness and deliberateness. This interpretation suggests what he uttered was weighty, profound: not glib. It is also possible that Moses, if indeed he had a damaged tongue, lisped rather than stuttered.
There is a famous midrash that gives an explanation for Moses’ alleged disability. Pharaoh took the baby Moses on his knee, and to the horror of the court astrologers the child grasped the king’s crown and placed it on his own head. The advisers ordered two braziers to be brought, one filled with gold, the other with hot coals. If Moses took the gold, then his fate would be sealed. The Archangel Gabriel guided the baby’s hand to the glowing coals, and Moses plucked out a burning coal and put it to his lips, and that is why he had a speech defect. The choice is yours as to which rabbinic exegesis you find most plausible. I am inclined to meld the two versions. A person who has difficulty articulating his thoughts may express views that are no less significant, and more often than not of greater import, than his more loquacious peers. This certainly seems to have been the case with Moses.
God tells Moses that Aaron will accompany him, stating: “Is there not Aaron thy brother the Levite? I know he can speak well”. So, Aaron is the mouthpiece, the man with the “silvery tongue”, but he is not the possessor of the encounter with the Burning Bush or the revelation at Sinai; it is Moses who experiences something so profound that words are woefully inadequate in communicating the ineffable. In Schoenberg’s unfinished opera Moses und Aron the composer explores, both musically and dramatically, the theme of Moses, the man of vision. The brothers are contrasted; and Schoenberg sets up a dynamic between them by assigning a speaking role to Moses, representing God’s absolutism, and Aaron, the rhetorician, who sings his role, a device that enables him to weave fantasies that form the medium for sensuality – enter the Golden Calf.
Whatever the truth of Moses’ communicative skills, he comes across as a reluctant hero, but a man who is passionate about the suffering of his people. He could not fail but to recognise what Galbraith identifies as a defining characteristic of leadership, namely responding to the ‘major anxiety’ of the people.
During his prophetic career Moses exhibited many attributes any successful leader requires. He acted decisively when confronted with rebellion; he faced down Korach, culminating in the destruction of the rebel Levites. He listens to the advice of his wise father-in-law, Jethro, and established minor judges to relieve him of the enormous responsibility of adjudicating in so many disputes. The many times the Hebrews were attacked in the desert saw Moses, as supreme commander, organise his forces to beat off the enemy. So what distinguishes a leader like Moses from the many heroes depicted in history books? One essential, that Galbraith does not mention, namely God. It was God’s support throughout the prophet’s ministry that brought the fledgling Hebrew nation to Canaan.
Judaism has its fair share of heroes, those we venerate either because they are champions of our cultural heritage, or they are sages that have given inspiration to the Jewish people; but these are mortals. They fulfil a destiny; they are instruments of the Divine Will; and although Moses has a very special place in the History of the Jewish People, he, too, was human. As a man he endured criticism from those he led; he expressed doubt; anger; impatience; and hubris. It was the latter offence that robbed Moses of entry to the Promised Land. He, in a moment of pique, became irritated with God’s slowness to provide water at Meribah, and he was punished for that momentary loss of faith. So the man who was a reluctant hero, who rose to the challenge of leadership, and served both God and his people with devotion, fell victim, like commanders of all generations to vanity and loss of self-control; and it is these qualities, both good and bad, that make Moses accessible to us ordinary folk.
Peter Beyfus