Shabbat Tazria Metzora

These two combined portions of the Torah underline the important role of the priesthood in the personal lives of the Israelites, as well as the public ceremonial function of the sanctuaries, the Tabernacle, and then the Temple. Why was an institution like the priesthood such a disappointment over time?

There seems to me to be a permanent state of conflict between religious authority (and this applies to all religions I know of not just ours) and individual spirituality.
All religions tend towards conformity and have some sort of priesthood which has responsibility for religious functions, rituals and ceremonials. And a system for enforcement.  And yet every example I have come across, including our own, has proved to, to some at extent and time, to have betrayed its values. Either by a complete failure in transmission of values or an alliance with other forces.

Is this simply a feature of human weakness? Or is it a failure of the very concept of either of and corruptible elite or hereditary privilege? There are two different systems the Torah provides. The priesthood and prophecy. With different functions and roles and results. Perhaps they were meant to be complimentary rather than alternatives.

Authority values conformity, control and stability, whereas mystics have invariably been individualists who have challenged the established structures and have encouraged fancy even serendipity. Invariably, the individualists have been isolated, excluded and disparaged by the authorities, sometimes excommunicated and imprisoned. Occasionally, doubtless, they have gone overboard. Some have become false messiahs, fake gurus and even corrupt egomaniacs. But religious life without them is boring, stifling and ultimately it heads into a dead end out of which only mystical revolutions like those of the Essenes, the Kabbalists or the Chassidim can free it. Then they themselves lose the dynamic, become the establishment and the cycle starts again.

The role of the Priesthood typified establishment. It was hereditary, privileged and protected from reality. Historically, in both Commonwealths, it lost its sense of mission and spiritual leadership. The first Priest was Aaron, a good man, slow to anger and a peacemaker. But when it came to taking the lead, he couldn’t. The worshippers of the Golden Calf manipulated him, and he seems to have given way far too easily. Perhaps he was risk-averse. That other example of leadership, Chur who was left jointly in charge, according to the Midrash tried to stop those who wanted a Golden Calf but was killed. Aaron is the cautious Papal Representative of the Hochhuth play, or the CEO who had responsibility for his company and failed.

A prophet on the other hand was the charismatic mystic, often reluctant, who sometimes lived in caves, on the run from authority, preaching challenging messages and pointing to new directions. Yet sadly, even there we find false prophets and those who used their charisma destructively and politically.
Incidentally, there were women prophets in the bible. When it was a matter of personal charisma and achievement, outstanding women could and in a few cases become prophets.  But there were no women priests.

Either way, the roles of priest and prophet were, clearly outlived their effectiveness. Their models over time gave way to the meritocratic rabbinic system. Yet even that failed to live up to its potential.

Is any biblical leadership role appropriate for us today? Moshe was the unique example of combing the roles of preacher, teacher, and server of the community. He did not fit into any society. He was something of an outsider even amongst Jews, Egyptians and Midianites, drawing on different earlier human models which might have been why he had such broader human vision. He was not an ambitious politician. Rather a spiritual visionary who withdrew into the desert and reluctantly took on a leadership role. He continually begged God to relieve him of the burden and to let someone else take over.

You might argue that one needs both spiritual and temporal leadership. Authority provides continuity, safeguards and comfort. But without creativity and without challenge, all authorities retreat behind bureaucracy, popularity and caution and they end up failing the people away.

How often have such people emerged? Who exists today in our Jewish world who approaches such profound, universal moral authority? In a world where our politicians of all shades are failing us, should we not try to find a different system?

Rabbi Jeremy Rosen lives in New York. He was born in Manchester. His writings are concerned with religion, culture, history and current affairs – anything he finds interesting or relevant. They are designed to entertain and to stimulate. Disagreement is always welcome.