by Rabbi Yisrael Rutman

In Roman times, it was customary for candidates for public office to don a spotless white toga as a sign of their good character. The Latin word for “dressed in a white toga” was candidatus. By the seventeenth century, the word candidate began appearing in English to describe political aspirants regardless of the color of their togas.

In contemporary politics, it’s a clean past, not a clean suit, that the electorate demands; and it sometimes counts more than legislative experience, innovative ideas or charisma. Thus, the merciless probe of the media and the brutality of the attack ad have become staples of the electoral process.

The Torah guideline on what qualifies a person for leadership is therefore more than a bit startling: “We do not appoint a communal leader unless a basket of swarming creatures is suspended from behind him!” declares the Talmud (Yoma 22b). They apparently went to a different school of media consultancy.

Of course, the Sages did not mean by this that bad character is a pre-requisite for leadership. Maimonides rules that it is forbidden to appoint anyone to a leadership position who is not known to be a God-fearing person. Since vote rigging, influence peddling, bribery, obstruction of justice, perjury, suborning perjury, sexual predation, lying through your teeth, and chicanery in general are not the sort of behavior that we might suppose to find favor in God’s eyes, and in fact might incur His wrath, the God-fearing will presumably avoid them. (Does sort of narrow the field, though, doesn’t it?)

So what is the bucket of hideous creatures all about? The Talmud explains the need for some kind of skeleton in the closet: “So that if he should become arrogant, they will say to him, ‘Look behind you!’ ” This usually refers not to his own past but to family background. King David, for example, had questions about his lineage. Moses’ father Amram married his aunt, which was permissible at the time, but was subsequently prohibited by the Torah. These patriarchs were men of impeccable character; the imperfection was genealogical.

It is not necessarily limited to family background, though. Someone who finds himself in a position of honor is susceptible to overestimating himself. The high places are swarming with the creatures of sycophancy. He forgets that it is the office he occupies, the power he presently wields, which they are honoring, and not him necessarily. He begins to think that the red carpet was made specifically for him, has his name woven into it, and he really is worthy of all the kowtowing. Even if the FBI couldn’t find a trace of dirt on him or his family, still, those feelings of conceit, of haughtiness, of deserving to be at the top, themselves constitute the vessel of ignominy of which the Talmud speaks.

The Torah tells of the revolt led by Korach against Moses and Aharon. Korach was a distinguished person, and was convinced that he should have been appointed High Priest. It was nepotism and grasping for power, not merit, he reasoned, which explained Moses’ appointment of Aharon to the position of High Priest. Korach rallied 250 other leaders to his side in protest.

When they refused Moses’ plea to desist, he proposed a test: Korach and his entire entourage were to make offerings of ketoret, the Temple incense offering, and God would decide whether Aharon’s offering or one of theirs would be accepted. But only the offering of the one truly fit to be High Priest would be accepted; the rest would perish. They took up the life-or-death challenge. Unfortunately for them, it was Aharon who received the Divine affirmation.

Rashi asks: What prompted Korach to such a foolish undertaking? He explains that Korach foresaw (through ruach hakodesh, the Divine spirit) that a dynasty was to issue from him, culminating in the great prophetic leader Samuel. So he was convinced that he was destined for great things, and that he would be chosen High Priest.

But Korach erred in his analysis. He envisioned—and correctly—that he stood at the head of a pure line of holiness. But he failed to take into consideration the bucket of swarming creatures. How could his descendants qualify for leadership without some stain in their past? The answer: Korach himself was the bucket of swarming creatures!

Korach was no ordinary hothead. He was a respected figure, endowed with powerful vision. But overweening ambition distorted his perspective. He saw everything correctly. Everything, that is, but himself. As the saying goes, “Every man’s toga is white in his own eyes.”

Sources: Merriam-Webster’s Word Histories; Chumash with Rashi; Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler, Michtav MiEliyahu, Bechira; Rabbi Baruch Nevensal, Gan Ravah, Mayna shel Torah.

Related posts:

1. As Others See Us
2. On The Importance of Attending Synagogue Regularly
3. The Great Thing About Gratitude
4. Children, or Clean Pants
5. Dress for Success, & Don’t Forget to Shine Those Shoes