Modes of Leadership: Actions, Perceptions, and Calculations

Styles of leadership are varied and subtle, offering different paradigms for our consideration. Careful readings of familiar biblical texts offer insights about leadership choice and invite us to consider the intentions of key players.

Genesis 37 provides a rich opportunity for reflecting on these issues. Jacob favors his son Joseph and gives him a special garment, setting Joseph apart from his brothers. To exacerbate matters, Joseph shares his dreams of grandeur that indicate that his brothers, and father and mother, will bow down to him one day. Soon thereafter, Jacob sends Joseph to check on the well-being of his brothers. When the brothers see Joseph approaching from a distance, they conspire to kill him, saying: “Let us slay him, and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: An evil beast has devoured him; and [then] we shall see what will become of his dreams” (Gen. 37:20).

Then, in a mode of leadership that could be interpreted from many different angles, brother Reuven attempts to save Joseph:

Genesis 21: “And Reuven heard it, and [tried] to deliver him out of their hand; and he said: ‘We shall not take his life.’”

Genesis 22: “And Reuven said to them: ‘Don’t you shed blood; throw him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but lay no hand upon him’—that he might deliver him out of their hand, to restore him to his father.”

Notice: Reuven is speaking in both verses 21 and 22 with no intervening response on the part of his brothers. Nevertheless, the Torah repeats the introductory statement vayomer (he said) as he continues speaking.^[1] Let us explore in more depth.

Identifying The Textual Problem(s)

We have just noticed a common literary phenomenon in the Torah I call the vayomer/vayomer phenomenon^[2] where a character continues speaking while an additional and seemingly superfluous vayomer is inserted.^[3] Noticing the phenomenon is the first step. Understanding why it occurs is the next and more challenging issue. Both traditional Jewish commentators and contemporary translators/commentators are aware of this phenomenon, but do not agree about its function.^[4] We must also pay attention to the following ancillary textual questions that play an important role in the commentators’ various interpretations. Their attention to and interpretation of these textual details and anomalies form the bases of their interpretations:

1. In verse 21, attention to grammar piques our interest: Reuven speaks using the first person plural “we,” in “We shall not take his life,” while using the second person plural “you” in “Don’t you shed blood” in verse 22.
2. The first occurrence of vayomer (verse 22) stands alone with no object, simply “He said.” The second occurrence is followed by the indirect object: “Reuven said to them.”^[5]

Based on these examples, what leadership models are we learning from Reuven and what are the greatest takeaways in understanding leadership in Jewish education?

Models of Leadership: Solutions To The Textual Problem(s) Through The Eyes Of Commentators

1. Netziv’s Reuven

Ha’amek Davar (Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, The Netziv, 1817–1893, Volozhin, Belarus) proposes the following scenario^[6] based on his attention to the textual details:

The verse [21] does not state “he said to them” as it does in the following verse—because at first Reuven spoke in a very loud voice, speaking to himself [as if to say], “There is absolutely no way we are going to take his life.”

And once the brothers realized they could not oppose Reuven’s feelings and opinion, he continued to speak to them softly [this time], and explained to them why he reacted so strongly.

For the Netziv, the vayomer/vayomer phenomenon indicates that a silent pause occurred between the two statements of Reuven. After Reuven’s forcefully spoken opposition (“We shall not take his life”) to the idea of killing Joseph, he waited for his words to take effect. “And once the brothers realized” they could not oppose Reuven, he calmly explained the rationale for his feelings.

2. Malbim’s Reuven

The Malbim (Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Weiser, 1809–1879, Russia) explicitly articulates our question^[7]: “The text states ‘he said / he said to them’; why two times?” Like the Netziv, Malbim interprets the silence of the text, yet his understanding of the silence is different from the Netziv’s. For him it’s the brothers’ lack of response to Reuven’s repeated attempts to convince them not to harm Joseph:

At first Reuven wanted to save Joseph completely, in a manner that the brothers would not even touch Joseph. That’s what    (he saved him) means—that he tried to save him completely.

But when the brothers did not listen, he said, “Let us not take his life”—at the very least don’t kill him; some other punishment would be sufficient.

But when they did not listen to this either, he said to them, ”At the very least ‘Don’t spill blood’ because you can kill him indirectly by throwing him into this pit where he’ll die of hunger.” . . . The Torah, however, lets us know that Reuven’s true intent was to “save him from their hands.”

Although both the Netziv and the Malbim interpret the silent space between the two occurrences of “he said,” the nature of that space is very different. For the Netziv, the silence represents Reuven calmly waiting for his strongly worded warning to take effect. For the Malbim it represents the brothers ignoring Reuven’s attempts to convince them to allow Joseph to remain unharmed.

Implications Of These Perspectives 

Proactive or Reactive Leadership

Based on these interpretations, different models of leadership emerge. The Netziv’s Reuven is portrayed as a strong leader that doesn’t tolerate dissent while insisting that the brothers not kill Joseph. The Malbim’s Reuven, on the other hand, is portrayed as weak, diminishing his demand each time the brothers do not respond. The Netziv’s Reuven is proactive; the Malbim’s Reuven is reactive. But that’s only at first glance.

Compromising/Negotiating

Upon a more deliberate examination, the Malbim’s Reuven appears to be the consummate diplomat, not despairing or resigning himself to failure, but rather persevering by continuing to negotiate. He also proposes a compromise solution: yes, throw Joseph in the pit, but don’t lay a hand upon him yourselves.

What is especially illuminating is how we may perceive the intentions of those in leadership positions. It is important for us to go beyond our initial responses. Note that the Torah portrays a situation, yet the commentators’ perceptions of Reuven’s motivations and intentions vary. Not only was Malbim’s understanding of Reuven’s motivations different from the Netziv’s, we offered two possible interpretations of Malbim’s explanation of Reuven’s intentions.

So, too, in real life situations we may perceive a leader’s intentions differently from our colleagues.

3. Alshikh’s Reuven

Finally, let’s examine one more model of leadership based on the comment of the Alshikh (Moshe Alshikh, Torat Moshe, 1508–1593, Turkey, Safed), who presents a Reuven who does not respond impulsively in the moment. Alshikh’s Reuven rather carefully reviews the situation and considers his options before speaking to his brothers. Like the Netziv, he bases his interpretation on the movement from first person plural in verse 21 (“We should not kill him”) to second person plural in verse 22 (“Don’t you spill blood”), and the indirect object “to them,” which occurs in verse 22 after “he said” but not after “he said” in verse 21.

Now what did [Reuven] do so they would listen to his words? He pretended that he was one of them wishing to do him [Joseph] harm . . . That’s why he said ”We shall not deal him a deadly blow,” as if to say I am with you, just that it wouldn’t be appropriate that we go so far as to kill him. But he didn’t really mean it, but rather [said it] so they wouldn’t think that he was doing it because of his love of Joseph.

Once they began to be appeased, he then revealed his [true] opinion and said: ”Don’t you spill blood—meaning I never intended to spill blood, just you alone, and to you I am saying “Don’t do what you’re intending.” He, therefore, did not say, “We shall not spill blood.” And furthermore, my suggestion to throw him into the pit, [does] not [mean] that I am joining you, heaven forbid, but rather that you do it yourselves. And that’s why he said, “[You] throw him in the pit.”

And therefore, this verse, once again, states “Reuven said” even though Reuven is still speaking. And that’s also the reason for the superfluous “to them.” All because his [Reuven’s] first words were not his true intentions; while his true words [which were uttered] with all his heart were “don’t [you] spill blood,” which was [directed] “to them.”

Implications Of This Perspective

As Reuven becomes attuned to the realities of the situation, the concept of mindful leadership is introduced.^[8]

According to the Alshikh, Reuven offers a model of leadership that is mindful of the emotional/psychological aspects of the situation at hand. While the brothers are caught up in the moments of anger and rage and impulsively planning to kill Joseph, Reuven is cognizant of the mob mentality at play. He is aware that in those moments of intense anger, he might not be able to convince the brothers to cease with their plan to kill Joseph, and might even fan the flames of anger, exacerbating the situation. The brothers might even turn on Reuven.

The Alshikh asks, “What does Reuven do so that the brothers might listen to him?” He pretends to be one of them by speaking in the first person plural saying, “We shouldn’t go so far as to kill him.” In other words, Reuven implies, “I’m with you. Just let’s not go so far as to kill him.” But once some time has elapsed and the brothers begin to calm down, Reuven tells the brothers how he really feels: “Don’t you spill blood. Don’t, for a moment think that I am joining you. Don’t you spill blood . . . throw him into this pit.” Reuven’s intent, of course, as the verse concludes was to have the brothers throw Joseph in the pit so he could return later and save Joseph.

The Alshikh’s Reuven displays a model of leadership that is deliberate and meets others where they are at the moment rather than reacting hastily. It carefully takes into consideration the emotional state of others in order to achieve a positive outcome for the benefit of all parties involved, if possible.

Conclusion 

The analysis of the vayomer/vayomer phenomenon led to an examination of three (or more) modes of leadership and an opportunity to consider for ourselves not only what our preferred styles of leadership in situations may be, but also where one of the styles might be more appropriate than the others. We were also asked to consider how a particular action may be calculated and perceived based on our motivations and that of others. The lessons from Reuven, and the interpretations from the Netziv, Malbim, and Alshikh, are important references for us as we confront dilemmas in our daily work and are called upon to exercise mindful, reflective leadership.

Dr. Walter Herzberg is assistant professor of Bible and Professional and Pastoral Skills at JTS. He guides students in the classroom and online in the reading of the Bible using a methodological approach and integrating modern, literary, close-reading techniques with the study of traditional Jewish commentary.

Learn more about The Davidson School

[1] The NJPS translation actually addresses the problem by translating the second vayomer, not as “Reuven said,” but rather, “Reuven went on.”

[2] The term “iterated quotation formula” is used at times in academic literature.

[3]  Other examples of the phenomenon: Gen. 15:1–5; Gen. 16: 9–11; Exod. 1:15–16; Num. 32:1–5.

[4]  Among them, Ibn Ezra (12th century), Radak (12th/13th centuries), Abarbanel (15th/16th centuries), Alshikh (16th century), Or Hahayyim (18th century), Malbim (19th century), U. Cassuto (20th century), Nechama Leibowitz (20th century), Robert Alter (contemporary).

[5] In other words the verses are not parallel: verse 22 states that Reuven spoke “to them,” while verse 21 simply states that “he spoke,” omitting “to them.” Note also that verse 21 mentions that “he spoke,” while verse 21 states “Reuven spoke.”

[6] He often provides interpretations by filling in details that, in a sense, serve as stage directions. See his comment on Exod. 32:19, second entry.

[7] Malbim prefaces his comments with a list of questions, thereby following in the footsteps of Abarbanel whom the Malbim considered among the greatest of the commentators.

[8] As the Rabbis state in the Ethics of the Fathers: do not appease your friend at the height of his anger (Avot 4:18).