Leadership in the Talmud

Adaptability has been an essential ingredient for surviving and thriving for every species of life, from life's beginning on earth.

This has surely been true for human systems trying to meet difficult challenges and flourish in the face of uncertainty and change, for whatever forms that system takes: global networks, a nation, a tribe, a town, a company, a family, or a person.

So if your community, at whatever scale you define it, needs to focus on enhancing one skill set, one capacity, one competency to help ensure going forward successfully, choose adaptability.

Preface to Leadership on the Line, Heifetz & Linsky

אמר רבי יוחנן פליגו בה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבנן חד אמר סיני עדיף וחד אמר עוקר הרים עדיף

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis disagreed with regard to this matter. One said: Sinai, i.e., one who is extremely knowledgeable, is preferable; and one said: One who oker harim (uproots mountains), i.e., one who is extremely incisive, is preferable.

Guiding Questions

  1. Sketch out fuller pictures of those who are "Sinais" and those who are "mountain uproots." What are the characteristics of these types of people?
  2. Can you think of modern examples of someone like Rav Yosef who is a Sinai?
    Can you think of someone like Rabba who is a Oker Harim (mountain uprooter)?
רב יוסף סיני רבה עוקר הרים שלחו לתמן איזה מהם קודם שלחו להו סיני עדיף דאמר מר הכל צריכין למרי חטיא ואפילו הכי לא קביל רב יוסף עליה מלך רבה עשרין ותרתי שנין והדר מלך רב יוסף וכל שני דמלך רבה רב יוסף אפילו אומנא לביתיה לא חליף

The Gemara relates that this is not merely a theoretical dispute; rather, at one point it had practical ramifications. Rav Yosef was Sinai; Rabba was one who oker harim (uproots mountains) They sent a message from Babylonia to there, Eretz Yisrael: Which takes precedence? They sent in response: Sinai is preferable, as the Master said: Everyone requires the owner of the wheat, i.e., one who is expert in the sources. And even so, Rav Yosef did not accept upon himself the appointment of head of the yeshiva. Rabba reigned for twenty-two years, and then Rav Yosef reigned. The Gemara relates that in all those years that Rabba presided, Rav Yosef did not even call a bloodletter to his home. Rav Yosef did not assume even the slightest air of authority, in deference to Rabba, and would go to seek out the bloodletter rather than expecting that the bloodletter would accommodate him.

Guiding Questions

  1. Do you agree that Sinai is preferable?
  2. What do we learn from Rav Yosef in regards to leadership and adaptability in this vignette?
אביי ורבא ורבי זירא ורבה בר מתנה הוו יתבי והוו צריכי רישא אמרי כל דאמר מלתא ולא מפריך להוי רישא דכולהו איפריך דאביי לא איפריך חזייה רבה לאביי דגבה רישא א"ל נחמני פתח ואימא איבעיא להו רבי זירא ורבה בר רב מתנה הי מנייהו עדיף רבי זירא חריף ומקשה ורבה בר רב מתנה מתון ומסיק מאי תיקו:
The Gemara relates: Abaye, Rava, Rabbi Zeira, and Rabba bar Mattana were sitting and studying in a group and were in need of a head for their group. They said: Let anyone who will say a matter that is not refuted be the head. Everyone’s statements were refuted, and the statement of Abaye was not refuted. Rabba saw that Abaye raised his head, i.e., he noticed that his statement was not refuted. Rabba said to him: Naḥmani, calling Abaye by his name rather than by his nickname, begin and say your lecture. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Between Rabbi Zeira and Rabba bar Rav Mattana, which of them is preferable? Rabbi Zeira is incisive and raises pertinent difficulties, and Rabba bar Rav Mattana is moderate and not so incisive, but ultimately he draws the appropriate conclusions. What is the conclusion? Which is preferable? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

Guiding Questions

  1. Do you agree with this standard for leadership?
  2. What can we learn from the Talmud leaving this conversation unresolved?

You appear dangerous to people when you question their values, beliefs, or habits of a lifetime. You place yourself on the line when you tell people what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear. Although you may see with clarity and passion a promising future of progress and gain, people will see with equal passion the losses you are asking them to sustain.

Leadership on the Line, Heifetz & Linsky, p. 12