Parashat Vayikra, which we read yesterday, opens with a fairly dry, technical passage about sin offerings. The chattat, the offering brought for inadvertent wrongdoing, is prescribed for four different types of people: the Kohen Gadol (high priest), the Sanhedrin (supreme judicial assembly), the ordinary individual and the Nasi (the political leader). For the first three, the Torah uses the conjunction im – “if”. “If the anointed priest sins…” “If the congregation of Yisrael errs…”

But when it comes to the nasi, the conjunction becomes not im – “if”, but asher – “when”. “Asher nasi yecheta” – “when a leader sins.”

As Vayikra comes round every year, I am reminded of a beautiful reading of this from Rabbi Sacks. He reads it as a reflection of the Torah’s understanding of the nature of political power: “It is possible that a High Priest, the Supreme Court, or an individual may err. But in the case of a leader, the nasi, it is probable or even certain.”

I was thinking about this over Shabbat when I was reminded of a fictional leadership role model of mine: President Bartlet of Aaron Sorkin’s “The West Wing”. In the episode “Take This Sabbath Day”, Bartlet must decide, over a single weekend, whether to commute the federal death sentence of a prisoner. He seeks counsel from his childhood priest, Father Cavanaugh.

As Cavanaugh arrives at the Oval Office, he asks Bartlet how he should address him.

“To be honest, I prefer Mr. President … You understand why, right? … It’s not ego … There are certain decisions I have to make while I’m in this room. Do I send troops into harm’s way? Which fatal disease gets the most research money? … It’s helpful in those situations not to think of yourself as the man but as the office.”

Rabbi Sacks’s reading here validates Bartlet’s understandable, deeply human instinct. It’s an understanding that, even with the guidance of the Torah, a leader must sometimes be pragmatic, making difficult decisions that aren’t necessarily black and white.

But the Torah refuses to let a leader distance himself from those decisions. While the asher – “when” – shows that level of realism, the korban still holds the leader accountable, not as the office but as the individual. He (not a shaliach – a proxy) must still lay his hands on the head of the offering, an act of semicha that the Ramban explains should make him understand that it is really he who should be on the altar. The process of the korban does not allow a leader to compartmentalise as Bartlet does.

After Shabbat, I rewatched the episode and, funnily enough (strange as it may be to learn it from a fictional Catholic priest) it seems Sorkin (who happens to be Jewish) understood this lesson too.

As they are talking, Bartlet’s Press Secretary walks in and hands him a note. We see from Bartlet’s reaction that the execution has gone ahead. Cavanaugh turns to the President:

“Jed. Would you like me to hear your confession?”

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)