Judaism extols the communal ideal. Prayer, in its preferred form, requires communal involvement; those learning alone to do not achieve optimal Torah growth. Where does the individual fit into this structure? After all, Judaism values individual as well as communal achievement. A person is ultimately judged according to his or her own potential, not based on how well his or her neighbor performs. What is the proper dynamic between the community and the individual?
The benefits of the community are innumerable. For example, choosing neighbors wisely helps engender positive traits in one’s self. Conversely, choosing bad neighbors accentuates one’s bad traits. As the Midrash states, primarily the tribe of Rueven heeded the insidious advice of Korach, because Reuven was a neighbor of Korach, (Tanchuma, Parshat Korach, siman 8). Also, tragedies are easier to bear when buttressed by communal empathies. Happiness is even greater when surrounded by others. As Mark Twain once said, “Grief can take care of itself, but to get the full value of a joy you must have somebody to divide it with.”
How, then, does the individual fit into this grand communal scheme? Two classes of individuals must first be presented— conformists and trailblazers. Noah was a conformist. Genesis 6:23 states, “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.” Noah showcased his righteousness by conforming closely to G-d’s edicts. He relied on G-d as his guide.
In contrast, Abraham was the quintessential trailblazer. When G-d informed Abraham of His intent to wipe out Sodom, Abraham argued on behalf of those doomed citizens. He challenged G-d. Abraham also defied the pagan culture of his day. He smashed his father’s idols, and as a young lad, presented the unique theory that the sun and other stars were controlled not by independent deities but by one Universal creator.
Rashi, famously contrasts the two in Genesis 6:9: “Noah needed a buttress to support him, but Abraham was strong and walked in his righteousness without any support at all.” Rashi does not here mean to say that the Torah exclusively favors the righteous trailblazer over the conformist. After all, many great Biblical characters, such as Isaac, have been conformists. Rather, Rashi presents us with the response of two individuals to a similar situation.
Both Abraham and Noah faced an antagonistic world that did not appreciate G-d. However, whereas Noah relied on outside support to fight the battle, Abraham turned to an indefatigable inner resolve to combat the ungodliness of the world. This scenario, Rashi points out, ideally requires trailblazers, not meek puppets. Only a trailblazer with an internal moral compass can successfully navigate all the inevitable pitfalls; only the strong individual will be able to convincingly convey his tenets to his or her neighbors.
The question, however, remains: why didn’t Abraham stop there? As Maimonides writes, “And Abraham began to stand and call in a loud voice to all the world that there is only one G-d, and to Him it is fit to serve, and he would proclaim the nation from city to city and from kingship to kingship until he reached Canaan,” (Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 1:3). Once Abraham individualistically ascertained the supremeness of G-d, why did he continue to spread his message to the masses?
Abraham realized that individual aspirations without a community with which to share those dreams are necessarily empty. Abraham first needed to establish the proper morals and tenets of the day, and afterwards, to teach those lessons to as many people as humanly possible. His goal was not modest, as Maimonides relates, “Since people flocked to Abraham, he answered their questions one by one, informing each person according to his / her level, until he returned them to the path of truth, until he had gathered unto him thousands and tens of thousands,” (Ibid).
Jews nowadays must realize the vitality of both elements of Abraham’s experience. We must fight immorality and trends antithetical to Torah values whenever possible. But we cannot let our protest take the form of personal vendettas. Rather, we must realize our shared values, are overlapping heritage, and then band together as a community. Only then, the proper communal framework and moral compass thus ensured, will we succeed.
