Difference between revisions of "Concerns Regarding the Monarchy/2"
m |
|||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
<li><b>Lack of trust</b> – Radak asserts that the desire for a human warrior displays a lack of trust in Hashem to save the nation.</li> | <li><b>Lack of trust</b> – Radak asserts that the desire for a human warrior displays a lack of trust in Hashem to save the nation.</li> | ||
<li><b>Attribution of success to self</b> – In addition, having a king makes it likely that the people will attribute all their successes to their human leader<fn>See <a href="Shaul's Sin in Gilgal" data-aht="page">Shaul's Sin in Gilgal</a> and <a href="Shaul Loses the Kingship" data-aht="page">Shaul Loses the Kingship</a> that Shaul's downfall might have been this very issue, an attribution of success to himself rather than Hashem.</fn> as opposed to Hashem.<fn>See the <multilink><a href="MinchahBelulahDevarim17-14" data-aht="source">Minchah Belulah</a><a href="MinchahBelulahDevarim17-14" data-aht="source">Devarim 17:14</a><a href="R. Avraham Porto (Minchah Belulah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Porto</a></multilink> on Devarim 17, who asserts that the nation was not permitted to appoint a king until after the Conquest so that they would not attribute it to their human leader instead of Hashem.</fn> This, in turn, will result in their not even turning to Hashem for aid when needed, as they replace Him with their new king.<fn>In fact, in contrast to Sefer Shofetim which is filled with phrases such as "and they cried out to Hashem", after our chapter, such language is absent from the books of Shemuel, Melakhim and Divrei HaYamim.</fn> </li> | <li><b>Attribution of success to self</b> – In addition, having a king makes it likely that the people will attribute all their successes to their human leader<fn>See <a href="Shaul's Sin in Gilgal" data-aht="page">Shaul's Sin in Gilgal</a> and <a href="Shaul Loses the Kingship" data-aht="page">Shaul Loses the Kingship</a> that Shaul's downfall might have been this very issue, an attribution of success to himself rather than Hashem.</fn> as opposed to Hashem.<fn>See the <multilink><a href="MinchahBelulahDevarim17-14" data-aht="source">Minchah Belulah</a><a href="MinchahBelulahDevarim17-14" data-aht="source">Devarim 17:14</a><a href="R. Avraham Porto (Minchah Belulah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Porto</a></multilink> on Devarim 17, who asserts that the nation was not permitted to appoint a king until after the Conquest so that they would not attribute it to their human leader instead of Hashem.</fn> This, in turn, will result in their not even turning to Hashem for aid when needed, as they replace Him with their new king.<fn>In fact, in contrast to Sefer Shofetim which is filled with phrases such as "and they cried out to Hashem", after our chapter, such language is absent from the books of Shemuel, Melakhim and Divrei HaYamim.</fn> </li> | ||
− | <li><b>Misconception as to causes of war</b> – Prof. Elitzur adds that the request betrays the people's lack of understanding that wars and troubles come as a result of sin.<fn>They believed that the cause of their enemies' attacks was natural, the lack of a king, not realizing that the true reason was that they did not listen to Hashem.</fn>  The solution was not to find a king, but rather to repent and return to God.<fn>In fact, appointing a king would exacerbate the problem of sin and punishment.  Beforehand, when troubles came, the people would at least then remember Hashem and turn to Him.  Now that would no longer be the case.</fn></li> | + | <li><b>Misconception as to causes of war</b> – R. D"Z Hoffman<fn>See also Prof. Elitzur who elaborates on the idea.</fn> adds that the request betrays the people's lack of understanding that wars and troubles come as a result of sin.<fn>They believed that the cause of their enemies' attacks was natural, the lack of a king, not realizing that the true reason was that they did not listen to Hashem.</fn>  The solution was not to find a king, but rather to repent and return to God.<fn>In fact, appointing a king would exacerbate the problem of sin and punishment.  Beforehand, when troubles came, the people would at least then remember Hashem and turn to Him.  Now that would no longer be the case.</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>"כְּכָל הַגּוֹיִם"</b> – These sources differ in how they evaluate this choice of language: | <point><b>"כְּכָל הַגּוֹיִם"</b> – These sources differ in how they evaluate this choice of language: |
Version as of 02:22, 30 November 2016
What is Wrong With a King?
Exegetical Approaches
Rejection of Hashem for Human Military Leader
In requesting a human monarch to fight their wars, the people betrayed a lack of faith in and recognition of Hashem as their warrior and savior.
- Lack of trust – Radak asserts that the desire for a human warrior displays a lack of trust in Hashem to save the nation.
- Attribution of success to self – In addition, having a king makes it likely that the people will attribute all their successes to their human leader2 as opposed to Hashem.3 This, in turn, will result in their not even turning to Hashem for aid when needed, as they replace Him with their new king.4
- Misconception as to causes of war – R. D"Z Hoffman5 adds that the request betrays the people's lack of understanding that wars and troubles come as a result of sin.6 The solution was not to find a king, but rather to repent and return to God.7
- Problematic – Radak suggests that the people should not have asked for a king "like all the other nations" since they were not like other nations. As long as they observed Hashem's laws, Hashem would fight for them. Thus unlike others, Israel really did not need a warrior-king.
- Not problematic – Prof. Elitzur, in contrast, sees nothing wrong in this formulation pointing out that it is identical to Hashem's language in Devarim. In fact, the people of Shemuel's time might simply be echoing Hashem's own words.
- It is possible that Shemuel understood the people correctly, (with "שפט" having a military connotation) and, like Hashem, was upset that the nation wanted to replace their old warrior, Hashem, with a new one.
- Alternatively, it is possible that Shemuel misunderstood the people's request, understanding "לְשׇׁפְטֵנוּ" in its judicial sense. He took their request as a personal affront, as he assumed that they found him lacking.
- Prof Elitzur claims that the Torah is not against monarchy per se, only against the hopes the people put into the change of regime.9
- Alternatively, in Devarim (and elsewhere) Hashem is referring to a king whose primary role was not military in nature but judicial or spiritual. Such a monarch would not have been problematic, yet, even so, Hashem enacts laws to curb his power and remind him that he is subservient to Hashem. Otherwise there is a fear that he will become haughty and see himself as a replacement for Hashem, leading him and the nation to depend on the monarch and not God.
Rejection of the Shofet
The people's desire for a king "to judge us" was problematic either because it was a personal affront to Shemuel specifically or because it usurped the institution of judges as a whole.
Insult to Shemuel
Though the institution of monarchy is not in and of itself problematic, asking for a king to serve as a judge when Shemuel was still judging the nation was an insult to his honor.
Usurping the Role of Judges
The nation's request was problematic because they wanted a king to fulfill a judicial rather than a political or military role.
Rejection of Torah Law
Hashem was upset by the people's request since they desired a king who would be like the other nations and not subject to the laws of Torah.
Wrong Timing
Though there is nothing inherently wrong with kingship, in this era of miraculous providence, there was no need for a king.