Difference between revisions of "Concerns Regarding the Monarchy/2"
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
<point><b>What is wrong with desiring a military leader?</b><ul> | <point><b>What is wrong with desiring a military leader?</b><ul> | ||
<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> – Or HaChayyim adds that 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's Sin in the Battle with Amalek" data-aht="page">Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek</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> – Or HaChayyim adds that 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's Sin in the Battle with Amalek" data-aht="page">Shaul's Sin in the Battle with Amalek</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> (and R. D"Z Hoffmann, similarly) 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> – 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> | <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: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Problematic</b> – 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.  Or HaChayyim similarly finds the phrase problematic, suggesting that it is this phrase which points to the desire for a military leader, since that is the role played by other monarchs.<fn>He explains that in | + | <li><b>Problematic</b> – 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.  Or HaChayyim similarly finds the phrase problematic, suggesting that it is this phrase which points to the desire for a military leader, since that is the role played by other monarchs.<fn>He explains that though in Devarim Hashem uses the same language, He is doing so only in order to say that that is not what is wanted.  Hashem tells the people that if they desire a king like all the nations they should <b>not</b> appoint such a king but rather a king "whom Hashem shall choose".</fn></li> |
− | <li><b>Not problematic</b> – Prof. Elitzur, in contrast, | + | <li><b>Not problematic</b> – R. D"Z Hoffmann and Prof. Elitzur, in contrast, see 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.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>"וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר בְּעֵינֵי שְׁמוּאֵל כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמְרוּ תְּנָה לָּנוּ מֶלֶךְ לְשׇׁפְטֵנוּ"</b> – | + | <point><b>"וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר בְּעֵינֵי שְׁמוּאֵל כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמְרוּ תְּנָה לָּנוּ מֶלֶךְ לְשׇׁפְטֵנוּ"</b> – Shemuel apparently 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.</point> |
− | + | <point><b>Hashem's response: "כִּי אֹתִי מָאֲסוּ"</b> – Hashem here corrects Shemuel's misconception and explains that the people's desire for a king is really a rejection of Hashem, not Shemuel.</point> | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | <point><b>Hashem's response: "כִּי אֹתִי מָאֲסוּ"</b> – | ||
<point><b>Comparison to idolatry</b> – Since the monarchy means that the people depend on their king rather than Hashem, it is similar to idolatry.<fn>See Rashbam on Shemot 16:4 who similarly points out that dependence on Hashem instills belief in Him.</fn>  It, too, will eventually lead the people to forsake Hashem.</point> | <point><b>Comparison to idolatry</b> – Since the monarchy means that the people depend on their king rather than Hashem, it is similar to idolatry.<fn>See Rashbam on Shemot 16:4 who similarly points out that dependence on Hashem instills belief in Him.</fn>  It, too, will eventually lead the people to forsake Hashem.</point> | ||
<point><b>"כֵּן הֵמָּה עֹשִׂים גַּם לָךְ"</b> – According to Radak, in these words Hashem tells Shemuel that the people actually did rebel against the prophet as well, but in his military rather than judicial role.  Until now the prophet had led them in battle by bringing them back to Hashem.  In fact, he was so successful that they were hardly threatened by war anymore. Thus, in asking for a king, the people were rejecting both Hashem and Shemuel.</point> | <point><b>"כֵּן הֵמָּה עֹשִׂים גַּם לָךְ"</b> – According to Radak, in these words Hashem tells Shemuel that the people actually did rebel against the prophet as well, but in his military rather than judicial role.  Until now the prophet had led them in battle by bringing them back to Hashem.  In fact, he was so successful that they were hardly threatened by war anymore. Thus, in asking for a king, the people were rejecting both Hashem and Shemuel.</point> | ||
<point><b>Positive mentions of monarchy</b><ul> | <point><b>Positive mentions of monarchy</b><ul> | ||
<li>Prof Elitzur claims that the Torah is not against monarchy per se, only against the hopes the people put into the change of regime.<fn>It was their assumptions that changing their ruler, rather than changing their ways,  would make them victorious in battle and usher in peace, that was problematic.</fn></li> | <li>Prof Elitzur claims that the Torah is not against monarchy per se, only against the hopes the people put into the change of regime.<fn>It was their assumptions that changing their ruler, rather than changing their ways,  would make them victorious in battle and usher in peace, that was problematic.</fn></li> | ||
− | <li>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.  | + | <li>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.  </li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Shemuel's speech when anointing Shaul</b> – When Shemuel appoints Shaul as king, he reminds the people that it is Hashem, not their new king, who is their true savior:  "וְאַתֶּם הַיּוֹם מְאַסְתֶּם אֶת אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר <b>הוּא מוֹשִׁיעַ</b> לָכֶם מִכׇּל רָעוֹתֵיכֶם וְצָרֹתֵיכֶם וַתֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ כִּי מֶלֶךְ תָּשִׂים עָלֵינוּ" (<a href="ShemuelI10-18-20" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 10:18-20</a>). This further supports this position's understanding of the people's flawed request.</point> | <point><b>Shemuel's speech when anointing Shaul</b> – When Shemuel appoints Shaul as king, he reminds the people that it is Hashem, not their new king, who is their true savior:  "וְאַתֶּם הַיּוֹם מְאַסְתֶּם אֶת אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר <b>הוּא מוֹשִׁיעַ</b> לָכֶם מִכׇּל רָעוֹתֵיכֶם וְצָרֹתֵיכֶם וַתֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ כִּי מֶלֶךְ תָּשִׂים עָלֵינוּ" (<a href="ShemuelI10-18-20" data-aht="source">Shemuel I 10:18-20</a>). This further supports this position's understanding of the people's flawed request.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Shemuel's speech in Chapter 12</b> – | + | <point><b>Shemuel's speech in Chapter 12</b> – R. D" Z Hoffmann points out that throughout his speech, Shemuel brings examples of how, in the past, when the Israelites found themselves in danger, they would cry out to Hashem, recognizing that they had sinned. This, he implicitly rebukes the people, is what they were supposed to do. Similarly, Shemuel might intentionally bring a sign from non-seasonal rain since, in Torah, rain and the lack thereof is a barometer of the people's observance of Hashem's commandments (the true reason for military success) and a reminder of our dependence upon Him.</point> |
<point><b>Parallel to Gidon</b> – After Gidon's victory over Midyan, the people make the same mistake they do here, requesting that Gidon lead them as king because "you saved us from Midyan".  Gidon refuses, teaching the nation: "לֹא אֶמְשֹׁל אֲנִי בָּכֶם וְלֹא יִמְשֹׁל בְּנִי בָּכֶם י"י יִמְשֹׁל בָּכֶם" (<a href="Shofetim8-22-23" data-aht="source">Shofetim 8:22-23</a>).</point> | <point><b>Parallel to Gidon</b> – After Gidon's victory over Midyan, the people make the same mistake they do here, requesting that Gidon lead them as king because "you saved us from Midyan".  Gidon refuses, teaching the nation: "לֹא אֶמְשֹׁל אֲנִי בָּכֶם וְלֹא יִמְשֹׁל בְּנִי בָּכֶם י"י יִמְשֹׁל בָּכֶם" (<a href="Shofetim8-22-23" data-aht="source">Shofetim 8:22-23</a>).</point> | ||
<point><b>Granting a king</b> – If Hashem thought that having a military-monarch was dangerous for the people spiritually, it is not clear why He agreed to the request.</point> | <point><b>Granting a king</b> – If Hashem thought that having a military-monarch was dangerous for the people spiritually, it is not clear why He agreed to the request.</point> | ||
Line 98: | Line 94: | ||
<point><b>Supernatural signs</b> – In Chapter 12, Shemuel rebukes the people again for desiring a king, and accompanies his words with a supernatural sign.  This served to remind the people that they had chosen to forsake miraculous leadership for natural government.<fn>See the Ran above who has a similar take on both the sign and the problems with a king.</fn></point> | <point><b>Supernatural signs</b> – In Chapter 12, Shemuel rebukes the people again for desiring a king, and accompanies his words with a supernatural sign.  This served to remind the people that they had chosen to forsake miraculous leadership for natural government.<fn>See the Ran above who has a similar take on both the sign and the problems with a king.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Granting the request</b> – Since a king in itself is not negative, Hashem granted the request.</point> | <point><b>Granting the request</b> – Since a king in itself is not negative, Hashem granted the request.</point> | ||
+ | </category> | ||
+ | <category>Dynastic Leader | ||
+ | <p>Hashem and Shemuel were opposed to the concept of a dynastic leader who would bequeath the position to his sons after him.</p> | ||
+ | <mekorot> | ||
+ | <multilink><a href="SefornoDevarim17-14" data-aht="source">Seforno</a><a href="SefornoDevarim17-14" data-aht="source">Devarim 17:14</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Seforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Seforno</a></multilink> | ||
+ | </mekorot> | ||
+ | <point><b>"שִׂימָה לָּנוּ מֶלֶךְ לְשׇׁפְטֵנוּ כְּכׇל הַגּוֹיִם"</b> – Seforno understands the request "כְּכׇל הַגּוֹיִם" to mean a dynastic leader, the mode of government found among the other nations.  In Israel, in contrast, leadership had taken the form of Shofetim, who ruled on thier own with no expectation that they would pass the mantle to thei children after them</point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
</approaches> | </approaches> | ||
</page> | </page> | ||
</aht-xml> | </aht-xml> |
Version as of 07:02, 6 December 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 – Or HaChayyim adds that having a king makes it likely that the people will attribute all their successes to their human leader3 as opposed to Hashem.4 This, in turn, will result in their not even turning to Hashem for aid when needed, as they replace Him with their new king.5
- Misconception as to causes of war – R. D"Z Hoffman6 adds that the request betrays the people's lack of understanding that wars and troubles come as a result of sin.7 The solution was not to find a king, but rather to repent and return to God.8
- 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. Or HaChayyim similarly finds the phrase problematic, suggesting that it is this phrase which points to the desire for a military leader, since that is the role played by other monarchs.9
- Not problematic – R. D"Z Hoffmann and Prof. Elitzur, in contrast, see 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.
- Prof Elitzur claims that the Torah is not against monarchy per se, only against the hopes the people put into the change of regime.11
- 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.
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.
Dynastic Leader
Hashem and Shemuel were opposed to the concept of a dynastic leader who would bequeath the position to his sons after him.