Q&A: Disagreeing with the Wisest of All Men
Disagreeing with the Wisest of All Men
Question
Abarbanel, on I Samuel 8:6, praises democracy despite Solomon’s words:
“And furthermore, Solomon praised the institution of kingship, and he was speaking with himself in mind. But how can we accept things that are plainly contradicted by reality? There is no doubt that when the king is perfectly righteous, his rule over the multitude will be better than that of righteous and upright men acting by joint agreement; for that reason the Great Court was composed of seventy elders of Israel. But if the king is wicked and a man of misdeeds, the evil will be less when the leaders are many and temporary, for if one perverts justice another will understand it, and if one turns toward greed another will protest against him—especially since they are destined to be called to account quickly.”
My question is: how can Abarbanel disagree on the basis of reason alone [which is not all that unambiguous] with Solomon, and moreover add, “he was speaking with himself in mind,” as if he were biased? And he also seems to show that “the wisest of all men” does not include matters that we examine carefully, in which case we are wiser than he is. What is the Rabbi’s view on this?
Answer
“He was speaking with himself in mind” does not mean he was biased. The intent is that he was speaking about kings like himself (righteous ones). And Abarbanel explicitly writes that righteous kings are excellent. The problem is that there is no guarantee that the king will be righteous, and therefore democracy is the lesser evil.
This is an excellent example of the fact that one should not deny what is evident, even if Scripture seemingly says the opposite. Abarbanel himself went through several experiences that led him to understand the problems inherent in monarchy. Incidentally, as is well known, the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) itself contains a dissonance regarding kingship.