Комментарий о цитате к Мишлей 28:2

First Introduction: Behold, it is fitting that we know if a king is a necessary and intrinsically obligatory thing for a nation or whether it is possible without him. And the philosophers already thought that it was [necessary] and that the dominion of a king to a politically organized nation is like the relationship of the heart to the body of a living being that has a heart, and like the relationship of the First Cause to the world more generally. And even though these analysts reason that monarchy insures three things – the first being unity and the absence of [division], the second being continuity and the lack of [instability], and the third being absolute power – [in fact], their thinking about the obligation and necessity of a king is actually false. [This] since it is not to be denied that there can be many leaders of the people that gather and unite and agree upon one policy and that the leadership and law be according to them – and this goes against the first [claim]. And why should their leadership not be [for] one year or three years like the years of an employee or less? And when the turn of other 'judges and officers' arrives, they will rise instead of them and faithfully investigate the sin of the first ones, and that which they condemn must pay all that they have done badly – and this goes against the second [claim]. And why should their power also not be limited, as with religions and mores [– and this goes against the third claim]. And logic dictates that when an individual [disagrees] with a group, the law follows the group. And it is more likely that the lapse be with one man – as it stated (Proverbs 16:14), “The king’s wrath is a messenger of death” - than it be that the many would trespass when they take counsel together. As if one strays from the path, the others will protest against him. And since their leadership is temporary and they will have to be accountable after a 'few days,' that fear of flesh and blood is upon them. And why do we need to bring theoretical claims for this, as behold, experience trumps modeling: Look and see the lands the leadership of which is with kings, and [by contrast,] today we have seen many lands the leadership of which is is with temporary judges and leaders that are chosen among them and the King God is with them. Their law is refined by ordered limits, and [their leaders] are the ones that control the people that make the matters of war; none can stand in front of them – not from a tribe, and not from his land. Did you not know, did you not hear that a great land governed over the whole world, consumed the whole earth – search it and note it – while its leadership was through the Councils, that were wholesome and many and their leadership was temporary. However, afterward they were made a tributary. And also today, the Commonwealth of Venice, that great mistress among the nations, the rulers over states; and the Country of Florence, the beauty of all the lands; and other countries small and large are run by the mouth of leaders elected for set periods of time. And behold, the elected governments have 'in them nothing perverse or crooked' – no one raises his hand or foot to [do] a wrongful thing – and they conquer lands that are not theirs with wisdom, understanding and knowledge. And all of this shows that the presence of a king is not necessary for a nation, and like the teacher of the Guide (Maimonides) mentioned. And it is a wonder about this supposed opinion, that compares the unity of a [human] king over the control and will of people to the unity of the ancient necessary First Cause, may He be blessed. However, [even] in an animal body, the sages have already written that there are three main organs in its governance. And even according to the opinion of the head of the philosophers that only the heart is the main [one], behold, this is concerning the generation of the spirit, but it does not contradict that the government of the living faculties is from the brain, and the natural ones is from the liver. In the final analysis, it is impossible for natural matters not to be like this; as from the act of [Divine] will, they are [only] from the substance of that [which] is possible - ‘how can straw be compared to grain?’ And one should not ask from the statement (Proverbs 28:2), “When there is rebellion in the land, its ministers are many,” as there it is speaking about ministers, not about leaders and judges. And how will we [miss] that which is well-known among all, that when the leaders are good, it is better that they be many; and if they are bad, it is more dangerous. And therefore, I think that the kings were not set up with the examination of the people at first, and as it is written (Isaiah 7:6), “We will march against Yehudah and invade it […], and we will set up a king in it.” And even if they were only appointed by way of trustees to serve the people, and they are made masters, as if God, may He be blessed, gave them the ‘land and its fullness’; and they bequeathed it to their sons after them forever, as if it was land that he bought with his money, this too is ‘not worthwhile (literally, the same)’ with all reigns, as there will be kings that do not have leadership abilities. And this is the First Introduction.