ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף משלי 6:7

Maimonides, in his "guide for the perplexed 32, section two, states, that though a man may have acquired both the moral and physical qualifications necessary to become a prophet, this does not mean that he will in fact become a prophet. Baruch ben Neriah, illustrious disciple of the prophet Jeremiah is a case in point. (Jeremiah 45,5) He was told that this did not reflect on him personally, but rather on the fact that his contemporaries had not been found worthy to have a prophet in their midst. Our sages tell us that Hillel had twenty students, each of whom possessed all the qualifications necessary to receive the gift of prophecy; however, the time was not propitious for the dissemination of that gift to their fellow men. (Baba Batra 13) The likelihood of a person who lacks the personal qualifications demanded of a prophet to attain that stature, is as great as that of frogs turning into prophets. Our sages (Berachot 7) explain that Moses prayed to G'd to make the gift of prophecy exclusive to the Jewish people. (Exodus 33,16) They infer that this was the meaning of Moses' request, from the answer given "also the thing you have said, I will do." This proves that the request for the Jewish people to have the distinction of the gift of prophecy, had been granted. Even though this might appear as an unfair advantage for the Jewish people, at first glance, the fact is that G'd knew that none of the other nations was inherently able to produce the kind of personality which would qualify for the gift of prophecy. Just as even the most enlightened horse will never be a philosopher, so a gentile would never make a true prophet. What a gentile could achieve however, was the ability, aided by consultation of horoscopes coupled with close observation of the laws of nature, to foretell certain events, as has been discussed in chapter twenty six. Having said all this, it is difficult to understand the sages in our Midrash who claim that Bileam was a prophet, and that G'd had matched the gift granted the Jews by giving similar powers to Bileam. Also the well known interpretation of the verse "there never arose in Israel another prophet such as Moses." (Deut. 34,10) We are told that the words "in Israel," mean that among the gentiles there was another such prophet, namely Bileam. Avot 5, describes Bileam and his students as being possessed of the "evil eye", hardly the inspirational characteristic one expects of a prophet. The Talmud in Sanhedrin 105 states, that the verse in which Bileam describes himself as "of the eye that is opened" (Numbers 24,3) refers to the fact that he had only one eye with which to see. If so, how is it that a person of such visible deformity became a prophet? In chapter fifty six we explained that the term "prophet" when applied to gentiles normally applies to astrologers and the like, people who are considered by their countrymen as seers, though they are not prophets in the true sense of the word. Also, the seers referred to in Isaiah 47,13, had their power supply cut off when the tabernacle was erected, and G'd established a new order. When our sages employ the term "prophet" in reference to gentiles, it is just like when they use the term "king" for the lion or the ox, describing them as the leaders of their respective species. Proverbs 6,7 or 30,27 supports the view that animals have leaders just as humans have. The word "prophet" then is merely an umbrella term. Our sages have been careful never to use the term "prophet" for a gentile without pointing out that it is a gentile who is being discussed. The reason the Torah has devoted an entire portion to the doings of Bileam, is precisely in order to show us why the gentiles had no further prophets. If Bileam represented the finest among the gentiles, one can imagine what other gentile prophets might have been like. The human qualities that are such essential ingredients in the prophet's makeup, were so sadly missing. Whenever Moses and Aaron performed miracles, they were certain beforehand that their efforts would be crowned with success, since G'd had communicated the miracle to be performed. Especially close was Moses' relationship with G'd, as the Torah testifies (Deut. 34,11) "G'ds intimacy with him was of a face to face nature." On the other hand, such prophets as Samuel or Elijah were almost always in need of a prayer before they could perform a miracle that they had set their minds to perform. Samuel in particular typifies that kind of prophet as we find in Mitzpah (Samuel I 7,5-13) as well as on numerous other occasions. If Psalm 99, describes Moses and Aaron as G'ds priests, and Samuel as someone who "called upon His name, that describes the difference between them. The former was a priest around the clock, so to speak, whereas the latter needed to call on G'd from time to time to await the time and place acceptable to G'd. They did not know beforehand whether G'ds response to their calls would be positive. Samuel, as the leading prototype of that group of prophets, possessed a great amount of confidence. This is why the Psalmist says of him "whenever he called.. G'd would answer." Other prophets such as Elijah or Isaiah were often not free of doubt if their prayers would be answered immediately. Moses, on the other hand, did not only not entertain any doubt, but had been instructed beforehand to perform each miracle. That is why he was able to point out to Korach and Datan and Aviram, when the latter accused him of being power hungry, that he had not ever acted from his own initiative. (Numbers 16,28). The few instances when Moses prayed for specific solutions to such problems as the bitter waters at Marah, when he was taught to use a certain variety of wood to sweeten the water, or when he prayed concerning the exact time the frogs were to be removed from Egypt, had no direct relationship to the miracles performed. For this reason, these instances were preceded by prayer.

All this is a parallel to the "natural" household, i.e. living creatures whose continued health depends on the correct sequence and manner of receiving their respective energy supplies, both in their proper quantity and quality. In our analogy of the four kinds of functions or "servants" that are active in the body/household/nation respectively, the underlying assumption has been that we owe allegiance to a central authority. In the case of the body, the central authority is the heart. Similarly, in the case of the nation the central authority to whom we owe allegiance would be the king. Unless there is such a central authority, a country will not prosper, just as a household without a head, or a body without a heart cannot function. The reason Solomon lists several such foursomes in Proverbs chapter thirty, is to repeat the analogy of body, household and nation. We can understand that Moses was anxious for G'd to appoint a single successor, displaying due regard for the welfare of the nation as a whole. At the same time, however, Solomon tells us "a king must base the country on a rule of justice; a man receptive to gifts (bribes) would ruin it." (Proverbs 29,4) A king who accepts bribes is worse than no leadership at all, will bring about ruin at an accelerated pace. Leadership in the animal kingdom is so natural, that the Talmud states that the king of the domesticated animals is the ox, whereas amongst the free roaming beasts the lion is king, the leader amongst the birds being the eagle. Although the locusts and the ants seem to manage without leadership, a nation devoid of leadership is likely to become prey to all kinds of invaders, and even the defence against attackers is no one's concern except those directly under attack. There is then no collective defence. The book of Judges is full of examples of such a state of affairs and the tragic consequences thereof. "In those days everyone did whatever seemed good in their eyes, there was no king in Israel." (Judges 21,25) Since we conceive of G'ds Personal Providence as supplemental to our own intelligent efforts, whenever our own efforts are lacking, we cannot expect Divine assistance to crown our own handiwork. The Torah therefore establishes rules about how central authority and law enforcement is to work. This culminates in the appointment of a king "whom G'd will choose," (Deut 17,15) as distinct from other nations where the king reflects at best vox populi, and at worst dictatorship against the will of the people. The appointment of the right kind of king ensures that the nation is not merely the sum total of its individual households, but becomes one single vast household in the process. The distinctiveness of the Jewish nation lies in the fact that it possesses the kind of human leadership which will ensure the presence of Divine leadership at the same time. In view of the aforesaid, and even assuming that the words " som tassim alecha melech," would constitute only permission to appoint a king and not be a commandment to do so, the behaviour of the prophet Samuel when Israel asked for a king needs much clarification. (see Samuel I chapter 8) If at first glance, the Jewish people appear disadvantaged by not having a king compared to the nations surrounding them, the eventual appointment of a king must do more than just give them equal status with the gentile nations. The institution of the monarchy must be elevated to a higher level than that prevailing in neighbouring countries. Failure of the Jewish people to understand this, led the prophet to articulate his frustration when the people demanded that he appoint a king for them. In that context, even G'ds attitude seems confusing. On the one hand, He helped Samuel to find the person chosen to become king, on the other hand, He told Samuel that it was His leadership the people had rejected, when they asked for a king, not Samuel's. What was it then that prompted Samuel to give in to the request of the people? (verse 11 onwards)