The Unlimited Monarchy
Malbim: Rabbi Meir Leibush Weisser
Dear friends,
Occasionally the bible speaks directly to our current political reality. The Book of Esther, which we will read on Purim usually offers some illuminating view of America. But it wasn't until I happened upon the Malbim's 19th century commentary on Esther a few weeks ago that I understood what political bible commentary looks like. I offer you here Rabbi Meir Leibush Weisser, known as the Malbim's resonant introduction to Esther, which seems influenced by living in most countries in Eastern Europe, some in Western Europe, the Ottoman Empire, and an extended stint as the chief rabbi of Romania. He was even offered the position of Chief Orthodox rabbi of our fair city, which he declined. See if you can read it without thinking about the USA in the year 2025.
"An understanding of this story demands that I make a brief introduction into how monarchies functioned when Egyptians, Medes, and Persians controlled the world stage.
There were two types of monarchies: The first was a monarchy in which the king was elected by the people. The second type of monarchy was rule by force, in which the king conquered the country and became its ruler against the wishes of the people.
From these two appear two different types of governing: A. The powers of the king in the first type of monarchy were limited. The limitations to his actions are known. The limits of his powers were legislated already at the time of his election. Upon taking office, the king swore to follow the laws and practices of the country. B. In the second type of monarchy, however, the powers of the king were unlimited. He does what he desires. Though he might seek the advice of ministers, he did what he wanted, changing the laws of the country and its practices as he saw fit. He is the king and the law maker, all in one.
There were five major differences between these two types of monarchies:
1. In the limited monarchy, the king was [seen as] taking care of the country, the head of state who legislated and was responsible for leading the country in its wars and in all of its issues. The people, in turn, pledged their allegiance (were subservient), accepting their duties to the king and agreeing to do things for mutual welfare, such as to pay and so on. In the unlimited monarchy, such as Sancherib and Nevuchednetzar, however, the country was totally subservient to the king, and its people were thought of as his slaves, and he can do whatever it is he wants with them, just as a master does with a slave he has bought for money.
2. The national treasuries in the limited monarchy belonged to the state. In the unlimited monarchy, they belonged to the king himself, like Pharaoh and Nevuchednetzar.
3. The king that ruled in a limited monarchy was not free to make major policy decisions without the approval of the country’s ministers. The unlimited monarch had no such restrictions, he would destroy and fix everything himself, without giving a thought to asking for advice or receiving permission at all.
4. The limited monarch was bound by the laws of the country and its [religious] dictates. The unlimited monarch could change the laws as he wished.
5. The capital city could not be changed in a limited monarchy; the king had to rule from the same city as his forebears. The unlimited monarch could change his capital city as and when he wanted. With this introduction we can proceed to the Purim story.
More next week!
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Misha