Zealotry and Stability
“And here comes the question, whether it is better to be loved than feared, or the reverse. The answer is that one would like to be both the one and the other; but because it is difficult to combine them, it is far better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both… because men are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life, and children… when the necessity is far off; but when it approaches they turn against you.”
This iconic passage is taken from The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527).
Machiavelli to me is a very interesting philosopher, because on one hand he is one of the more famous or shall I say infamous thinkers of the early Renaissance, one whose name is also an adjective which usually describes something very negative, and on the other hand he is one of the more enigmatic thinkers, which scholars are still divided as to his vision and motives.
In his work The Prince from 1513 (published 1532), by far Machiavelli’s most known work, Machiavelli provides an instruction guide to a newly appointed prince. This guide can in fact serve any newly appointed ruler, full of useful practical advice about how to keep the stability under one’s rule, how to handle subordinates, enemies, friends and government. This instruction guide has become infamous due to its frequent preference of practicality over morality, stable governing over ethics. Its advice sometimes comes across as cunning and conniving at best, or cruel at worst.
I was thinking about Machiavelli this week because of our portion Pinchas. Our portion begins with God giving Pinchas a “pact of friendship.” Pinchas earns this very special pact due to an act of zealotry in which he murders an Israelite man and a Midyanite woman who perform an idolatrous sexual ritual by the Tent of Meeting.
This act of religious zeal appeases God and causes him to pause inflicting a plague on the Israelites, killing ‘only’ twenty four thousand and sparing the rest.
וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר׃
יהוה spoke to Moses, saying,
פִּֽינְחָ֨ס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָ֜ר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹ֣ן הַכֹּהֵ֗ן הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מֵעַ֣ל בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י בְּתוֹכָ֑ם וְלֹא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּקִנְאָתִֽי׃
“Pinchas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the Israelites by displaying among them his passion for Me, so that I did not wipe out the Israelite people in My passion.”
לָכֵ֖ן אֱמֹ֑ר הִנְנִ֨י נֹתֵ֥ן ל֛וֹ אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֖י שָׁלֽוֹם׃
“Say, therefore, ‘I grant him My pact of friendship.”
Pinchas’ act may help to restore God’s honor, but it doesn’t change the fact that he was still rewarded for double murder. Even more curious is that the reward is described as B’rit Shalom, which translates here to a “pact of friendship” but can also mean a “pact of peace.”
This dualism in the priesthood's role, that of bloodshed on one hand and peace on the other, is not new in the Torah.
Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz brings examples of this dualism.
In Masechet Avot it is written "Be among the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and drawing them near the Torah.”
Here in Avot, it is very clear that the role of the priesthood is that of peace.
However, the Torah tells us a different story when it comes to the tribe of Levi out of which the priesthood stemmed.
In the painful ordeal of Dina’s rape and kidnapping it was Levi who in his fury asked: “Should our sister be treated like a prostitute?” That question was followed by a mean deception and a brutal and cruel murder of thousands of men.
When Moses wanted to punish those who took part in the ritual of the golden calf and asked: “Whoever is for God join me” it was the tribe of Levi again who joined in the murderous rampage of thousands of people.
Hot headedness and bad temper follow the priesthood, along with their role of “loving peace and pursuing peace.”
This brings me back to Machiavelli — Machiavelli’s reputation does not do justice to his complete philosophical contributions. Only four years after writing The Price, Machiavelli wrote another book called “Discourses on Livy” (1517.) In it, Machiavelli examines the history and politics of the Roman Republic, praising it for its just, democratic and inclusive ways, deeming it superior to his contemporaries.
Scholars struggle to explain how two books written by the same man only four years apart can state the exact opposite.
Some scholars suggest that The Prince was written as a satirical book to expose the evil and corrupt ways of the Italian rulers, and specifically the Medici family which not only fired Machiavelli as a politician, causing him to lose everything, but also physically tortured him.
Others, though, explain this contradiction as simply two consecutive steps in his philosophy. The Machiavellian dictator is no more than a temporary necessity to achieve much needed stability in society, and only once that stability is achieved, people can be free to build a just and inclusive society which is no longer in need of a crushing dictator.
In a way I believe that the Torah takes a similar approach. The Israelites were a tough community to handle, made up of former slaves who were very unstable and would go astray at the first opportunity they got. Harsh measures, including mass murder were accepted and even favored. The goal however, was to bring stability in order to create a model nation, a nation exemplifying peace and loving kindness.
Interestingly, Machiavelli himself used Moses as an example in The Prince for an archetype of what he called “an armed prophet” A leader who had the combination of divine authority, personal virtue and decisiveness.
I would be lying if I said that all of this did not make me uncomfortable. I can’t justify the murderous rampages in the Torah nor some of Machiavelli's immoral advice.
The Prince is still being studied and used today in politics as well as the business world.
The degree to which one can find this book effective is largely determined by perhaps the biggest question political philosophy has to offer, and that is of course, how one views human nature.
