is explicitly stated in the Torah that Moses’ prophecy is of a rank higher than that of all other prophets, it is not possible for us to hearken to any prophet who dissents from him, and annuls his words. But the question whether it is possible for a prophet to explain the words of Moses, and to say that, although they were written without a qualification, there is a condition or time connected with them, even if it was not explicitly stated, will be treated of in the following, with the help of God. XL. ISAAC B. JUDAH ABRAVANEL [Statesman, philosopher, and biblical exegete. He was born at Lisbon in 1437, and died at Venice in 1508. He was treasurer at the court of King Alfonso V of Portugal. When the Jews were expelled from Spain, he left that country and went to Naples. He was a prolific writer, and in all his works he displayed clear-sightedness and a thorough mastery of the subjects under discussion, though he lacked striking originality. His most popular work is his commentary on the Bible.] The Advantages of a Republic over a Monarchy[247] Behold, it behooves us to know whether a monarch is a necessity, inherently needed for the people, or it is possible to exist without him. The philosophers adopt the former opinion, and think that the service rendered by the king to the people in the political organization is the same as the relation of the heart to the body in animals possessing a heart, and as the relation of the First Cause to the entire universe. Now if the investigators think that a kingdom must be based on three things (firstly, unity and absence of partnership; secondly, continuity and absence of change; thirdly, absolute power), then their conclusion as to the need and necessity of a monarch is indeed fallacious. For it is not impracticable that a people should have many leaders, united, agreeing, and concurring in one counsel, who should decide administrative and judicial matters. This militates against the first principle. Then, why should not their administration be for one year, or for three years, like the years of a hireling, or less than that? When the turn of other judges and officers comes, they will arise in their stead, and investigate whether the first ones have not failed in their trust, and he whom they condemn shall make good the wrong he committed. This militates against the second principle. Then again, why should not their power be limited and regulated according to the laws and statutes? A common-sense principle tells us that when one man disagrees with the majority, the law is according to the majority. It is more likely that one man should trespass, through his folly, or strong temptations or anger (as it is written: ‘the wrath of a king is as messengers of death’[248]), than that many men taking counsel should transgress. For if one of them turns aside from the right path, the others will protest against him. Moreover, since their administration is