by Rabbi Aryeh Klapper
The phrase berov am hadrat melekh, taken from Mishlei 14:28, is probably invoked most often in contemporary Orthodox conversations to oppose “breakaway minyanim”, or to encourage minyan attendance even when the minyan is assured; this argument has the advantage of applying equally to men and women. The assumed meaning is that G-d as king is more hadarified by one large crowd praying than by several smaller crowds, even if the total number of participants remains the same or decreases.
The Talmud (Yoma 70a and Megillah 27b) uses the phrase in this meaning only to explain hava aminas, halakhic roads not taken. We might have banned selling a synagogue building to a smaller congregation, or required onlookers at one part of a ritual to stay throughout rather than moving to a second, but we don’t. Nonetheless, Magen Avraham (90:15) reasonably assumes that the principle survives the rejection of those specific applications.
Magen Avraham’s own application is surprising. He uses it to explain why a person should pray alone at home at the same time as his synagogue’s minyan rather than waiting to pray with a minyan at home. This shifts the “crowd” from the actual to the virtual, and suggests that breakaways should make sure to meet at the same time as the main shul.
In several other contexts (Sukkah 52b, Pesachim 64b; see also Rosh HaShannah 32b), the Talmud used berov am to explain a bias toward increasing ACTIVE participation. The avodah of the Temple was broken into as many pieces as possible so that each kohen had a role to play. This suggests that multiple simultaneous minyanim might be ideal, on the model I’ve seen several synagogues when there are multiple chiyuvim.
However, Berakhot 53a appears to use the phrase to promote an exactly opposite position: that it is better for one person to vicariously fulfill the obligation of a crowd rather than to have each individual fulfill it for themselves.
Oceans of ink have been spilled to reconcile and unify these meanings. But the simplest solution is that the phrase itself has no single halakhic meaning; rather, it is invoked as a mnemonic for a variety of purposes, some of which are in tension with each other.
(Midrash Mishlei additionally cites Rabbi Chanina bar Chama as praising G-d for preferring the praises of am Yisroel over those of the vastly more numerous (rivei revavot) angels. I don’t understand how this interpretation relates to our verse.)
In all the above contexts, the melekh is G-d. However, RaDaK to Yechekel 46:10 applies the verse to a human king. Yechezkel depicts the nasi in a future Temple as using a private entrance and exit most days, but
on festivals he must come with the am where they come, and leave with them where they leave,
because all of Israel who are there came up for the regel,
and it is his honor/kavod and glory/hadar to come with them and leave with them
because Scripture says “berov am hadrat melekh”.
RaDaK imposes an obligation on the human nasi to contribute to his own hadar by joining the crowds. It’s tempting to consider whether there are theological parallels. For example: Is this why the Shekhinah is present at every minyan?
Regardless, RaDaK carries the crucial implication that any halakhic obligation of hadar toward a king is not about the subordination of some humans to another.Indeed, it might be that the berov am obligation is always best understood as a bias toward joining with the crowd when you share its ideals and purposes, rather than focusing on your private experience. This obligation applies equally to king and commoner.
This democratic-tending understanding is strengthened when we consider berov am in tandem with the later Rabbinic-epigram אין מלך בלא עם = there is no king, i.e. there is no meaningful kingship, without an am. Moreover, it seems to me that this sort of interpretation is necessary if we consider the full verse Mishlei 14:28:
בְּרָב־עָ֥ם הַדְרַת־מֶ֑לֶךְ
וּבְאֶ֥פֶס לְ֝אֹ֗ם מְחִתַּ֥ת רָזֽוֹן
With a large am there is glory for the melekh
But in the absence of a leom there is fear for the razon
The inverse of hadar/glory is not mechitah/fear unless we understand the presence of the people as constitutive of monarchy rather than as a mere aesthetic flourish. Rashi takes this implication on directly, but with the qualifications necessary for a theological context:
ברב עם = כשהצבור זכאים –
הדרת הקדוש ברוך היא:
ובאפס לאום =
כשאינם דבקים בו
מחתת רזון = חסרון רזנותו = הוא כביכול נותן מכבודו לאלהי נכר
ומשליט את האומות על בניו.
With a large am = when the community is worthy –
there is glory for the Holy Blessed One
But in the absence of a leom =
when they are not attached to Him
there is fear for the razon = as if it were possible, He gives some of His honor to alien gods
and puts the other nations in power over His children
One would not need the “as if it were possible” in the context of human monarchy, nor would the transfer of honor be voluntary. RaLBaG makes this clear:
הדר המלך הוא כשיהיה לו רבוי עם, כי בם יתחזק כנגד הקמי’ עליו,
ואולם בהעדר העם ממנו – יש לו מחתה שיהיה לו רזון וכחש בקום עליו אדם להלחם בו:
The glory of a king is when he has a large populace,
because they strengthen him to stand against his enemies
but when the nation absents itself from him
he fears that he will have razon and weakness when a man arises to do battle with him
RaLBaG seems to be translating razon as thinness, perhaps based on Yeshayahu 24:16. Almost everyone else, however, more plausibly understands razon as in parallelism with melekh and referring to some sort of leader. The issue then becomes whether one prefers to interpret parallel structures as synonymous, so that razon=melekh, or to look for significance in every change. Thus Alshikh for example understands razon as a subordinate to a melekh, while Hoil Mosheh understand a melekh to be a just ruler, who therefore has confidence in his populace, while a razon is a ruler-by-force who therefore lives in fear that the population will abandon him.
But the exemplar of the position that the second half of a parallel structure must always add meaning is Malbim. I find his interpretation of our verse politically creative, utterly fascinating, and very, very difficult to understand.
A collective that has a melekh/king is called an am,
while a collective that as a unique religion/dat is called a leom.
Roznim are advisors/sarei eitzah,
but there is a difference between a rozen and a yoetz:
Yoatzim address political issues (עניני מדינה) and their advice is public,
whereas roznim deal with hidden matters,
and their mandate includes matters of religion and its laws (עניני הדת וחוקיה) . . .
The hadar of a king happens via a large am,
because there is a distinction between hod and hadar:
hadar is external glory, as relevant to any issue,
and therefore the hadar of a king is proportional to the size of his am,
but the razon who has charge over the laws of the dat –
even if there is an am, but no leom,
meaning that there are no baalei daat,
he is in fear, because he will be unable to accomplish anything.
As best I can make out, Malbim here acknowledges the “Jewish problem”, namely that we are both an am and a leom, a political and a religious collective. But I don’t understand his political solution. Why should the advice given to the king on religious matters be kept secret? Are the roznim and the dat ultimately subordinate to the melekh, or do they have constitutionally independent spheres of influence? What happens when an am contains members of many leoms? Any and all help you can give me in figuring this out would be greatly appreciated.
Shabbat shalom!
moderntoraleadership 