In Deuteronomy 1, Abravanel launches a study of governance or polity for the Hebrew nation. Moses
acknowledges his inability to care for a nation, that “God Almighty has multiplied….as the stars of
heaven for multitude.” He states the obvious when he laments: “How can I myself bear your cumbrance,
and your burden, and your strife. Get you from each one of your tribes, wise men, and understanding,
and full of knowledge, and will make them heads over you.”
“And I spoke unto you at that time saying. I am not able to bear yourself
alone.”
For Abravanel, Moses raised a question of statecraft. One of the pressing issues on the prophet’s mind
as he was about to die and hand the levers of leadership to Joshua was governance: What would be the
best way to form a political/administrative apparatus that would best serve a burgeoning nation
consisting of twelve tribes, each of which is vast and unique in its own right?
Mindful not to overstep his authority and invite another Korah-style mutiny, Moses delegated: “Get you
from each one of your tribes, wise men….” The prophet sought broad, tribal corroboration and
participation. And he got it: “And you answered me and said: The thing which you have spoken is good
for us to do.”
Here, we put forth one of the points Abravanel makes, when analyzing verses in our chapter.
Specifically, how should we understand: “So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and full of
knowledge, and made them heads over you – captains of thousands and captains of hundreds and
captains of fifties and captains of tens and officers, tribe by tribe?”
Moses established, according to Abravanel, political procedure that would fit the contours of different
situations that would arise throughout the land, be it in a context of a smaller population unit such as a
city or the larger tribal state. Consider a sliding scale. If, for example, an issue rated as major, then more
of that population’s enlightened and altruistic leaders would need to convene and weigh in, or in Torah
parlance, the matter would require the advice and consent of “captains of thousands.” In contrast, if the
people faced something of minor or lesser importance, say in the range of a civic misdemeanor, then
“captains of tens” would handle it. That is, a committee of ten administrators could resolve the issue.
Of course, some municipal or state concerns were midsize, per se. In those instances, all parties
concerned would be best served by gathering “captains of hundred and captains of fifties”,
implementing their conclusions.
Bear in mind, Abravanel writes, this practice would be put into effect for each of Israel’s twelve tribes.
He also asserts that in military matters, so too would officers rise to different ranks, so that generals
would be “captains of thousands”; whereby a major would take charge of smaller military units –
“captains of hundreds” etc.
Moreover, Abravanel believed that Moses utilized the same governing principle when organizing Israel’s
judicial branch. Namely, a tribal supreme court, if you will, would adjudicate as “captains of thousands.”
Smaller jurisdictions or magistrates would suffice with allowing “captains of hundreds and captains of
fifties” to assure people had adequate arbiters to settle legal differences.
Abravanel, before concluding this piece on government, military, and judicial methodology provides a
historical tidbit. He writes that this sliding-scale and decentralized system is extant in sixteenth century
Venice, where he lived.