When you come to the land the Lord, your God,

is giving you, and you possess it and live therein,

and you say, "I will set a king over myself, like all the nations around me,"

 you shall set, yes, set a king over you, one whom the Lord, your God, chooses.

(Devarim 17:14:15)

 

 

And you say... You shall set, yes, set a king over you - Commandment or Compliance with the Will of the People

R. Yehuda said: The Israelites were charged with three commandments upon entering the land - to set themselves a king, to destroy the seed of Amalek, and to build a Temple, etc.

you say:" I will set a king over myself” - Rabbi Nehorai says: This passage is critical of Israel, for it is written; For it is not you that they have rejected [it is Me they have rejected as their king]. (II Samuel, 8:7)

Rabbi Yehudah said : Is it not a Torah-ordained commandment to request a king?! For it is written, set, yes, set a king over you, one whom the Lord, your God, chooses. Why, then, were they punished in Samuel’s time? Because they prefaced their request [with the words] like all other nations around us.

Rabbi Nehorai says: They only asked for a king that he might cause them to worship idols, as is written, that we may be like all the other nations.

(Yalkut Shimoni Devarim 17: 912)

 

and you say, etc. This is not referring to literal speech; rather it should be understood along the same lines as the verse, and you will say, "I will eat meat" and the like. Indeed, this language implies that there is no absolute command to appoint a king; rather, it is merely permissible, as in the verse and you will say, "I will eat meat." But it is well known that the Sages said there is a commandment to appoint a king - why then is it written: and you say...? It seems that this is because the governance of the state changes depending on whether it is governed by the king’s will or by the will of the people and those chosen by them. One state cannot suffer the king's will, while another state would be like a ship without a captain if it lacked a king. This matter cannot be forced through a positive commandment. The governance of society involves matters of life and death that override positive commandments; that is why there can be no absolute commandment to appoint a king as long as the people do not agree to suffer the yoke of kingship since they see neighboring states which are governed in a better way. Only then [when the people can bear it] is there a positive commandment for the Sanhedrin to appoint a king. It is certainly impossible to explain it as saying that there is no positive command at all [to appoint a king], rather it is like and you will say, "I will eat meat"... and you may slaughter of your cattle, etc.; it is simply a negative commandment derived from a positive principle - not to eat unslaughtered [animals].

(HaAmek Davar 17:17)

 

A King Like all the Nations?

Elon Langebheim

Throughout the generations, the laws of kings found in our parasha have invited much exegetical activity. These few verses define the king's obligations (to write the Mishneh Torah in a book and to study it) and the special prohibitions applying to him (not to possess many horses or marry many women). The Torah makes no mention of his governmental functions, the areas of his authority, and his relationship with other public institutions. Most of the exegetes rely on the opening verses of I Samuel 8 to fill out the missing parts of the picture of kingship found in our parasha. Those verses describe the crisis of sovereignty that occurred when Samuel grew old and his sons Joel and Aviyah became mired in corruption:

And his [Samuel's] sons did not walk in his ways, and they turned after gain, and they took bribes and perverted justice.(Verse 3)

The elders of the people request that Samuel's ruling sons be replaced by a worthy alternative, and ask him to appoint a king over them. The elders turn to the prophet, understanding that, as our parasha states, God's representative must choose the king: you shall set, yes, set a king over you, one whom the Lord, your God, chooses (Devarim 17:15), and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now, set up for us a king to judge us like all the nations (verse 5)."

The formulation of their request echoes the language used by the Torah in our parasha: and you say, "I will set a king over myself, like all the nations around me" (verse 14). Samuel, however, is disappointed by the elders' apparently justified request. Surprisingly, God is not pleased either:

And the thing was displeasing in the eyes of Samuel, when they said, "Give us a king to judge us," ... And the Lord said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people, according to all that they will say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from reigning over them.(Verses 6-7)

Samuel relays to the elders God's reservations regarding their request for a king, and afterwards presents them with a list of laws and demands to which they will be subjected after the king's appointment:

he will take your sons... to make his weapons... And he will take your daughters for his perfumers, for cooks, and for bakers... he will tithe your grain crops and your vineyards... (verses 11-16)

The elders remain unimpressed by Samuel's speech and by the burdens of living under a monarchy; they do not rescind their request:

And the people refused to listen to Samuel's voice, and they said, "No, but there shall be a king over us. And also we shall be like all the nations, and our king will judge us, go forth before us and wage our wars."(verses 19-20)

Why is the request for a king seen as expressing a rejection of God? Why are the elders unmoved by Samuel's threatening speech? How does all of this jibe with the plain meaning of the verses in our parasha, which treat the appointment of a king in a neutral and even a positive fashion?

I shall attempt to answer these questions in two different ways - one traditional and the other modern and critical. RaMBaN outlines the first approach in his commentary on the Torah, while the second approach is set forth by a bible scholar, Prof. Shmaryahu Talmon, winner of the Israel Prize.

Here is how RaMBaN deals with the verse from our parasha, I will set a king over myself, like all the nations around me:

And furthermore in my view, this is also one of his allusions to the future, since when they asked Samuel for Saul [to be their king, they said]: place a king over us to judge us like all the other nations, as it is written there, And also we shall be like all the nations, and our king will judge us, etc. For what reason could there be for the Torah to use the expression like all the nations around me in the formulation of a commandment? Rather, this is a hint of things to come, and that is why the parasha writes it in a descriptive [rather than imperative] voice, as I have already explained.

RaMBaN claims both here and in another place in our parasha¹ that future utterances and events are integrated into the Torah's text. Accordingly, the verses concerned with kingship in our parasha should be read as a quote from the speech of the elders in the book of Samuel, and thus it cannot be inferred that the Torah lends legitimacy to those verses. RaMBaN claims that the phrase like all the nations around me contradicts an essential principle of the Torah, i.e. that we must not learn from the other nations and their customs, and that it must be understood as quoting the illegitimate utterance that the elders would make in the future.

Now it is clear why the demand for the appointment of a king as it is presented in the book of Samuel constitutes a rejection of God. RaMBaN's explanation implies that the elders' demand was actually an attempt to emulate the nations and rebel against God and the words of the Torah. The apparent threat found in the list of laws and demands that will be made by the king does not surprise the elders since those laws simply mirror the laws of kings known to them from the political arrangements of surrounding nations.

To sum up: the demand for a king made in Samuel's time was illegitimate, but since it was an inevitable future reality, the Torah relates to it and tries to reshape it as far as is possible.

The bible researcher Prof. Shmaryahu Talmon takes a somewhat different tact. He brings up a failed attempt to found a royal dynasty found in the book of Judges. Gideon was a revered judge who led the people to impressive military victories. As a result, the Israelites asked him to set up a monarchical dynasty: Rule over us, both you, and your son, also your son's son; for you have saved us from the hand of Midian (Judges 8:22).

Gideon opposes this move because, in the period of the judges, it would have constituted a breach of God's authority: I shall not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the Lord will rule over you" (verse 23). Prof. Talmon claims that the idea of making the great military commander, Gideon, a king was a pragmatic request that would have replaced the unstable governance typical of the period of the Judges with a stable monarchical regime. The central goal of the request was to preserve the Israelites' military advantage. Similarly, in Samuel's day the Israelites had achieved a military advantage over the Philistines (following the battle at Mitzpe) and the nation's elders wanted to preserve that advantage through the pragmatic move of appointing a king. Prof. Talmon writes:

This view of things requires the conclusion that at the time of the Israelite monarchy's founding, primary ideas defining in principle the rights and obligations of the king had already been formulated. The appearance of a delegation of elders before the charismatic leader (Samuel) seems to be an historical event. Saul was made king as a result of free negotiations between the powers which shared governance of the people - God's emissary and the community's representatives.

("Mishpat Melekh" from HaMelukha HaYisraelit BeReishita, 1975)

This approach emphasizes the king's function as a military leader and statesman, thus differing from that of commentators such as the RaN and others who are troubled by the elders' request in light of the king's juridical role. Prof. Talmon's approach explains the process leading to the foundation of the monarchy and it also jibes with the passage from the Torah, but it fails to explain God's anger.

I would like to suggest that, given Prof. Talmon's approach, God's anger should be seen as prompted by the timing of the elders' request. The elders make their request following a period of calm that began with the battle at Mitzpe in which the Israelites were aided by manifest divine intervention: and the Lord thundered with a loud noise on that day, upon the Philistines, and threw them into a panic, and they were beaten before Israel (I Samuel 7:10). The loud noise caused the Philistines to panic, and the Israelites routed them. However, Scripture never tells us that the people made any gesture of gratitude for the miracle.² Similarly, there is no mention of any prayer of praise or song of gratitude (such as the Song of Deborah) following Gideon's victory; rather, there is an attempt to make Gideon king.

My suggestion relies upon the RaMBaN's interpretation of the verse, The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the student of the law from between his feet (Bereishit 49:10):

All of this [is said] because Samuel was a judge and a prophet and a fighter of their wars by the Lord's command, and he was their rescuer, and they should not have asked for a king during his days, as he told them, the Lord your God is your King, and therefore he did not grant them a lasting monarchy.

If so, the upshot of Prof. Talmon's article and RaMBaN's commentary on Bereishit is that the Torah approves of the demand for the appointment of a king who, after the custom of the nations, would serve as a military and diplomatic authority. However, since the timing of the request was wrong it was interpreted as expressing ingratitude towards Heaven and a rejection of God.

The State of Israel has seen many changes of government during the past years. A few resulted from instances of corruption, but most involved political and coalitional crises. Frequent changes of government caused the public to feel there is a lack of stability, goading politicians to suggest changes in the system of governance that could grant governments increased durability and longevity. Such solutions are reminiscent of the demand for the appointment of a king found in the book of Samuel, which also expressed an aspiration for normalization and political stability.

Do these proposals to change the system of governance constitute nothing more than an attempt to be like all the nations without really investigating in depth whether they are really appropriate to our circumstances?

The Torah describes a broad variety of types of leadership, beginning with Moses, going through Joshua, the Judges, the kings, and ending with Ezra and Nehemiah. No single form of leadership is superior, but is it possible to generalize and say that a leader will succeed in his role if he is concerned solely with the good of the people. Unfortunately - and fortunately - no system of government or law can guarantee that will be the case.

[1]. Commenting on the verse, Now when [ki] you say to yourself, "How will we know the word that the Lord did not speak?" (18:21), RaMBaN writes: "When Hananiah Ben Ezer comes in the future and prophesizes, you will say... and this is learned from the fact that it does not say if [im] you say to yourself. This is as I have mentioned, that the Torah alludes to future events... "

2. Samuel does set up the Even HaEzer between Mitzpe and Hashen, but no mention is made of the peoples' participation in that gesture.

Elon Langbeheim is a doctoral candidate in the teaching of science.

 

When you approach a city to wage war against it, you shall propose peace to it. What Kind of War is Being Discussed?

 

When you approach a city [to wage war against it]: Scripture is speaking of an optional war, as is explicit in the context of this section (verse 15), Thus you will do to all the cities which are very far away [from you]...

(Rashi Devarim 20:10)

 

Scripture is speaking of an optional war when it says you should propose peace, but in the obligatory war against the Seven nations do not propose peace - so Rashi interprets it.

Scripture speaks in general terms - When you approach a town - certainly this refers to every town and to every war. Be it an optional war (milhemet reshut), be it an obligatory war (milhemet hova), you must first talk peace - with the exception of [wars against] Ammon and Moab, for the Torah specified: You shall never concern yourself with their welfare or benefit as long as you live. Even though you do not present them with terms of peace, if they, on their own volition, wish to make peace, we accept them. This illustrates how great is the power of peace. This passage warns Israel not to wage war against any nation in the world without first proposing peace to them...

(Rabeinu Behayey, Devarim 20:10)

 

And they shall announce and say, "Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see [this crime]." "Atone for Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, O Lord, and lay not [the guilt of] innocent blood among your people Israel." And [so] the blood shall be atoned for them.

(Devarim 21:7-8)

 

And the Sages explained that this teaches that we were redeemed upon this condition, that there not be found - in any and all generations - those who spill blood. Now that murderers exist among us, it is revealed retroactively that those who exited Egypt were not deserving of redemption, and that all the miracles performed on their behalf were unnecessary, and because of this sin, the guilt returns to those who left Egypt whom we now know to have been undeserving; if they had been deserving, their merit would have saved their descendents from the sin of bloodshed. However, they are in need of atonement - that further explains how it is said that the dead themselves are in need of atonement. It also makes clear that one who shed blood was a sinner until the Exodus from Egypt and this atonement that cleansed them of the sin of blood shed also atoned for those who left Egypt [and they already said that when a miracle occurs for someone it is deducted from his merits, and after it became known to them that they were not worthy of those miracles and that they had been performed for naught, in any case they were stripped of their merit and required atonement]. And in a secondary opinion the phrase whom You have redeemed, O Lord is explained: it was on this condition that You redeemed them, that if they sin You shall atone for their sins, since otherwise it would not have been proper to redeem them, [God] knowing that they would certainly sin in the future, completely invalidating the redemption, since when they sin and do not find atonement He will exile them once again, and why did He redeem them - pointlessly - to begin with?

(Malbim Devarim 21:8)

 

"When the Murderers became Numerous - the Eglah Aufah was Revoked"

How are we to understand these words of the Sages, relating to the discontinuation of the eglah arufah and "bitter waters" [of the Sotah] due to the proliferation of murderers and adulterers? The answer is that these commandments involve impressive rites of atonement that were carried out in exceptionally rare instances, and which were intended to close breaches in the existing fence...

When the foundations of the life of Torah and purity are destroyed, as in our own days, when murder, bloodshed, rape and adultery are reported almost daily in the media, and in the context of a society in which murderers act openly, there is almost something ridiculous and revolting when organizations and associations devote themselves to battling these phenomena, and we see how what was in the past a legal institution and an act bearing restorative influence disappears and is revoked when the generation is unworthy of it.

What is this like? A rabbinate which proclaimed a dire prohibition against a butcher using an imperfect knife to slaughter pigs. This is true as well of the struggle against damaging graves, of which we hear constantly.

(Prof. Y. Leibowitz, Sheva Shanim shel Sihot al Parashat Ha-Shavua, pg. 858)

 

 

 

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel, checks payable to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

Please note that the NIF is no longer accepting donations under $100

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions to either the NIF or PEF should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project. For Donations to NIF, please mention that Oz veShalom is registered as no. 5708.

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

4,500 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.