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,

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]."

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.