Click here to receive the weekly parsha by email each week.
When you come to the land that the lord your god
Has given you... And you say: i
will appoint over me a king,
Like all the nations which surround me.
You shall surely appoint over yourself a king
Whom the lord your god shall choose
(Devarim 17, 14-15)
And you will say I will
appoint over myself a king. Said R' Nehorai:
This passage speaks contemptuously of
(Sifre, Parasaht Shofetim, Piska 13).
"Should
you say: I will set over me a king" - The meaning of "say" is not expression by speech;
it is rather like "And you say: I want to eat meat", et al.
This usage implies that there was no absolute mitzva
to appoint a king - the matter was optional. Yet it is common knowledge that Chazal considered the appointment of a king to be a
mitzvah! Why, then, does Scripture state "Should you say"? It
would seem that the form of national leadership depends on whether matters are
determined by monarchy or by the will of the people. Some nations cannot bear
monarchial control, whereas for others a state without a king is like a ship
without a captain. This matter cannot be determined by the force of a positive
mitzvah; matters of state leadership touch upon sakanat
nefashot - life-threatening situations, and
considerations of sakanat nefashot take precedence over positive mitzvot. Therefore it is impossible to command the
appointment of a king as long the general public is not in favor of it, seeing
neighboring nations functioning under a better system... Therefore it is
written "Should you say" - if the people demand it, then "[You
may] set, yes, set over you a king".
(Netziv, Haamek Davar, Devarim 17:14)
The monarch and the will of the people
Ariel Rathaus
A memorial lamp for my mother and teacher
Beracha bat Yehuda
Passed away 11 Elul 5744
Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel's approach in interpreting the chapter on the monarchy in Parashat Shoftim (Devarim 17:14-20) is one of the most famous and innovative of his Torah commentaries (and his ideas are repeated in his commentary on the Early Prophets). Like many other commentators, Abarbanel asks the classic question about the seeming contradiction between the Torah passages on monarchy ("And you shall say: I will appoint upon myself a king... you shall indeed appoint upon yourself a king... etc.") and what is related in I Shmuel (8:4-22).when the Children of Israel request a king, and the prophet initially refuses to accede to their request and reminds them how heavy will weigh the king's yoke on their necks. What is unique about Abarbanel is that this question only serves as a starting point for a comprehensive and deep discussion of the preferable form of government, among the nations in general and among the Jews in particular.
His
conclusion is that no nation needs a king, certainly not the Jewish nation,
whose king is God. Throughout the discussion, the commentator's
intellectual clarity is revealed, along with his deep revulsion at the tyranny
and corruption of rule by one man. Kings, who began to rule "with force
and the stronger overcame", were supposed "to serve the people, but
they became masters", and, in general, the monarchy is a "malignant
leprosy" which spread throughout the world. The
Alternatively, R' Yitzchak praises republican rule. He recalls the example of Rome, which, in his view, reached the peak of its power during its republican period and its decline was brought about by the Caesars, and also some contemporary examples, from the political reality of his times: the venerable Venetian republic and the state of Florence (which enjoyed republican rule for a short period at the end of 15th century, when Abarbanel composed his Torah commentary). It is difficult to accept that those republics were indeed places "with no obstinacy and deviousness, no one raises his hand against the other nor his foot to any manner of transgression," as Abarbanel wrote, but despite the extreme idealization, one cannot say that the examples are totally arbitrary. Yet more, even without the examples, the principle is important: R' Yitzchak Abarbanel lauds the states ruled by "leaders chosen for set periods" and it is clear that in his view this is the preferable system of government for man in general.
It is with good reason that Abarbanel's words are considered a highly significant source for the world view which combines Torah with democracy, but it seems that their very radicalism prevented them having real influence. Few followed in his footsteps to emphasize, when they spoke about government according to the Torah, the values of liberty and respect for the will of the majority. Despite this, we do not lack, in later generations, examples of similar sensitivity to those values.
A commentator and thinker whose approach is not far from that of Abarbanel, and may have been influenced by it, is Rabbi Eliyahu ben Almazog, author of the Torah commentary "Em LaMikra" (Livorno 1862-3). A fascinating figure, a modern scholar who was also a mystic with complete faith in the secret teachings (Kaballa), he served as rabbi in the community of Livorno, Italy, in the second half of the 19th century.
Like Abarbanel (when he wrote his Torah commentary), R' Eliyahu Ben Almozag lived in
[According to the Torah, the king] was in no
way to be a legislator. He was sometimes called shofet
a judge - who leads them in war,
whether he himself was head of the judges, or this was a figure of speech, and
when Israel asked for a king, had they not added "to judge us like all the
nations" there would have been no fault in this… they did not want a a head of the army according to Torah law and like some of
the ancient nations, but (they) wanted someone to judge them as is done among
all the nations, that the law be in his hands, free to do as he wishes… (Em L'Mikra, Devarim 17:8)
The Israelites
in Shmuel's times wanted to appoint over themselves
an absolute ruler, one who could change and warp the law arbitrarily, in total
contrast to the Torah's intent. This is an interesting way to explain the
disparity between the passages in our parasha and the
story in the Book of Shmuel, but in the definition of
the character of monarchy according to the Torah, there is nothing unusual. The
halacha expressly
establishes that kings are not above the law and they may themselves be judged
- at least so kings of the
The continuation of R' Ben Almozag's commentary, however, is surprising. He asks the question asked repeatedly since the days of the Tanaim, whether "som tasim" - "you shall surely appoint" is mandatory or optional, and, in the light of the answer to this question he attempts to clarify the meaning of the passage: "And you will say: I will appoint over me a king":
And the view
of the scribes (=the sages) of blessed memory, is that this is a commandment
and their words are true, for there is nothing with greater potential for good
and for bad as the establishment of or a monarchy, and it is inconceivable that
the Torah would leave it up to man's choice without showing him the proper path
and distancing him from its opposite - and if you should say: Why did Scripture
make [the institution of monarchy] dependent upon [the Israelite] saying "I will appoint over myself, etc."?
I say that the meaning is: Eventually you will say
it, and this comes to teach us that the appointment of a king can be only by
the will of the people, and it is the choice of the people (with the
anointment by God) which gives the power to rule, and lacking this, he is but a
tyrant and rules by force and is not a king. And they, of blessed memory,
had wonderful things to say on this matter, I wonder if they [the wonderful
things] are to be found among sages of the nations and in all their kingdoms in
the times of our Sages, and this is proof that their words came from a
celestial divine source, as follows (Ruth Rabba 5:6): All those six months in which
It is worthwhile to compare the above to the words of the Netziv in his "Haamek Davar" which was published a few years after "Em L'Mikrah". The Netziv, too, wonders about the meaning of "and you will say 'I will appoint over myself a king'", and he, too, explains it as implying that the appointment of a king is somehow contingent upon "the consensus of the people" (in his words), but that this agreement is expressed in a different way. In the Netziv's view, for one nation it is good to be led "by the view of the people and their elected" and another nation "without a king is like a ship without a captain". The Torah left the choice of system of rule in the hands of the people, since the leadership of the people is a matter of life and death, and it is impossible to force upon a nation and form of govern-ment which is not suitable for it. Therefore, in his view, paradoxically, the nation can choose (as has happened - and may yet happen) a "strong" government which will limit its freedoms and save it he need and bother to choose again.
In contrast to the words of the Netziv, it seems that for R' Ben Almazog there is no choice of form of rule: The Torah wants Israel to ruled by a king, but this king is explicitly a constitutional monarch, he must rule with the people's consent, from the will of the people he derives all his legitimacy.
One can, of
course, argue with the interpretation offered here by this midrash,
but in the final analysis, this is but an asmachta
b'alma - a support [but not an actual, binding
source] It is superfluous to note that it is not the midrash
which is the source of Rav Ben Almozag's
point of vview, but rather his understanding of the
meaning of Israel's Torah. As with Abarbanel, his
perception of the king issue flows from a deep belief that the Torah cannot
champion tyranny, and that only a nation of free men can fulfill the most
important of missions - to adhere to God's ways out of free choice, to choose
the blessing and to reject the curse.
Dr.
Ariel Rathaus, literary researcher and translator, teaches
in the
On war and peace: ethical and
ideological aspects
"To
wage war against it" - but not to starve it and not to cause it
to thirst and not to kill it with disease.
"You
are to call out to it in terms of peace" - Great is peace, for
even the dead are in need of peace; great is peace, for even in Israel's wars
they need peace; great is peace, for even the celestial beings need peace, as
is written, "He who makes peace in his Heights" (Job
25); great
is peace for with it we conclude the priestly benediction, and Moshe, too,
loved peace, as is written, "Now I sent messengers from the Wilderness
of Kedemot... words of peace" (Devarim 2:26).
(Sifri, Parashat Shofetim, Piska 199)
The afraid and disheartened - Spiritual,
Psychological or Moral Categories?
The
officials shall go on addressing the troops and say, "Is there anyone
afraid and disheartened? Let him go back to his home... (Devarim 20:8)
Rabbi Akiva says: Afraid and disheartened is meant
literally - he cannot endure the armies joined in battle or bear to see a drawn
sword. R. Yossi Ha-Galili
says: The afraid and disheartened is he that is afraid for the
transgressions that he has committed; wherefore the Law has kept his punishment
in suspense, so that he may return because of them.
(Mishnah Sotah 8:5, based on Danby
translation)
Jacob was greatly frightened and anxious, so he divided the people with
him, and the flocks and herds and camels, into two camps (Bereishit 32:8)
Was frightened - that he might be
killed.
And anxious - that he might kill the others. (Rashi loc cit)
"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 the 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)
The Exodus from
"Atone for Your people"
this refers to the living. Whom you redeemed"– this refers to the
dead; this comes to teach that the dead, too, need atonement thus we learn that
one who sheds blood sins as far back as those who left Egypt.
"Whom you redeemed" - On this condition did you redeem us, that there not be murderers among us.
(Sifri, Parashat Shoftim, 210)
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, and [therefore] they are in need of atonement.
(From Malbim's Commentary on the Sifri)
You Are Not to Raise Yourself a Standing Stone Such As the Lord Your God
Hates" - You Are Not to Bow to Stones
The
standing stone [matsevah] referred to by the
Torah is a construction in which all gather, even to worship the Lord, for this was the
custom of idolaters, as is written, "You are not to raise yourself a standing stone" and whoever raises a
standing stone is to be flogged, and similarly with the decorated stone
mentioned in the Torah, even though one bow on it to God, he is to be flogged, as
is written, "A decorated stone you are not to place in your land, to prostrate
yourselves to it", because this was the custom of the
idolaters, to place a stone before the worshipped object and to prostrate one's
self upon it. Therefore, this is not to be done before God...
(Rambam, Mishne Torah, Law of Idolatry 6, 6)
We need your support in order that the voice of a religious Zionism committed to peace and justice will continue to be heard through the uninterrupted distribution of Shabbat Shalom in hundreds of synagogues, on the Internet and via email in both Hebrew and English.
Donations
in
For
a
If
you wish to subscribe to the email English editions of Shabbat Shalom, to print
copies of it for distribution in your synagogue, to inquire regarding the
dedication of an edition in someone's honor or memory, to find out how to make
tax-exempt donations, or to suggest additional helpful ideas, please call
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.
About us
Oz Veshalom-Netivot
Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in
Oz Veshalom-Netivot
Shalom shares a deep attachment to the
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
Shabbat Shalom is available on our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il
For responses and arranging to write for Shabbat Shalom: pleiser@netvision.net.il