Shabbos Parashas Shoftim - 5774
Shabbos Parashas Shoftim - 5774
Rabbi Hal Miller
You shall surely set over yourself a king whom Hashem your G-d shall choose,
from among your brethren shall you set a king over yourself, you cannot
place over yourself a foreign man, who is not your brother. [Devarim 17:15]
Most of our commentators list this as a positive mitzvah of the Torah. We are
commanded to appoint a king. The previous verse, "When you come to the land
that Hashem your G-d gives you, possess it, and settle in it, and you will
say, 'I will set a king over myself, like all the nations that are around
me.'" The commentators discuss in depth why the people would wish for a king,
and the limitations such as only when they were in the land.
One stands out, and disagrees with the rest. Abarbanel disputes each proof
that the others bring for their opinions. The prophet Shmuel, in a case where
the people used exactly the same wording to request a king as they used here,
strongly opposes the appointment. So, is asking for a king right or wrong? Is
it a commandment or not?
Sifri writes that the verse [I Shmuel 8:20] "We too will be like the other
nations" is the problem. G-d's response is [8:8] "Since the day that I brought
them out of Egypt until today they have forsaken Me and served other gods."
Abarbanel asks on this, if all the people wanted was a king who would lead
them to idolatry, why did G-d allow them to do this? "that he may save My
people" means that the purpose of a king is to bring salvation to Israel.
Tosefta [Sanhedrin 20b] tell us that the problem is "We too will be like all
the nations". Rambam said that the sin was because they asked "complainingly"
rather than for the sake of a mitzvah. Abarbanel compares the text of the
requests in Shmuel and Devarim and finds them identical. Shmuel was angry
because of the request itself, not because of the wording.
Ran thinks the issue is that the people asked "for a king to judge us [8:5].
Nachshoni says, "had they asked for a king without defining his duties, Shmuel
would not have had any complaints, but the right to judge the people is given
to the judges, not the king. Abarbanel notes that in Shmuel said, [10:19],
"you have this day rejected your G-d who saves you out of all your
adversities". Shmuel was upset about the fact that the people asked for a king
rather than what they defined his role to be.
Abarbanel asks, if there is a mitzvah to appoint a king, why didn't Yehoshua
do so upon entering the land of Israel? Shmuel said explicitly [8:7], "your
wickedness is great that you have done before G-d in asking for yourselves a
king."
The people specified that they wanted a king so they could be like the other
nations. Abarbanel first discusses whether a king is right for the other
nations in the first place, and concludes that a king brings disaster on his
nation. The king is chosen as a servant of the nation, but quickly reverses
the situation.
Then Abarbanel says that even if a king is justified for others, no such
justification exists for Israel to have one. Arguments typically given in
support of a king in general are three: to lead in war, to establish laws and
courts, and to punish offenders outside of normal laws. As Nachshoni puts it,
"All these three duties are carried out by Hashem or through those who do His
will. Hashem wages war and fights for the people. Moshe gave us laws which he
had received from Hashem and we have no right to add to or detract from them.
Where there is warranted need to punish a person beyond what halacha calls for
this right is given to the court." Even if we assume that the other nations
need a king, Abarbanel says that the Jews do not. Most Jewish kings rebelled
against Hashem and led Israel astray. This was not true of the judges, all of
whom were people of valor and feared Hashem.
So, how does Abarbanel see our verse? As opposed to expounding one of the 613
mitzvos, this is a permission, not a requirement. The commandment here comes
into play, not when Israel moves into the land, but once Israel asks for a
king. Then, the Torah tells us, a king may only be appointed with these
restrictions, specifically that it will be G-d who selects the monarch, and
that it will be a Jew rather than a foreigner.
There is certainly a commandment here, whichever approach we follow. Why was
this commanded? Comparing our verse and those in Shmuel, and all of the
commentaries, the one point that stands out is that the people were looking
for a human to stand in for G-d. This lack of faith was the sin that upset
Shmuel. This explains why G-d had to limit the choice to His own selection.
If Israel will place its faith in G-d, no human king is necessary. Any mitzvah
to appoint one would never come about, but a mitzvah to accept G-d's choice
would always be fulfilled.