2020/5780
It is interesting to note that among the various institutions that are to be set up upon arriving in Eretz Yisrael, according to this week’s Parashah, is the establishment of a king over the nation. However, this is a potential issue, as it is seemingly the antithesis of Kabbalat Ol Malchut Shamayim, for there is no true ruler over man except for HaKadosh Baruch Hu. So how are we to understand such a concept that is both antithetical to the concept of HaKadosh Baruch Hu’s rule over the universe, and the concept of a mere mortal being appointed Melech Yisrael? In order to answer this, we must first examine the Pesukim which we will base it upon: “Ki Tavo El Ha’Aretz Asher Hashem Elokecha Notein Lach ViRishtah VeYashavtah Bah Ve’Amarta Asimah Alai Melech KeChol HaGoyim Asher Sevivotai. Som Tasim Alecha Melech Asher Yivchar Hashem Elokecha Bo MiKerev Achecha Tasim Alecha Melech Lo Tuchal Lateit Alecha Ish Nochri Asher Lo Achicha Hu,” “When you come to the land Hashem, 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 a king over you, one whom Hashem, your God, chooses; from among your brothers, you shall set a king over yourself; you shall not appoint a foreigner over yourself, one who is not your brother” (Devarim 17:14-15). It is interesting to point out the parallelism of these two Pesukim, for they re-emphasize the question of how is it possible that a king be appointed over Israel when Hashem is the King of the Universe?
Instead of drawing upon the Machloket of whether or not these Pesukim are a Mitzvah, commandment upon the Jewish people, we will examine instead the rationale of these Pesukim. We may understand these Pesukim through the eyes of a Gemara which will bring the matter to light. Chazal (Sanhedrin 20b) interpret that with our question in mind, it would seem that these Pesukim were potentially not a command so much as a prediction of future events. This can be inferred from the words “Ve’Amarta Asimah Alai Melech,” “and you say ‘I set a king over myself’” (ibid). It is implied from the tone of the wording in this Pasuk, written in the future tense, that it is inevitable that Bnei Yisrael will ask for a king. In going back to the Gemara, Rabbi Nehorai seems to agree with and assert this idea, citing the tone of the Pasuk, to which many commentators seemingly concur. Without further delving into this Gemara, it may be inferred that there is a connection between this Pasuk’s tone and future events, which Rav Soloveitchik points out.
We may clearly see from the Pesukim that Bnei Yisrael sought to appoint a king under the guise of looking like every other nation. Another fear that stems from the appointment of a Jewish king is the fear of an inflated ego with unlimited power, as well as a people seeking to rid themselves of the moral influence ofNevi’im. Rav Soloveitchik invokes a commentary of Rambam which does seemingly indicate this. The question is asked by the Rav: Why was Shmuel HaNavi hesitant in anointing Sha’ul as the first Melech Yisrael after Bnei Yisrael fulfilled the Pesukim in our Parasha simply by asking? Rambam (Mishneh Torah Hilchot Melachim 1:2) explains that this request was the people’s failure in attempting to rid themselves of Shmuel’s moral influence. This is very logical and fitting with the fears of Chazal and many commentators [1], as it would seem that Bnei Yisrael’s reasoning in asking this may have been flawed in some way.
However, given the reluctance that Chazal and many have noted (see Chumash Mesorat HaRav Sefer Devarim, pp. 147-149) in compromising with Bnei Yisrael’s request, there is a clearly distinct procedure in Judaism of how to appoint a king, as contrasted with the rest of the world. Rav Soloveitchik points out a number of distinct features in the appointment and function of a Jewish king as compared with the secular world. A Jewish king could be appointed only by the people and may not ascend via any method other than democratic appointment. Additionally, the Sanhedrin or a Navi would be required to handle the final conference of his appointment. There are clearly enough safeguards in these methods. Yet there are other distinctions which we may point out in the uniqueness of a Jewish king which set him apart from others, and may answer our original question of whether a Melech Yisrael is antithetical and incompatible with HaKadosh Baruch Hu’s Malchiyot. The Rav notes another later incident which occurred during the Malchiyot of Sha’ul HaMelech, after being denounced by Shmuel HaNavi for disobeying Hashem’s command to destroy all of Amalek, including the spoils. In a lame attempt to justify his actions, Sha’ul replies that it was only an attempt to satisfy the people’s lust for them and to submit to their demands. In effect, this painted him as a follower, not a ruler, highlighting one of the original fears surrounding his kingship to begin with. The Rav notes that such an ego is not conducive to effective leadership and presents just one of the many other reasons for strictness in appointing a Jewish king.
In light of Sha’ul’s shortfalls, the Rav posits a separate commentary of Rambam (Mishneh Torah Hilchot Melachim 4:10) in defining the true role of a Melech Yisrael, despite Sha’ul and other’s shortcomings. The goal of a Jewish king is meant to be heavenly and his entire goal is to fill the world with Tzidkut and enhance the Emunah of everyone he encounters and is charged to rule over. He is additionally charged with destroying all wickedness/heatheness and fighting the wars of HaKadosh Baruch Hu. He is crowned specifically for the purpose of upholding the Torah and Torah values and administering justice on behalf of Hashem based on the Pasuk in Sefer Shmuel, “Let our king judge us and go out before us and fight our wars.” The Rav concludes from this comment of Rambam that while monarchy was permitted, it was not to serve as a symbol of national glory or to forge a world power. The Jewish king has a particular objective to fulfill. Sha’ul’s appointment as Melech Yisrael served to repulse attacks by the Pelishtim. David HaMelech was appointed for the purpose of unifying the very psychologically and physically distanced Shvatim throughout Eretz Yisrael. Shlomo HaMelech succeeded his father by taking on the mission of building the Beit HaMikdash (Reflections, Vol. I, pp. 127-131). Many Melachim who followed were charged with ridding the nation of Avodah Zara and trying to restore Israel to its status of an Am Kadosh.
This is the sanctity and distinction of the Jewish king. Taking into account that the proposal of appointing a Jewish king presents a heretical paradox between the concepts of HaKadosh Baruch Hu’s Malchut and that of the Jewish king’s, Hashem, through His proxy Moshe, seemingly details that in anticipation of future events. Bnei Yisrael may need to appoint a king; However, in addressing the other side (ie. the many issues of a supreme power in a nation committed to the King of Kings), the Torah, Chazal, and many Rishonim and Acharonim address these various issues by instituting various safeguards and prerequisites which serve to ensure that the Melech Yisrael be the individual who best serves Bnei Yisrael’s needs, physically and spiritually, within the parameters of Torah and Mitzvot, and in times of both peace and peril. Such distinction of character is what constitutes the Jewish king and sets him apart from his non-Jewish counterparts. [2]
[1] An interesting point is made by the Tosefta, Sanhedrin 4:3 which seems to show that it was the manner in which the Jewish people requested a king that was the issue. This is rejected by commentaries like the Abarbanel, but is nonetheless interesting to see.
[2] This topic is also briefly explored by the 18th century writer and philosopher Thomas Paine in Common Sense, Chapter 2, and can be explored for further reading.