INTPARSHA -47: SHOFTIM

From:          "Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash"
To:            yhe-intparsha@vbm-torah.org
Subject:       INTPARSHA -47: SHOFTIM

                   YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
      ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************

                    PARASHAT SHOFTIM

                     Parashat Ha-melekh
                      by Rav Josh Amaru

"If, after you have entered the land that the Lord
your God has assigned to you, and taken possession of
it and settled in it, you decide, 'I will set a king
over me as do all the nations about me:' You shall be
free to set a king over yourself, one chosen by the
Lord your God. Be sure to set as king over yourself
one of your own people; you must not set a foreigner
over you, one who is not your kinsman: Moreover, he
shall not keep many horses or send people back to
Egypt to add to his horses, since the Lord has warned
you, 'You must not go back that way again:' And he
shall not have many wives, lest his heart go astray;
nor shall he amass silver and gold to excess:
When he is seated on his royal throne, he shall have
a copy of this Teaching written for him on a scroll
by the Levitical priests. Let it remain with him and
let him read in it all of his life, so that he may
learn   to revere the Lord his God, to    observe
faithfully every word of this Teaching as well as
these laws: Thus he will not act haughtily toward his
fellows or deviate from the Instruction to the right
or   to the left, to the end that he and   his
descendants may reign long in the midst of Israel"
(Devarim 17:14-20, JPS translation).

What   is the ideal political system?    This week's
parasha   provides the only explicit   discussion    of
political theory in the whole Written Torah. Even in the
Torah she-ba'al peh the discussion of the form and nature
of government is sparse (mostly a few sections in the
second chapter of masekhet Sanhedrin). We will discuss
the reason for the Torah's seeming lack of interest in
political issues towards the end of this shiur.   First,
we will investigate what the Torah does say by means of a
close reading of 'parashat ha-melekh.'

Is Monarchy a Mitzva?

     At first blush, the very asking of this question
feels vaguely heretical. Every day we pray for the
reinstitution of the throne of David.   Does that not
imply   that   monarchy is Judaism's ideal    form   of
government? As a matter of fact, there is a disagreement
(machloket) among the Tanaim whether there is a mitzva to
establish a monarchy (Tosefta Sanhedrin 4:c).   In order
to understand the machloket, we need to go back to the
verses in our parasha and see how each side interprets
them. The key to this question lies in understanding the
relationship between the first two verses of parashat ha-
melekh:

pasuk 14:
"If (When) after you have entered the land that the
Lord   your God has assigned to you, and   taken
possession of it and settled in it, you decide, 'I
will set a king over me as do all the nations about
me.'"

pasuk 15:
"You shall be free to (You shall surely) set a king
over yourself, one chosen by the Lord your God..."

The first word of pasuk 14, "Ki" can be interpreted in
two ways.   If we follow the JPS translation (if), then
the whole verse is understood as a conditional clause:
"If, after you have settled the land, you ask for a
king..."   This reading influences our reading of the
beginning of the next verse: "Som tasim alekha melekh..."
as permission to appoint a king ("you shall be free
to..."), with the qualifications as elaborated below (not
too   many wives, not too many horses, etc.).   The
institution of monarchy is not a mitzva or even a
desideratum - the Torah allows Am Yisrael to have a king
in order to satisfy their desire to be like "all the
nations about me." The institution of monarchy appears,
according to this interpretation, to be not more than a
concession to the will of the people to imitate their
neighbors - instead of forbidding it entirely, the Torah
allows it under certain specific limiting conditions.

If we interpret the word "ki" as 'when,' as opposed to
'if,' the meaning of these verses undergoes a significant
change.   The Torah is not responding to a hypothetical
demand on the part of the people for a king but laying
out the preconditions under which setting up a monarchy
is mandated: After the land has been conquered and
settled, and the people begin to feel a need for a king
(more on this important qualification later!), the Torah
commands: "Som tasim alekha melekh...," "You shall surely
set   a king over yourself..."   Under this reading,
instituting a monarchy is not a concession to the
people's weakness but an important stage in Am Yisrael's
development as a people. Upon reaching this stage, there
is a commandment to appoint a king, though the Torah is
careful to define and limit this king's powers - he is
not some oriental potentate but the leader of the people
who must rule according to the Torah.

These two interpretations of the pesukim are reflected in
the different positions quoted in the Tosefta (Sanhedrin
4c):

R. Yehuda says: Benei Yisrael were commanded to
fulfil three mitzvot upon entering the land: To
appoint a king, to build the Temple and to destroy
the descendants of Amalek... R. Nehorai says: This
passage (parashat ha-melekh) was only in response to
their (the people's) complaint, as it says "I will
set a king over me..."

R. Yehuda understands the pesukim to imply a mitzva to
appoint a king, while R. Nehorai views them as granting
no more than permission to do so.   This machloket
continues among the Rishonim.   The Rambam    (Hilkhot
Melakhim 1:1), and most of the other Rishonim follow R.
Yehuda's opinion and hold that there is a positive
commandment to appoint a king under the appropriate
circumstances.   The Abarbanel defends   R.    Nehorai's
position in a fascinating (and lengthy) discourse that
includes interpretation of the pesukim, classical and
contemporary political philosophy, and reference to the
political situation of his time (see the Abarbanel's
commentary to I Samuel chap. 8).

Besides representing different readings of the pesukim,
these two positions reflect broader issues that arise
when we weigh the value the Torah gives to monarchy as a
political system. On the one hand, as mentioned above,
it is clear that the tradition assigns great import to
malkhut beit David - the monarchy of David's house.   We
pray for its return, we believe that yemot ha-mashiach
will entail its re-establishment, and read in other books
of Tanakh (namely Shmuel, Melakhim, Divrei Ha-yamim, and
many references throughout Nevi'im and Ketuvim) of its
importance and permanence. All of this supports R.
Yehuda's position.   On the other hand, the verses in
Shmuel (I Samuel, chap. 8) imply a much less positive
attitude towards the monarchy. When the people demand a
king, Shmuel is displeased and prays to God.    God
responds: "Heed the demand of the people in everything
they say to you. For it is not you they have rejected;
it is Me they have rejected as their king" (I Samuel 8:7,
JPS translation).   These pesukim seem to imply that
setting up a monarchy is a rejection of God's rule and
that God's allowing a monarchy should be viewed as
concession to the people's weakness. In these pesukim we
find support for R. Nehorai's opinion (see the Tosefta
for two answers that can be given according to R.
Yehuda). It would appear that instead of clarifying our
understanding of the Torah's political theory we have
further confused it. One opinion claims that the Torah
basically rejects monarchy but is willing to allow it on
popular demand, under certain limiting conditions.   The
other opinion has a positive attitude towards monarchy -
indeed there is a mitzva to appoint a king - but the king
must follow certain rules and behave in a certain way.
It would be presumptuous of us to decide between these
two opinions. In the following we will try to put them
in context, and try to understand how such a seemingly
crucial issue is left so unclear. First, let us take a
look at the limitations the Torah imposes on the king,
and at the instructions it has for his behavior.

Constitutional Monarchy

     In the ancient Middle East, the king very often knew
no limitations - his word was law for everyone but
himself.   In Egypt (and other places) the king was
considered one othe gods.   In contrast, the    king,
according to the Torah, is not above the law.   Not only
must he keep the Torah, there are special mitzvot which
apply only to him and which seem directed at avoiding two
things: foreign influence and the corruption that so
often is associated with power.

"...You must not set a foreigner over you, one who is
not your kinsman: Moreover, he shall not keep many
horses or send people back to Egypt to add to his
horses, since the Lord has warned you, 'You must not
go back that way again.' And he shall not have many
wives, lest his heart go astray; nor shall he amass
silver and gold to excess."

     The first rule is not a limitation of what the king
can do but a limitation as to who can be a candidate for
the kingship. It is not surprising, given the emphasis
in Sefer Devarim on avoiding foreign influence that will
lead into avoda zara, that the king must be a fellow Jew.
The other rules seem to be directed at potential abuses.
The gemara (Sanhedrin 21b) explains that the king may
have as many horses and gold and silver he needs - but he
is   prohibited   to amass wealth or military    power
(presumably at the expense of his subjects) for their own
sakes, as a flamboyant expression of his power.    In
addition, he must be wary of a particular temptation of a
king - not to return the people to Egypt.    He is
forbidden a large harem (a normal expression of power in
the ancient Middle East) because of the danger this
entails - "lest his heart go astray." Presumably, this
refers to the danger of foreign influence from political
marriages (e.g., Shlomo Ha-melekh) as well as to the
potential for moral corruption in a marital life that
knows no limitations. The overall impression one gets
from these prohibitions is that the Torah is wary of the
king's abuse of power for two reasons: 1. that he will
lead the people astray (this would certainly be a problem
for many of the kings in Sefer Melakhim). 2. that he
himself will be morally corrupted and become arrogant
(which will perhaps result in him leading the people
astray).

     This second concern is emphasized in the second half
of parashat ha-melekh:

"When he is seated on his royal throne, he shall have
a copy of this teaching written for him on a scroll
by the levitical priests. Let it remain with him and
let him read in it all of his life, so that he may
learn   to revere the Lord his God, to    observe
faithfully every word of this teaching as well as
these laws: Thus he will not act haughtily toward his
fellows or deviate from the Instruction to the right
or   to the left, to the end that he and   his
descendants nay reign long in the midst of Israel."

The Torah is very aware of the corrupting influence of
power and warns the king to beware. The king is not
exempt from the law, rather he is instructed to pay
special attention to it. As leader of the people, he
must be their leader in keeping the Torah.

The Will of the People and God's Will

     Until now we have discussed the legal obligations of
the king without reference to the basis of his authority.
The king is appointed by the people - "Som tasim ALEKHA
melekh." Even according to the opinion that there is a
mitzva to appoint a king, this mitzva is only operative
upon the people's demand - there is no mitzva to force a
king on the people (see the Netziv in Ha-amek Davar
Devarim 17:14 who expands upon this point).   The idea
that the basis of the king's authority lies in the
people's acceptance seems obvious today, but in its time,
this idea was positively revolutionary. The idea that
the king's continuing rule is not automatic or 'divine
right' is emphasized in another place: Rashi, in his
commentary on the verse "that he and his descendants may
reign long in the midst of Israel." (17:20) notes "he and
his sons, saying that if his son is worthy of the throne
he is prior to all others (based on the Bavli Horayot
11b)."   Even the succession is not an absolute right of
the king's - his son only has priority over other
candidates but his succession is not automatic.

     Let us return to our original question. Why does
the Torah relate in such a limited way to political
thought?   Even according to the opinion that instituting
the monarchy is a mitzva, the Torah gives us almost no
information as to how government should be set up.   All
we have are a few isolated prohibitions relating to the
king's behavior and a general exhortation for the king to
keep the Torah.   Compare that with (lehavdil) ancient
Greek thought for which politics is perhaps the most
central issue (e.g., Plato's Republic). The answer to
this question, and indeed the key to our understanding of
parashat ha-melekh, requires us to look at these pesukim
in their broader context. Until now, we have been
relating   to parashat ha-melekh as if it    were   a
description of a normal secular political system.   In
this context, one could evaluate the political system as
briefly described in the Torah, and point out its
strengths and weaknesses, etc. However, the Torah is not
interested in secular political institutions, or in
politics per se.   The monarchy, as described in our
parasha, is in not the best way to run a government but a
detail in the relationship between Am Yisrael and their
real king, God. Though the monarchy requires the consent
of the people, the king himself is chosen by God.
Monarchy is a mitzva or at the least a valid option when
the sanhedrin is sitting in "the place that God will
choose" and when there are prophets to communicate God's
will.   The danger of monarchy is that it will cause the
people to forget who is their real king, as we see in the
pesukim in Shmuel - "For it is not you they have
rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king."
The disagreement between the Tannaim as to whether
ultimately there is a mitzva to appoint a king turns on
whether the advantages of a king - as a unifying national
symbol and as a national leader - outweigh these dangers.
The real king of Am Yisrael must be God and monarchy is
only a value when we, the people, recognize this. Thus,
we can explain the absence of any concrete instruction in
the   Torah as to the ideal political system.   The
political system of the Torah is not monarchy nor
oligarchy nor democracy but malkhut shamayim.   The king
is subordinate to the King of Kings, and the Torah does
go to great lengths in describing how Am Yisrael should
relate to Him. The Torah is not concerned with human
political systems because the ideal is the kingship of
God.   Parashat ha-melekh comes to teach us that within
the context of this overriding ideal, there is room for
human political institutions, perhaps ideally a monarchy,
led by a king who does "not act haughtily toward his
fellows or deviate from the Instruction to the right or
to the left..."

     In this essay, we have tried to explain the primary
message (in my opinion) to be learned from parashat ha-
melekh. We have not dealt with more contemporary issues
which relate to our own non-ideal reality, like the
halakhic status of democracy (obviously a great many
democratic values exist in and are derived from the Torah
but that is not to say that the Torah is clearly pro-
democracy), or what is the value of Jewish    self-
government which does not realize the ideal of divine
rule.   These are important issues but we have chosen to
avoid them and to concentrate on understanding the
pesukim in their context.   These pesukim deal with
monarchy. Whether monarchy is an ideal remains an open
question, though the weight of opinion throughout the
generations leans toward a positive answer to this
question.   It is certain, though, that the higher ideal
is that of malkhut shamayim, of the kingdom of heaven,
under which the specific form of human government is only
a detail.

Shabbat shalom.

YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433

Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshivat Har Etzion
All Rights Reserved

*****************************************************

Weekly Sabbath Torah Reading/Commentary for Parashat Shoftim
(Deuteronomy 16:18-21:9), 2 Elul, 5760

by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

Chief Rabbi of Efrat;

What form of government is the Jewish People
required to establish?

In this week's portion of Shoftim, we encounter for the first time the
commandment that the Israelites are to be ruled by a king.

"When you come unto the land which G-d your Lord gives you, and you
shall possess, and shall...say, 'I will set up a king over me, like
all the nations around us', you shall then appoint the king whom G-d
your Lord shall choose." [Deuteronomy 17:14-15]

But what kind of king does the Torah have in mind?

The text goes on to speak in terms of a monarchy which is in sharp
contrast to how we usually conceive of imperial figures of the ancient
world, whether they be Pharaoh, Achashveirosh or Nebuchadnezzar who,
with their signet rings and royal scepters, determined life and death.

Much of that august power has been curtailed, starting in England
where the Magna Carta in 1215 guaranteed certain civil and political
liberties to the people. Even so, as late as the 17th century the
social philosopher Thomas Hobbes, (1588-1679) in his classic work
Leviathan, could still speak of the "divine right of kings".

Undoubtedly, for many people, in order to accept a king's absolute
authority over every aspect of their lives, a measure of divinity was
necessary, as if his very blood came from a unique regal source --
blue blood for the nobility, and the bluest blood for the king.

But the blood of the king of Israel is not blue.

Following the commandment to appoint a king, the Torah immediately
places constraints on the king's powers, limiting the number of
horses, the number of his wives, and the amount of gold and silver he
is allowed to amass.

"Only he shall not accumulate many horses, so as not to bring the
people back to Egypt to get more horses... He must not have many
wives, so that they not make his heart go astray. Neither shall he
multiply to himself much silver and gold." [Deuteronomy 17:16-17]

To anyone raised on tales of chivalry and castles, the king of Israel
sounds more like a nobleman, but hardly a king, and certainly not
someone who can claim that his crown of authority is based on the
"divine right of kings". If anything, it sounds more like the 'divine
responsibility of kings'.

The issue of kingship is addressed by various commentators. The
Abarbanel (1437-1508) understands this command to be voluntary
('reshut'). Only if the people specifically insist upon a king, shall
a monarchy be instituted.

Otherwise, G-d is to be the King of Israel -- a theocracy is the
preferred form of government!

Maimonides disagrees. His list of three commandments that are to be
carried out by the people upon entering the land (Laws of Kings,
Chapter 1, Halacha 1) is headed by the commandment to "appoint a
king", citing our verse in Parshat Shoftim. After a monarchy is in
place, the Israelites must then establish a Holy Temple. Clearly, for
Maimonides, the monarchy is a necessary institution and not a
voluntary one.

Each of these Torah giants is stressing a different aspect of the
verses.

The Abarbanel considers the commandment from the perspective of the
beginning of the verse, emphasizing the fact that it is the people
initiating the request.

Maimonides, emphasizes the end of the verse, that the king is
ultimately seen as the chosen one of G-d. Such a result can not be
brought about by a mere matter of volition, but must be one of the
commandments of the 613 commandments.

If so, why the lengthy introduction "When you come into the land and
say.."?

Perhaps the Netziv (Rabbi Naphtali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin,1725-1799) in
his commentary Haemek Davar, explains why. At the same time he
provides an illuminating insight into leadership.

The Netziv insists that the Biblical introduction having the people
expressing their desire for a king for a prerequisite to his
appointment is a signal to the leader that only if the office and its
occupant is in consonance with the will of the majority of the people
will such a leadership be able to be sustained.

Government must be by the consent of the governed, it must be "of the
people, by the people, for the people".

The precise form of government is of secondary or tertiary
importance. What is significant is that whatever form it takes, and
whoever presides at its helm, must reflect the will and desire of the
people.

Hence, the Talmud rules that "a king who wishes to relinquish the
honor due him is not permitted to do so - because the source of his
honor is not his own persona but is rather the nation itself", i.e.,
those who chose him as their ruler.

Whomever the people choose automatically becomes the choice of G-d.

From this perspective we can readily understand why Maimonides in the

twelfth century and Rav Kook in the twentieth century maintain that in
the absence of a Sanhedrin or a prophet, the ruler is to be chosen by
popular election (Mishpat Kohen, 144).

We can similarly appreciate why, when the nation does not defend Moses
against Korach's charges and Moses refers to the people as rebels, the
Almighty decides that the time has come to appoint a new leader,
Joshua, the son of Nun.

Does this mean that the Israeli ruler is to constantly chase the
opinion polls, establishing his policy only after he surmises what the
majority of the people want to hear? Much the opposite, a particular
spiritual path was included in the 'kingly' package.

"When established on his royal throne, (the king) must write a copy of
this Torah as a scroll...This scroll must always be with him, and he
shall read therein all the days of his life. He will then learn to be
in awe of G-d his Lord, to keep all the words of this Torah..."
[Deuteronomy 17: 18-19]

The Israelite king was not above the law. He had to enforce the law.

Indeed, he was G-d's representative in charge of teaching the law:
Every seventh year, after the release of the land and the start of the
sabbatical year, the entire nation (men, women and children) was
commanded to gather (hakhail) and the king would then read from the
Torah.

How blue could the king's blood be if he and I and the entire nation
were commanded to keep the same Torah, one text for all. Indeed, the
king stood as the messenger of G-d, conveying the Divine teaching:

"It is a positive commandment to assemble all Israelites, men, women,
and children, after the close of every year of the sabbatical when
they go up to make the pilgrimage. In their hearing, he must read
chapters from the Law which shall keep them diligent in the
commandments and strengthen them in the true religion..."
[Maimonides, Laws of Festival Offerings, Chapter 3. Halacha 1]

The ruler of Israel must be appointed from below and answerable to the
One above. The ruler's task is not to legislate new laws but is
rather to inspire the nation to accept G-d's law. Even if the
situation demands new legislation, the laws of the ruler must be in
accord with the ethics and the morality of Torah.

The Torah understands that no despot can ultimately succeed in
establishing policies which are not in accordance with the will of the
people. Even Moses, the greatest prophet who ever lived, could not
take the Jews into the Promised Land unless they felt they wanted to
take the necessary risk to do so.

Hence, coercing or even legislating Torah rules against the will of
the overwhelming majority of the people is a prescription doomed for
disaster. The Israelite ruler has an agenda of justice and compassion
which he has received -- together with his nation -- at Sinai 4000
years ago. His most exalted challenge is to PREPARE and INSPIRE the
nation to re-accept the covenant and commit itself to its fulfillment.

Only a ruler capable of fulfilling this task will lead the Israelite
nation into its ultimate destiny.

Shabbat Shalom from Efrat,

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

************************************************************