The Benefits of Anarchy

When you come into the land that Hashem your L-rd gives to you and you possess it and dwell in it, you will say: Place upon me a king like all of the nations that surround me. (Devarim 17:14)

1. The Torah’s instructions regarding a king and their meaning

The passage above describes an event that will occur in the future. Bnai Yisrael will take possession of the Land of Israel. They will ask that a king be placed over them. They explain that this king will rule over them as other sovereigns rule over their nations. The Torah continues its discussion by explaining that the request of the people should be granted. A king should be selected and appointed over the nation.

As Nachmanides notes, these passages foreshadow future events. The prophet Shmuel will be approached by the people. They will ask that he appoint a king to rule over them. They will frame their request much as it is described in the above passage. They will tell Shmuel that they wish to be like other nations and to be governed by a sovereign. As is directed by the passages in our parasha, when Shmuel was approached by the people, he acquiesced to their request.[1]

The Talmud explains that the Sages dispute the intent of the passages regarding the appointment of a king. Ribbi Yehudah understands the passage as a directive. We are required to appoint a king. In other words, the Torah is commanding us to be governed by a sovereign. This commandment is one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Ribbi Nehorai disagrees with Ribbi Yehudah. He argues that the Torah allows for the appointment of a king. However, it does not command us to select a sovereign.[2]

And all of the elders of Israel gathered and they came to Shmuel at Ramah. And they said to him: You have become old and your sons have not gone along your path. Now, place upon us a king to judge us like all of the nations. And the issue was evil in the eyes of Shmuel – that they said to him, “Give to us a king to judge us.” And Shmuel prayed to Hashem. (Sefer Shmuel 1, 8:4-6)

2. Shmuel’s response to the people

The passages above describe the events leading to the appointment of the first king of Bnai Yisrael – Shaul. Shmuel the prophet had led the people. As he aged, the elders of the nation considered how he should be replaced. They came to Shmuel and asked that he select for them a king. This king would succeed Shmuel as the leader of the nation. The passages explain that Shmuel was not pleased with the request.

These passages seem to support the position of Ribbi Nehorai. He maintains that the Torah allows the appointment of a king. However, it does not command or endorse the appointment of a sovereign. The people asked Shmuel to appoint a king. He responded by expressing the reservations expressed in the Torah’s treatment of the issue. He would not refuse them. He also would not endorse their choice.

According to Ribbi Yehudah, it is more difficult to understand Shmuel’s response. The people asked that a king be appointed. According to Ribbi Yehudah, this request was consistent with the Torah’s commandment to appoint a king. Shmuel should have congratulated the people on their decision to fulfill this commandment of the Torah.

Many commentators address this issue and provide various fascinating solutions. Perhaps, the simplest explanation of Shmuel’s response is provided by the comments of Rashi. He explains that the people framed their request improperly. They told Shmuel that they wanted a king so that they would be similar to the other nations. Shmuel objected to their desire to emulate the nations that surrounded them. They should not look to these nations for a standard of behavior or governance.[3]^,[4]

In summary, Shmuel’s response is obviously consistent with Ribbi Nehorai’s position. However, his response can also be reconciled with Ribbi Yehudah’s position. According to Ribbi Yehudah, the request put to Shmuel was consistent with the commandment to appoint a king. However, Shmuel objected to the manner in which the request was framed.

3. The inclusion of the commandment to appoint a king with the 613 mitzvot

Let us consider this dispute between the Sages more carefully. According to Ribbi Yehudah, the Torah’s discussion of the appointment of a king is the basis for a commandment. According to Ribbi Neharai the Torah’s discussion does not express a commandment. It only grants to the nation permission to appoint a king. Why is this permission needed? Why does the Torah expressly communicate to us that we may appoint a sovereign?

Sefer HaChinuch discusses a related issue. Maimonides adopts the position of Ribbi Yehudah. He rules that the Torah commands us to appoint a king. He also includes this commandment among the Torah’s 613 mitzvot. Sefer HaChinuch accepts Maimonides’ ruling and also includes this commandment among his listing of the 613 commandments. However, he acknowledges that this ruling presents a problem.

Not every instruction in the Torah is included among the Torah’s 613 mitzvot. These 613 mitzvot are commandments that apply in all generations. Obligations that are performed on a single occasion and thereby discharged are not among the Torah’s 613 commandments. For example, Bnai Yisrael were given instructions leading up to Revelation. Among these instructions was that they were prohibited from ascending the mountain. This prohibition is not one of the Torah’s 613 commandments. It applied at the time of Revelation and its observance was executed at that time. It does not apply to subsequent generations.

Sefer HaChinuch notes that the commandment to appoint a king was completely discharged with the selection of David as king of Bnai Yisrael. David was selected as the patriarch of a dynasty that will rule Bnai Yisrael for all time. Even the Messiah will be a king who is a descendant of David. How can this commandment be regarded as binding for all generations and included in a compilation of the Torah’s 613 commandments?[5]

Sefer HaChinuch responds that the commandment does apply to all generations. The commandment encompasses more than the obligation to appoint a king. It includes the hereditary right of the king’s offspring to succession. It includes the king’s authorization to rule over the people and our obligation of obedience to the king. In other words, the commandment does not merely instruct us to appoint a king. It establishes or provides the Torah’s authorization for all aspects of the institution of kingship.[6]

This provides insight into the dispute between Ribbi Yehudah and Ribbi Neharai. Both will agree that there is a mitzvah in the Torah regarding the appointment of the king. According to Ribbi Nehorai, this mitzvah establishes the legitimacy of the institution of kingship. It provides the king with the authorization to rule over the people and to direct the people’s actions. It also obligates the people to obey and respect their king. Ribbi Yehudah agrees that the commandment includes these elements. However, he maintains that the commandment does not only create the institution of kingship, it also commands us to form the institution.

4. The Torah authorizes the institution of kingship

Now, we understand why the Torah includes a discussion of kingship even according to Ribbi Nehorai. According to his position, the Torah is not directing us to appoint a king. It is giving us the option. However, in order for the option to have meaning, the king must have the authority to rule. The passages in our parasha provide that authority.

These two opinions can be understood on a deeper level. According to Ribbi Yehudah we are required to appoint a king. Sefer HaChinuch explains that the king is responsible for maintaining order and peace within society. He is the chief administrator of the nation and responsible for its welfare. This is an important function.   Yet, according to Ribbi Nehorai, the Torah is ambivalent regarding the institution of kingship. It is allowed, but not ideal. What is the Torah’s reservation regarding this institution?

And his master should bring him before the judges. And he should draw him near to the door or doorpost. And his master should pierce his ear with an awl and he will be his servant forever. (Sefer Shemot 21:10)

5. Serving many masters

The Torah allows for indentured servitude. The indentured servant is required to provide a specific number of years of service. Once these years of service are provided, the servant must return to freedom. If the servant resists and wishes to continue his servitude, he may extend his service to the Jubilee year. However, this extension is accomplished though an unusual process conducted by the court. The servant is bought to the court. He is stood at the doorpost of the court. His ear is pierced at the doorpost. Why is his ear pierced and why is the doorpost significant? We will focus on the selection of the ear for this act of the court.

Among Rashi’s comments on this issue is a reflection on the institution of servitude. Rashi explains that the Torah allows the institution. However, the Torah does not favor the institution. It frowns upon its extension beyond the absolutely necessary period. The piercing of the servant’s ear communicates the Torah’s attitude. At Sinai we became the servants of Hashem. Yet, this servant has acquired for himself a mortal master.[7]

Rashi’s comments are not easily understood. How does the servant’s duty to his master compete or interfere with his service to Hashem. His master cannot command him to transgress the Torah. In fact, the master’s treatment of the servant is closely regulated by the Torah.

Apparently, the Torah is not concerned with practical conflicts between the servant’s duties to Hashem and his obligation to serve his mortal master. The Torah’s concern is over the servant’s outlook or psychological state. In the servant-master relationship, the servant inevitably develops a dependency and awe for his master. These are attitudes that the Torah reserves solely for Hashem. We are commanded to fear Hashem and to serve Him. These commandments mean that we are to serve and fear Him to the exclusion of all others.

Rashi’s comments provide an insight into the Torah’s ambivalence regarding the appointment of a king. A king must be served by his subjects and they must treat him with deep respect. A monarch can be a very central figure in the lives and thinking of his subjects. He may compete with Hashem for the service and awe that is reserved for Him only. According to Ribbi Nehorai, the king is not the ideal leader. The prophet or the spiritual leader is preferable. Shmuel was a prophet. From the perspective of Ribbi Nehorai, the people sinned in seeking to replace a prophet with a king.

Of course, a king is also expected to be committed to furthering the Torah observance of the people. He is commanded to write for himself a Sefer Torah upon assuming the throne. He is expected to keep it with him and read from it constantly. However, the king’s authority and his responsibilities are executive and administrative. In contrast, the prophet is primarily a spiritual leader. He is selected on the basis of his spiritual capacities and his chief responsibility is to provide spiritual guidance.

According to Ribbi Yehudah, the nation is commanded to appoint a king. The efficient and effective administration of the nation’s affairs must be given priority. The king must conduct himself according to the laws of the Torah. But his responsibility is to care for the material needs of the nation. According to Ribbi Nehorai, this type of leader is permitted, but not ideal. The spiritual needs and condition of the nation take priority over care for material needs and comforts. A king is permitted but not endorsed.

 

[1] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Devarim 17:14.

[2] Mesechet Sanhedrin 20b.

[3] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shmuel 1, 8:5.

[4] According to Nachmanides, the Torah does allow that a king be appointed even for this poor reason. This is clearly stated in the passages above from our parasha. However, the Torah also regards this as a poor and inappropriate motivation.

[5] This question is difficult to understand. Maimonides includes among his commandments others that are executed at a single moment in time. The destruction of Amalek, once executed, will not assert an obligation on future generations. He does not include in his 613 commandments instructions like the example cited above – the prohibition against ascending the mountain. This instruction was directed to a specific group of people at a specific time. It is commandments of this type that he does not include in his catalogue of the 613 mitzvot. He does include commandments like the destruction of Amalek. The commandment to appoint a king is similar to the destruction of Amalek and not to the prohibition against ascending the mountain. It is not clear why Sefer HaChinuch supposes that the commandment to appoint a king should be excluded from the 613 commandments.

[6] Rabbaynu Aharon HaLeyve, Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 496.

[7] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 21:10.