Thursday night's class was hosted by one of our regular attendees - Jon G. A new host is always a welcome addition to our list of sponsors. Thanks to all who attended and continue to attend our "Beer and Shiur, + Cholent!"
The Torah gives every indication that the commandment to appoint a king is a secondary one - in other words, if there comes a point when you really need a king, this is how you appoint him. Towards the end of our discussion we raised a number of other commandments that fit this category - they come about based on a personal decision.
[To bring this home through a very topical current event discussion, we can relate this to the suggestion that a man (for example) who chooses to smoke should be obligated to pay for his own health care. He doesn't have to take care of his problems, but now that his choice to smoke has given him lung cancer, here is how he can personally go about getting the care he needs.]
Included in that portion of the discussion were how to bring certain voluntary offerings (korbanos) (Vayikra 1:2-3; 22:18-19); How to deal with a wife suspeted of infidelity (Bamidbar 5); How to become close to God through asceticism as a Nazir (Bamidbar 6); to remember it is God who grants you wealth and success - in case you forget (Devarim 8); how to eat meat, should you desire to (Devarim 12:20-21); What to do when a person finds an abandoned maiden on the enemy battlefield (Devarim 21:10-14); How to end a marriage through divorce (Devarim 24:1).
There are more, of course, and they all differ from regularly "commanded" mitzvos, in that the persons are given instructions how to proceed in the event they choose to follow through a form of action. Is a man required to turn his wife into a Sotah? Is there a command to become a Nazir? Must a person eat meat? Does a man have to bring a maiden home from battle? Is there a requirement for all marriages to end in divorce?
Clearly the answer to all of these question is NO. And the same applies to the question of appointing a king. It is not required, but there are rules should the nation choose to go in that direction.
Devarim 17
14 When you come to the land that God your Lord is giving you, so that you have occupied it and settled it, you will eventually say, 'We would like to appoint a king upon us, just like all the nations around us.' 15 You must then appoint the king
a. whom God your Lord shall choose. You must appoint a king
b. from among your brethren; you may not appoint a foreigner who is not one of your brethren. 16 [The king,] however,
c. must not accumulate many horses, so as not to bring the people back to Egypt to get more horses. God has told you that you must never again return on that path. 17 He [also]
d. must not have many wives, so that they not make his heart go astray.
e. He shall likewise not accumulate very much silver and gold. 18 When [the king] is established on his royal throne,
f. he must write a copy of this Torah as a scroll edited by the Leviticus priests. 19 [This scroll] must always be with him, and he shall read from it all the days of his life. He will then learn to be in awe of God his Lord, and carefully keep every word of this Torah and these rules.
The Torah gives every indication that the commandment to appoint a king is a secondary one - in other words, if there comes a point when you really need a king, this is how you appoint him. Towards the end of our discussion we raised a number of other commandments that fit this category - they come about based on a personal decision.
[To bring this home through a very topical current event discussion, we can relate this to the suggestion that a man (for example) who chooses to smoke should be obligated to pay for his own health care. He doesn't have to take care of his problems, but now that his choice to smoke has given him lung cancer, here is how he can personally go about getting the care he needs.]
Included in that portion of the discussion were how to bring certain voluntary offerings (korbanos) (Vayikra 1:2-3; 22:18-19); How to deal with a wife suspeted of infidelity (Bamidbar 5); How to become close to God through asceticism as a Nazir (Bamidbar 6); to remember it is God who grants you wealth and success - in case you forget (Devarim 8); how to eat meat, should you desire to (Devarim 12:20-21); What to do when a person finds an abandoned maiden on the enemy battlefield (Devarim 21:10-14); How to end a marriage through divorce (Devarim 24:1).
There are more, of course, and they all differ from regularly "commanded" mitzvos, in that the persons are given instructions how to proceed in the event they choose to follow through a form of action. Is a man required to turn his wife into a Sotah? Is there a command to become a Nazir? Must a person eat meat? Does a man have to bring a maiden home from battle? Is there a requirement for all marriages to end in divorce?
Clearly the answer to all of these question is NO. And the same applies to the question of appointing a king. It is not required, but there are rules should the nation choose to go in that direction.
Devarim 17
14 When you come to the land that God your Lord is giving you, so that you have occupied it and settled it, you will eventually say, 'We would like to appoint a king upon us, just like all the nations around us.' 15 You must then appoint the king
a. whom God your Lord shall choose. You must appoint a king
b. from among your brethren; you may not appoint a foreigner who is not one of your brethren. 16 [The king,] however,
c. must not accumulate many horses, so as not to bring the people back to Egypt to get more horses. God has told you that you must never again return on that path. 17 He [also]
d. must not have many wives, so that they not make his heart go astray.
e. He shall likewise not accumulate very much silver and gold. 18 When [the king] is established on his royal throne,
f. he must write a copy of this Torah as a scroll edited by the Leviticus priests. 19 [This scroll] must always be with him, and he shall read from it all the days of his life. He will then learn to be in awe of God his Lord, and carefully keep every word of this Torah and these rules.
f1. 20 He will then [also] not begin to feel superior to his brethren, and
f2. he will not stray from the mandate to the right or the left. He and his descendants will thus have a long reign in the midst of Israel.
[More on the way this is divided at the end]
The first phrase "We would like to appoint a king upon us, just like all the nations around us" reads in Hebrew אשימה עלי מלך. The good translation indicates a subservience to the king, that the people are, in some way, to be under his dominion. However, they are equivalent to him in their relationhip to God.
The problem comes up in the first encounter leadership has with the people who are looking to appoint a king.
In Samuel I 8, the people ask for a king לנו - for us - which indicates a desire to have a puppet regime. There are other indicators over the next few chapters (Sam. I 9-12) that this is what they saught - not for someone to rule over them, but to be of use for them, to fight wars and to solve all problems.
The Jewish way always was for the king to keep a careful balance between being king, while being subject to the same king of the Jewish people, namely God. We can never put all our hopes in one man. Even one great man is merely a tool of the Almighty.
When you look at the seven rules of kingship highlighted above, an examination of Samuel I Chapter 9 gives an indication that Saul had most of the qualities. That he did not posess all of them suggests he may have been good, but not perfect. Destined for greatness, yet doomed to fail.
f2. he will not stray from the mandate to the right or the left. He and his descendants will thus have a long reign in the midst of Israel.
[More on the way this is divided at the end]
The first phrase "We would like to appoint a king upon us, just like all the nations around us" reads in Hebrew אשימה עלי מלך. The good translation indicates a subservience to the king, that the people are, in some way, to be under his dominion. However, they are equivalent to him in their relationhip to God.
The problem comes up in the first encounter leadership has with the people who are looking to appoint a king.
In Samuel I 8, the people ask for a king לנו - for us - which indicates a desire to have a puppet regime. There are other indicators over the next few chapters (Sam. I 9-12) that this is what they saught - not for someone to rule over them, but to be of use for them, to fight wars and to solve all problems.
The Jewish way always was for the king to keep a careful balance between being king, while being subject to the same king of the Jewish people, namely God. We can never put all our hopes in one man. Even one great man is merely a tool of the Almighty.
When you look at the seven rules of kingship highlighted above, an examination of Samuel I Chapter 9 gives an indication that Saul had most of the qualities. That he did not posess all of them suggests he may have been good, but not perfect. Destined for greatness, yet doomed to fail.
Examining them more carefully in the context of the parsha, however, we see that of the three items the king may not gather in excess, horses, wives and money, only the latter is not given a specific reason directly in the text. Rabbenu Bachye says the statement categorized as "f1"(above) is the reason why he may not have too much money: to prevent him from feeling superior to his brethren - לבלתי רום לבבו מאחיו.
How does a king become wealthy? Through taxation. If he is not meant to have too much money, perhaps the message to the king is one of the following:
A. If you do tax your brethren, the children of Israel, you must deliver it back to them so you do not feel superior, or have your heart flutter away from their plights.
B. You may not overtax them, because the money they have is the money they have earned. Obviously you will tax them to support the lifestyle you are entitled to live as a king, and to protect them militarily, but you may not be spendthrift with their money.
Isn't the Torah beautiful? Of the last two interpretations offered, the former suggests the monarchy of the Israelite king had to run a government with socialist economics, spreading the wealth around and making everyone equal.
The latter interpretation suggests the monarchy ran a capitalist economy, with small government and lower taxes, to boost the economy. While it gave the king wealth, he was held in check from beoming an autocrat or a pompous dictator, due to the divine limitations set on the position.
Which economic system did they employ?
I wonder...
No comments:
Post a Comment