Halakhah sur Chroniques 2 9:12

Rabbi Herschensohn contends that women cannot be barred even from the monarchy on the basis of this source. He argues ingeniously—but hardly convincingly—that Rambam misunderstood the passage in Sifre which served as the basis for his ruling. In its entirety, the passage in Sifre reads as follows: " 'You shall set [over you],' if he dies you shall appoint another in his stead; 'a king,' but not a queen." Rabbi Herschensohn avers that the intent of Sifre is not to exclude women from kingship but rather to indicate that the king need not necessarily have a consort. In the event that the king dies another king must be appointed. If, however, the queen dies the king is not required to remarry (as must the High Priest if he is to perform the sacrificial rites on the Day of Atonement). The phrase employed by Sifre is "melekh ve-lo malkah." Rabbi Herschensohn contends that the Hebrew term "malkah" denotes the consort of a king. The term "molekhet," claims Rabbi Herschensohn, is employed by Scripture (II Kings 11:3 and II Chronicles 22:12) as the title of a woman who reigns in her own right.⁷In point of fact, the term “malkat Shva” (Queen of Sheba) occurs both in I Kings 10:4 and in II Chronicles 9:12; see Sefer ha-Ma’or, loc. cit. Rabbi Uziel refutes this contention and asserts that the proper Hebrew term for a queen who rules in her own right is indeed "malkah." The term "molekhet" in the passages cited is not a noun to be translated "queen," but rather a verb to be translated "reigns." In any event Rambam's understanding of Sifre cannot be set aside unless there is evidence that early authorities interpreted this source in a different manner. Since such evidence is lacking the philological argument is moot.