Musar su I Samuele 8:78

We can answer this after first examining some details of the legislation dealing with the appointment of a king. All our commentators have spent long hours trying to comprehend why Samuel was so angry at the people of Israel when they asked him to appoint a king, seeing that the Torah provides for the appointment of a king. In Sanhedrin 20b, Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel that all the prerogatives a king claims for himself as per Samuel I 8, 11-17 are legally his. Rav, however, said that the entire passage was only meant to frighten the people out of their demand for a king. He based his opinion on the word עליך in our verse any שום תשים עליך מלך. Rabbi Yehudah said that the Torah legislated three commandments which would become operative upon the Jewish people entering the land of Israel. They are: The appointment of a king, the destruction of the people of Amalek, and the building of the Holy Temple. Rabbi Nehorai said that verses 15-20 in our chapter in Deuteronomy are only written in anticipation of the possibility foreseen in 17,14 that the Jewish people would actually demand to be ruled by a king. Rabbi Eliezer said that the elders who lived during the reign of Samuel did no wrong by phrasing their request for a king in the words: תנה לנו מלך לשפטנו. The only people who committed a sin were the עמי הארץ, the ignorant masses, who added in Samuel I 8,19 that they wanted a king עלינו, "over us," and who wanted the king in order to be like the other nations (ibid.). Rabbi Yitzchak Abravanel quotes all the various opinions in his commentary on our פרשה. He challenges the opinion expressed by Rabbi Eliezer by pointing out that in our פרשה, too, the people are presumed to have prefaced their desire for a king by saying ככל הגוים אשר סביבותי, "just as all the other nations around me." It is worthwhile to read up what Rabbi Abravanel has to say about this. Anyone who is intelligent will realize that one has to explain the opinion of Rabbi Nehorai in accordance with the interpretation offered by Rabbi Abravanel.

We can answer this after first examining some details of the legislation dealing with the appointment of a king. All our commentators have spent long hours trying to comprehend why Samuel was so angry at the people of Israel when they asked him to appoint a king, seeing that the Torah provides for the appointment of a king. In Sanhedrin 20b, Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel that all the prerogatives a king claims for himself as per Samuel I 8, 11-17 are legally his. Rav, however, said that the entire passage was only meant to frighten the people out of their demand for a king. He based his opinion on the word עליך in our verse any שום תשים עליך מלך. Rabbi Yehudah said that the Torah legislated three commandments which would become operative upon the Jewish people entering the land of Israel. They are: The appointment of a king, the destruction of the people of Amalek, and the building of the Holy Temple. Rabbi Nehorai said that verses 15-20 in our chapter in Deuteronomy are only written in anticipation of the possibility foreseen in 17,14 that the Jewish people would actually demand to be ruled by a king. Rabbi Eliezer said that the elders who lived during the reign of Samuel did no wrong by phrasing their request for a king in the words: תנה לנו מלך לשפטנו. The only people who committed a sin were the עמי הארץ, the ignorant masses, who added in Samuel I 8,19 that they wanted a king עלינו, "over us," and who wanted the king in order to be like the other nations (ibid.). Rabbi Yitzchak Abravanel quotes all the various opinions in his commentary on our פרשה. He challenges the opinion expressed by Rabbi Eliezer by pointing out that in our פרשה, too, the people are presumed to have prefaced their desire for a king by saying ככל הגוים אשר סביבותי, "just as all the other nations around me." It is worthwhile to read up what Rabbi Abravanel has to say about this. Anyone who is intelligent will realize that one has to explain the opinion of Rabbi Nehorai in accordance with the interpretation offered by Rabbi Abravanel.

We can answer this after first examining some details of the legislation dealing with the appointment of a king. All our commentators have spent long hours trying to comprehend why Samuel was so angry at the people of Israel when they asked him to appoint a king, seeing that the Torah provides for the appointment of a king. In Sanhedrin 20b, Rav Yehudah says in the name of Shmuel that all the prerogatives a king claims for himself as per Samuel I 8, 11-17 are legally his. Rav, however, said that the entire passage was only meant to frighten the people out of their demand for a king. He based his opinion on the word עליך in our verse any שום תשים עליך מלך. Rabbi Yehudah said that the Torah legislated three commandments which would become operative upon the Jewish people entering the land of Israel. They are: The appointment of a king, the destruction of the people of Amalek, and the building of the Holy Temple. Rabbi Nehorai said that verses 15-20 in our chapter in Deuteronomy are only written in anticipation of the possibility foreseen in 17,14 that the Jewish people would actually demand to be ruled by a king. Rabbi Eliezer said that the elders who lived during the reign of Samuel did no wrong by phrasing their request for a king in the words: תנה לנו מלך לשפטנו. The only people who committed a sin were the עמי הארץ, the ignorant masses, who added in Samuel I 8,19 that they wanted a king עלינו, "over us," and who wanted the king in order to be like the other nations (ibid.). Rabbi Yitzchak Abravanel quotes all the various opinions in his commentary on our פרשה. He challenges the opinion expressed by Rabbi Eliezer by pointing out that in our פרשה, too, the people are presumed to have prefaced their desire for a king by saying ככל הגוים אשר סביבותי, "just as all the other nations around me." It is worthwhile to read up what Rabbi Abravanel has to say about this. Anyone who is intelligent will realize that one has to explain the opinion of Rabbi Nehorai in accordance with the interpretation offered by Rabbi Abravanel.

The Sifri quotes Rabbi Nehorai as saying that the people's request for a king was only a pretext to enable them to worship idols. The author based his theory on the words (Samuel I 8,20): "and we shall then become like all the nations." Rabbi Abravanel challenges this statement saying that if this were true how could G–d possibly have concurred in providing a king for the people when He said to Samuel: (Samuel I 8,22) "Accede to their request and crown a king for them?" Why did G–d not at least warn the people not to make the incidence of monarchy a pretext for idol-worship? I believe that such a warning is alluded to in Samuel I 8,7, where G–d told Samuel: "It is not you they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king." Nachmanides, referring to Genesis 49,10, where Jacob assures Yehudah that the sceptre signifying royalty will not depart from his tribe, explains that the sin of the Jewish people at the time was that they rejected Samuel who was such an excellent judge. If that were so, why did Nachmanides single out Samuel? Did our sages not say that the authority of every judge in his period equalled that of Samuel? They even considered an ignoramus such as Yiftach as being Samuel's equal in authority (Rosh Hashanah 25b)! The clearest of all our early commentators is the Ran who appears to adopt the approach of Rabbi Eliezer when he distinguishes between two kinds of leadership. 1) Authority which is based on Biblical law. The Sanhedrin was appointed to ensure the proper administration of that law. 2) The second kind of authority, which usually expresses itself in rulings which contradict Biblical law, is called הוראת שעה, decrees promulgated in order to meet certain emergencies. Our sages have said that the reason Jerusalem was destroyed was because the judges insisted on applying Biblical law (Baba Metzia 30b) when they should have taken into consideration the circumstances prevailing at the time and have made allowances before convicting certain people. There is an allusion to this in 21,9: ואתה תבער דם הנקי, "You will remove from your midst guilt for the blood of the innocent." This verse could also be translated as "you are destroying the blood of the innocent," i.e. that on occasion innocent blood is spilled by inflicting punishment on the innocent due to prevailing pressures, such as in emergencies and in times of war. Appointment of a king enables the nation to be administered expeditiously during emergencies; the king has the right to ignore certain Biblical laws. This subject is meant in Psalms 122,5: "There the thrones (literally chairs) of judgment stood, thrones of the house of David." The "thrones of judgment" are the Sanhedrin, whereas the "thrones of the house of David" refers to the thrones of the dynasty of the house of David.

The Sifri quotes Rabbi Nehorai as saying that the people's request for a king was only a pretext to enable them to worship idols. The author based his theory on the words (Samuel I 8,20): "and we shall then become like all the nations." Rabbi Abravanel challenges this statement saying that if this were true how could G–d possibly have concurred in providing a king for the people when He said to Samuel: (Samuel I 8,22) "Accede to their request and crown a king for them?" Why did G–d not at least warn the people not to make the incidence of monarchy a pretext for idol-worship? I believe that such a warning is alluded to in Samuel I 8,7, where G–d told Samuel: "It is not you they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king." Nachmanides, referring to Genesis 49,10, where Jacob assures Yehudah that the sceptre signifying royalty will not depart from his tribe, explains that the sin of the Jewish people at the time was that they rejected Samuel who was such an excellent judge. If that were so, why did Nachmanides single out Samuel? Did our sages not say that the authority of every judge in his period equalled that of Samuel? They even considered an ignoramus such as Yiftach as being Samuel's equal in authority (Rosh Hashanah 25b)! The clearest of all our early commentators is the Ran who appears to adopt the approach of Rabbi Eliezer when he distinguishes between two kinds of leadership. 1) Authority which is based on Biblical law. The Sanhedrin was appointed to ensure the proper administration of that law. 2) The second kind of authority, which usually expresses itself in rulings which contradict Biblical law, is called הוראת שעה, decrees promulgated in order to meet certain emergencies. Our sages have said that the reason Jerusalem was destroyed was because the judges insisted on applying Biblical law (Baba Metzia 30b) when they should have taken into consideration the circumstances prevailing at the time and have made allowances before convicting certain people. There is an allusion to this in 21,9: ואתה תבער דם הנקי, "You will remove from your midst guilt for the blood of the innocent." This verse could also be translated as "you are destroying the blood of the innocent," i.e. that on occasion innocent blood is spilled by inflicting punishment on the innocent due to prevailing pressures, such as in emergencies and in times of war. Appointment of a king enables the nation to be administered expeditiously during emergencies; the king has the right to ignore certain Biblical laws. This subject is meant in Psalms 122,5: "There the thrones (literally chairs) of judgment stood, thrones of the house of David." The "thrones of judgment" are the Sanhedrin, whereas the "thrones of the house of David" refers to the thrones of the dynasty of the house of David.

The Sifri quotes Rabbi Nehorai as saying that the people's request for a king was only a pretext to enable them to worship idols. The author based his theory on the words (Samuel I 8,20): "and we shall then become like all the nations." Rabbi Abravanel challenges this statement saying that if this were true how could G–d possibly have concurred in providing a king for the people when He said to Samuel: (Samuel I 8,22) "Accede to their request and crown a king for them?" Why did G–d not at least warn the people not to make the incidence of monarchy a pretext for idol-worship? I believe that such a warning is alluded to in Samuel I 8,7, where G–d told Samuel: "It is not you they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king." Nachmanides, referring to Genesis 49,10, where Jacob assures Yehudah that the sceptre signifying royalty will not depart from his tribe, explains that the sin of the Jewish people at the time was that they rejected Samuel who was such an excellent judge. If that were so, why did Nachmanides single out Samuel? Did our sages not say that the authority of every judge in his period equalled that of Samuel? They even considered an ignoramus such as Yiftach as being Samuel's equal in authority (Rosh Hashanah 25b)! The clearest of all our early commentators is the Ran who appears to adopt the approach of Rabbi Eliezer when he distinguishes between two kinds of leadership. 1) Authority which is based on Biblical law. The Sanhedrin was appointed to ensure the proper administration of that law. 2) The second kind of authority, which usually expresses itself in rulings which contradict Biblical law, is called הוראת שעה, decrees promulgated in order to meet certain emergencies. Our sages have said that the reason Jerusalem was destroyed was because the judges insisted on applying Biblical law (Baba Metzia 30b) when they should have taken into consideration the circumstances prevailing at the time and have made allowances before convicting certain people. There is an allusion to this in 21,9: ואתה תבער דם הנקי, "You will remove from your midst guilt for the blood of the innocent." This verse could also be translated as "you are destroying the blood of the innocent," i.e. that on occasion innocent blood is spilled by inflicting punishment on the innocent due to prevailing pressures, such as in emergencies and in times of war. Appointment of a king enables the nation to be administered expeditiously during emergencies; the king has the right to ignore certain Biblical laws. This subject is meant in Psalms 122,5: "There the thrones (literally chairs) of judgment stood, thrones of the house of David." The "thrones of judgment" are the Sanhedrin, whereas the "thrones of the house of David" refers to the thrones of the dynasty of the house of David.

In the days of Samuel, Israel sinned because they asked that the king be a judge, i.e. replace the Sanhedrin, and to base his administration of justice on Torah law. This was contrary to G–d's will. He had arranged for judges to be appointed to perform this task. The king was to usurp the powers of the Sanhedrin only when there was a הוראת שעה. The term שימה עליך is particularly appropriate for describing the הוראת שעה- nature of the king's function.

Keeping all this in mind we can understand the meaning of Rashi's comment on 17,11: "Do not depart to the right or to the left," i.e. even if the judge tells you that (what you know to be) right is "left" or what (you know to be) left is "right." This interpretation was valid only when there was no king in Israel. Once a king was appointed, however, each level of administration had its functions clearly defined. In the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer Israel's sin consisted of their wanting to do away with this divison of responsibility between two different bodies. Israel committed a major error as soon as they asked for the king to act as שופט. Rabbi Eliezer divides the verse in Samuel I 8,5 שימה לנו מלך לשפטנו ככל הגוים into two distinct requests. One request was made by the elders, the second one by the people at large. The elders, who spoke about לנו, meant that the king would join them, as they were the judges already. This is why they did not say עלינו, "over us." The people at large, who entertained a different perception of the tasks to be performed by a king, said: שימה עלינו "place him above us" (Samuel I 8,5). They wanted the king to perform both the functions the Sanhedrin was designed for, i.e. משפט התורה, as well as those of a king, i.e. הוראת שעה.

Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Yossi, and Rabbi Chiyah were walking in Upper Galilee towards Tiberias. Rabbi Shimon said: Let us study the profound meanings of the Torah because anyone who is able to do so and fails to do it commits a capital crime against his soul. Not only that, but he will become subject to the yoke of civilisation. We know this from the verse (under discussion) that ויט שכמו לסבול, when he inclines his shoulder (away from Torah study), he will have to suffer the yoke (of דרך ארץ). Thus far the quote from the Zohar.

G–d therefore told the moon that the adjective "small" that would be used for the righteous, such as in the case of Jacob, Samuel and David, would serve as assurance that the moon was not considered inferior. By the same token, there is no point in calling someone "small" unless this is in contrast to something else that is called "big. Here, the Jewish people as a whole may be considered "big," for G–d had referred to it as בני בכורי ישראל, "My firstborn son Israel." The three examples of "small" people selected were Jacob, Samuel and David because these three people are also described on occasion as the equivalent of "big". The prophet Samuel is described as שמואל הרמתי, "at home in an elevated place," (similar to Samuel I 8,4). The Talmud describes that Samuel "the small one" [a scholar in the third century] was of such a caliber that, had his personal merits only been the determining factor, the spirit of G–d would have come to rest on him. The prophet Samuel i.e. the "big" Samuel, was ranked equal to Moses in many respects. Taanit 25 relates that the "small" Samuel only had to decree a fast in order to pray for rain when rain would already materialize without the people having commenced their fast even. The fact that David was described on occasion as the "small one," suggests that there must also have been a "big" David. The "big" David will be David when he re-emerges as the Messiah. It is said of him (Psalms 72,8) : וירד מים עד הים ודוד שמו, "Let him rule from sea to sea, etc." The Psalmist means that whereas initially the domain of David would be small, eventually it would encompass the whole globe. The message is that "small" and "big" will combine, i.e. study and performance of Torah commandments together will bring about the ideal state, will make a "big one" out of a formerly "small one." This is different from דבור, words of Torah, which will be graciously received by G–d even if they do not reflect penetration to the deeper meaning of the Torah. In other words, words of Torah do not require to be supported by full understanding, whereas mere study, i.e. listening to someone else's discourse on Torah does. When we view the conversation in this light, we find that G–d certainly had the "last word," i.e. was not "defeated" in this verbal encounter. Nevertheless, when G–d saw that the moon was unhappy although it had been shown that it was wrong, He decided to assuage its feelings since He wants His creatures to be happy and content with the fate assigned to them.