신명기 17:14의 유대 사상

We must look for the answer in the manner the people had demanded to have a king. Had the people requested a king at the time they had entered the land of Israel in order to help them conquer the land, and to compensate for lack of Divine assistance due to their sinfulness, that would not have aroused Samuel's anger. After all, our Parshah says " when you come into the land and say "I want to appoint a King." (Deut 17,14) When their declared purpose however, was rule by a king rather than by Samuel the prophet, this indicated that they rejected religious leadership in favour of secular rule. The operative clause in their request, and therefore the offensive one, was "a king to judge us like all other nations" (verse 5)

We shall explain this further in respect to one of the aforementioned considerations. We learned (Sanhedrin 40b): "The rabbis taught: 'The witnesses are to be cross-examined in the following manner: Do you recognize him [the defendant]? Did you warn him and did he acknowledge the warning? Did he commit the crime knowing it was punishable by death? Did he kill right after you had warned him?…'" Unquestionably, all of these are prerequisites for a "righteous judgment." For why should a man be killed for a transgression which he did not know to be punishable by death? This explains the necessity for his acknowledgment of the warning and for all of the other things mentioned in that baraitha. This is the true, righteous judgment in itself, that was assigned to the judges. But if law-breakers were punished in this context alone, the structure of society would break down completely, for, in the absence of the fear of punishment, the number of murderers would dramatically increase. Therefore, for the well-being of society, the Blessed One mandated the appointment of a king, as stated in this parshah (Deuteronomy 17:14-15): "and when you come to the land… place a king over you…," this constituting a mitzvah to appoint a king, according to the tradition of our sages of blessed memory (Sifrei, Sanhedrin 20b). And the king can punish without prior warning as he deems fit for the good of the kingdom. We find, then, that the appointment of a king serves a common purpose for Israel and for the other peoples who require a societal structure, and that the appointment of judges serves a distinct purpose for Israel, as stated: "and let them judge the people a righteous judgment." That is, the purpose of the judges and the area of their jurisdiction is the administration of judgments that are righteous and true in themselves.

It is also possible that everything connected with the mitzvoth of the Torah, whether in the category of righteous judgments or in that of temporary exigency was relegated to beth din, whereas in the realm of the relations between man and man, what involves righteous judgment alone was relegated to beth din (as written: "and let them judge the people a righteous judgment"), but anything beyond that was relegated to the king and not to the judge. Two benefits would result from this: one, completely perfect — the investiture of the Divine Immanence and its cleaving to the people; the other, the perfecting of the societal order, which, if not completely perfected by the judgments would be so perfected by the king. It is seen, then, that the greater part of judgment and its essence, was relegated to beth din, and only a relatively minor part to the king. And this was the sin of Israel in requesting a king, a matter which many of the earlier authorities find very perplexing, viz.: if they were commanded to appoint a king, as it is written (Deuteronomy 17:14): "And when you come to the land… and you will say: 'I will place a king over me…'", this being one of the three things they were commanded to do upon entering the land, according to our sages of blessed memory (Sanhedrin 20b) — then what was their sin in requesting a king?