Myśl Żydowska do Powtórzonego Prawa 17:15

All this is a parallel to the "natural" household, i.e. living creatures whose continued health depends on the correct sequence and manner of receiving their respective energy supplies, both in their proper quantity and quality. In our analogy of the four kinds of functions or "servants" that are active in the body/household/nation respectively, the underlying assumption has been that we owe allegiance to a central authority. In the case of the body, the central authority is the heart. Similarly, in the case of the nation the central authority to whom we owe allegiance would be the king. Unless there is such a central authority, a country will not prosper, just as a household without a head, or a body without a heart cannot function. The reason Solomon lists several such foursomes in Proverbs chapter thirty, is to repeat the analogy of body, household and nation. We can understand that Moses was anxious for G'd to appoint a single successor, displaying due regard for the welfare of the nation as a whole. At the same time, however, Solomon tells us "a king must base the country on a rule of justice; a man receptive to gifts (bribes) would ruin it." (Proverbs 29,4) A king who accepts bribes is worse than no leadership at all, will bring about ruin at an accelerated pace. Leadership in the animal kingdom is so natural, that the Talmud states that the king of the domesticated animals is the ox, whereas amongst the free roaming beasts the lion is king, the leader amongst the birds being the eagle. Although the locusts and the ants seem to manage without leadership, a nation devoid of leadership is likely to become prey to all kinds of invaders, and even the defence against attackers is no one's concern except those directly under attack. There is then no collective defence. The book of Judges is full of examples of such a state of affairs and the tragic consequences thereof. "In those days everyone did whatever seemed good in their eyes, there was no king in Israel." (Judges 21,25) Since we conceive of G'ds Personal Providence as supplemental to our own intelligent efforts, whenever our own efforts are lacking, we cannot expect Divine assistance to crown our own handiwork. The Torah therefore establishes rules about how central authority and law enforcement is to work. This culminates in the appointment of a king "whom G'd will choose," (Deut 17,15) as distinct from other nations where the king reflects at best vox populi, and at worst dictatorship against the will of the people. The appointment of the right kind of king ensures that the nation is not merely the sum total of its individual households, but becomes one single vast household in the process. The distinctiveness of the Jewish nation lies in the fact that it possesses the kind of human leadership which will ensure the presence of Divine leadership at the same time. In view of the aforesaid, and even assuming that the words " som tassim alecha melech," would constitute only permission to appoint a king and not be a commandment to do so, the behaviour of the prophet Samuel when Israel asked for a king needs much clarification. (see Samuel I chapter 8) If at first glance, the Jewish people appear disadvantaged by not having a king compared to the nations surrounding them, the eventual appointment of a king must do more than just give them equal status with the gentile nations. The institution of the monarchy must be elevated to a higher level than that prevailing in neighbouring countries. Failure of the Jewish people to understand this, led the prophet to articulate his frustration when the people demanded that he appoint a king for them. In that context, even G'ds attitude seems confusing. On the one hand, He helped Samuel to find the person chosen to become king, on the other hand, He told Samuel that it was His leadership the people had rejected, when they asked for a king, not Samuel's. What was it then that prompted Samuel to give in to the request of the people? (verse 11 onwards)

The kings that have reigned in the land of Edom are enumerated (Gen 36:51, seq.) on account of the law, “Thou mayst not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother” (Deut. 17:15). For of these kings none was an Edomite; wherefore each king is described by his native land; one king from this place, another king from that place. Now I think that it was then well known how these kings that reigned in Edom conducted themselves, what they did, and how they humiliated and oppressed the sons of Esau. Thus God reminded the Israelites of the fate of the Edomites, as if saying unto them, Look unto your brothers, the sons of Esau, whose kings were so and so, and whose deeds are well known. [Learn therefrom] that no nation ever chose a foreigner as king without inflicting thereby some great or small injury upon the country.