Like this? Login or create an account to build your own source sheet. אוהבים? התחברו או הרשמו כדי ליצור דף מקורות משלכם.
פרשת שופטים תש"ז - פרשת המלך
Source Sheet by Nechama Leibowitz
More info מידע נוסף
Created March 6, 2019 · 1399 Views נוצר 6 March, 2019 · 1399 צפיות

1947 (תש"ז)<br><a href="" target="_blank">View Original צפה בגרסת המקור</a>

  1. א. פרשת המלך
  2. "כִּי תָבֹא אֶל הָאָרֶץ... וְיָשַׁבְתָּה בָּהּ וְאָמַרְתָּ אָשִׂימָה... שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ..."
    When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein; and shalt say: ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me’;
  3. ר' יהודה אומר: שלוש מצוות נצטוו ישראל בביאתן לארץ: נצטוו למנות להם מלך (שנאמר "שום תשים עליך מלך") ולבנות להם בית הבחירה ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק. אם כן – למה נענשו בימי שמואל? אלא לפי שהקדימו עליהם. ר' נהוראי אומר: לא נאמרה פרשה זו אלא מפני התרעומת, שנאמר "ואמרת אשימה עלי מלך" (בגמרא סנהדרין כ': כנגד תרעומתן של ישראל. רש"י שם: שגלוי לפניו שעתידין להתרעם על כך ולומר "והיינו גם אנחנו..."). ר' אליעזר בר' יוסי אומר: זקנים שאלו כהלכה, שנאמר "תנה לנו מלך לשפטנו" (שמות א' ח'), אבל עמי הארץ חזרו וקלקלו שנאמר "והיינו גם אנחנו ככל הגויים...".
  4. מאחר שהקָמת מלך - מצוה, למה לא רצה הקדוש ברוך הוא כששאלו מלך משמואל? לפי ששאלו בתרעומת ולא שאלו לקיים את המצוה, אלא מפני שקָצו בשמואל הנביא.
    The appointment of the king comes before the war with Amalek, as it says, “G-d has sent me to anoint you king…Now, go and smite Amalek” (I Samuel 15:1-3). The eradication of Amalek precedes the construction of the Temple, as it says, “and it was so, when the king was settled in his home, and G-d allowed him respite from his enemies all around. And the king said to Nathan, the Prophet, ‘I am living in a house of cedar’” (II Samuel 7:1-2). Now, since the appointment of a king is a Commandment, why did G-d not want (a king) when the people asked Samuel for one? Because their request was merely due to resentment, and not for the purpose of fulfilling a Commandment. They had rejected Samuel the Prophet, as it says, “as they have forsaken Me…so do they also with you” (I Samuel 8:7).
  5. ד"ה לא יסור שבט מיהודה: ... ועניין שאול היה, כי בעבור שדבר שאילת המלכות בעת ההיא נתעב אצל הקדוש ברוך הוא, לא רצה להמליך עליהם מן השבט אשר לו המלכות, שלא יסור ממנו לעולמים, ונתן להם מלכות שעה. ולזה רמז הכתוב שאמר "אתן לך מלך באפי ואקח בעברתי" (הושע י"ג י"א), שנתנו לו שלא ברצונו, ולכן לקחו בעברתו, שנהרג הוא ובניו ונפסקה ממנו המלכות. והיה כל זה מפני שהיה שמואל שופט ונביא ולוחם מלחמותיהם על פי ה' ומושיע אותם, ולא היה להם לשאול מלך בימיו, כמו שאמר להם "וה' אלוהיכם מלככם" (שמואל א' י"ב י"ב), והקדוש ברוך הוא אמר לו "לא אותך מאסו כי אותי מאסו ממלוך עליהם" (שם ח' ז'), ולפיכך לא נתן להם מלכות של קיימא...
    Its matter is not that it should never depart, as it is written (Deuteronomy 28:36), "The Lord will drive you, and the king you have set over you, to a nation unknown to you or your fathers" - and behold [according to that], they and their king are in exile, [and] they do not have a king and ministers; and for many days, there is no king in Israel. And the prophet did not promise Israel that they should no go into captivity in any way, so that Yehudah will reign over them. But [rather] its matter is that the scepter should not depart from Yehudah to one of his brothers; since the monarchy of Israel that rules over them will be from him, and none of his brothers will rule over him. And so [too], "nor the law-inscriber from between his feet" is that any law-inscriber that has in his hand the [signet] ring of the king will be from him, since he will rule and command all of Israel, and his is the seal of the monarchy. "Until Shiloh arrives and to him all the nations will gather," to do with all of them as he desires - and that is the messiah; as the scepter hints to David, who is the first king who has the scepter of monarchy, and Shilo is his descendant to whom the nations will gather. And the statement of Rabbi Avraham (Ibn Ezra), that Shilo is David, is not likely, as there was no scepter to Yehudah before David. As even though his tribe was honored and journeyed first, a scepter only belongs to a king and ruler, as it is written (Psalms 45:7), "your royal scepter is a scepter of equity"; "the scepter of rulers" (Isaiah 14:5); [and] "the scepter of the ruler" (Ezekiel 19:14). And this verse hints that Yaakov coronated the tribe of Yehudah over his brothers and bequested the government over Israel to Yehudah. And that is what David said (I Chronicles 28:4), "The Lord, God of Israel, chose me of all my father’s house to be king over Israel forever; for He chose Yehudah to be ruler, and of the family of Yehudah, my father’s house; and of my father’s sons, He preferred to make me king over all Israel." And it states, "not depart," to hint that another tribe will reign over Israel, but [that] from the time that Yehudah begins to have the scepter of monarchy, it will not depart from him to another tribe - and that is what it states (II Chronicles 13:5), "that the Lord, God of Israel, gave David kingship over Israel forever, to him and his sons." And the matter of Shaul was that because the matter of the request for monarchy at that time was disgusting for the Holy One, blessed be He, He did not want to crown [someone] from the tribe that has the monarchy that should not depart from it forever; and He gave them a temporary monarchy. And the verse hints to this when it states (Hosea 13:11), "I give you a king in My ire, and take him away in My wrath"; as He gave him [a king] against His will, and therefore took him away in His wrath - as [Shaul] and his sons were killed and the monarchy was interrupted. And all of this was because Shmuel was the judge and prophet and the fighter of their wars according to the mouth of God and [he was] delivering them [from their enemies], and [so,] they should not have requested a king in his days - as he said to them (I Samuel 12:12), "but the Lord, your God, is your King." And the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him (I Samuel 8:7), "for it is not you that they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king." And therefore, He did not give them a lasting monarchy. And that which the verse states (I Samuel 13:13), "You acted foolishly in not keeping the commandments that the Lord, your God, laid upon you; otherwise the Lord would have established your dynasty to (el) Israel forever," is that if [Shaul] had not sinned, his seed would have had dominion in Israel, [but] not over all of them - and that is [the meaning of] "to Israel." Maybe he would have reigned over the tribes of his mother - over Binyamin and Ephraim and Menashe - as Yehudah and Ephraim are considered like two nations in Israel; or he would have reigned under the hand of Yehudah. And according to my opinion, the kings from the other tribes that ruled in Israel after David transgressed the will of their father (Yaakov) and transferred the inheritance. And they relied upon the word of the prophet, Achiyah the Shilonite, who anointed Yerovam and said (I Kings 11:39), "And I will chastise David’s descendants for that [sin], though not forever.” And when Israel prolonged coronating one king after the other from the other tribes and did not go back to the monarchy of Yehudah, they transgressed the will of the elder (Yaakov), and were punished for it, as Hoshea said (Hosea 8:4), "They have made kings, but it is not from Me." And that was [the cause for] the punishment of the Hasmoneans who reigned during [the time] of the second Temple - as they were [otherwise] lofty pious ones; and, but for them, the Torah and the commandments would have been forgotten from Israel. And nonetheless they were punished a great punishment; as four of the sons of the elder Hasmonean who reigned one after the other - [in spite] all of their strength and their success - fell to the hands of their enemies by the sword. And in the end, the punishment reached to that which the rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Bava Batra 3a), "Anyone who says, 'I come from the Hasmonean dynasty' is a slave" - as they were all excised from this sin. And even though there was a punishment to the seed of Shimon [the Hasmonean] due [to their being] Sadducees, the entire seed of Mattatyahu the righteous Hasmonean was only removed because of this - that they ruled and they were not from the seed of Yehudah and from the House of David, and [that] they removed the scepter and the law-inscriber from Yehudah completely. And their punishment was poetic justice, as the Holy One, blessed be He, had their slaves rule over them, and [these slaves] cut them off. And it is also possible that their reign was a sin for them because they were priests (Kohanim) and they were commanded (Numbers 18:7), "guard your priesthood in everything pertaining to the altar and to what is behind the curtain; I make your priesthood a service of dedication" - and they should not have reigned, [bur rather, just] served the service of the Lord. And I saw in Yerushalmi Horayot 3:2, "We do not anoint priests as kings. Rabbi Yehudah of En Tor said, 'Because of "shall not depart."' Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said, '"To the end that he and his descendants may reign long in the midst of Israel" (Deuteronomy 17:20); what is written after it? "There should not be to the Levite priests."' Behold, they learned here that we do not anoint kings from the priests, the sons of Aharon; and it first explained that it is for the honor of Yehudah - that rulership not depart from that tribe. And therefore even though Israel may establish a king from the other tribes according to the need of the time, we do not anoint him; that there should not be the majesty of the monarchy [with them], but rather they should be like 'judges and officers.' And they mentioned the priests, since even they though they are intrinsically fit to be anointed, we [still] do not anoint them for the purpose of [coronation]; and all the more so, the other tribes. And it is as they said in the gemara (Horayot 11b), that we only anoint kings from the House of David. And Rabbi Chiya bar Abba explained that it is prevented by the Torah, [such] that 'the Levite priests - the whole tribe of Levi should have no share and inheritance' in the kingdom - and it is a fitting and appropriate thing. [With regard to the phrase, "nations will gather (yikehat)," Rashi explains that it means,] "a gathering of nations , as it is stated (Isaiah 11:10) 'Unto him shall the nations seek.' Of similar meaning is the word in (Proverbs 30:17) 'The eye that mocks the father, and despises the gathering of (yikehat) the mother,' [as it means] the gathering of wrinkles on her face due to her old age. And in the Talmud (Yevamot 110b), [we find a similar meaning of this word]: 'They gathered assemblies (mekahu kehiata) in the streets of Nehardea.” It could have also said an assembly (kehiat) of nations [in the verse, instead of yikehat." That is] the language of Rashi. And it does not appear that "the gathering of (yikehat) of the mother" can be explained as the assembly of the mother. And also the expression, "mekahu kehiata" is only an expression of refutations and challenges, as they would be challenging and refuting it with many questions. Since one who has difficulty with something is called kohehin the language of the sages (Talmudic Aramaic); as they said in Midrash Chazit (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 3:8), "'All of them brandishing the sword' - that they would all learn the law like a sword: that if a matter came to their hands, the law would not be challenging (koheh) to them." And so too are there many [other examples] there. And from [this usage], they said in the gemara (Nazir 65b), "Rabbi Yehoshua kihet and purified [it]," as he challenged many things about it and broke all of the [arguments] that were making it impure, until he forcibly purified it. And so [too], we have found in old textual variants of the gemara (Bava Metzia 52a), "One who kehi for a coin is called an evil soul," since he is exacting about it and is challenged to get it from his friend. And the grammarians (Radak and R. Yonah Ibn Jenach) say that the root of yikehat is yakeh, and that its understanding is [that it is] an expression of discipline and acceptance of command, [such that] "the nations yikehat" is that they will listen to him and do everything that he will command upon them. [And] "he despises the yikehat of the mother" is [that he despises] to accept her command. And that which is correct in my eyes is that it is from the usage (based on Jeremiah 31:29), 'One who eats unripe grapes, his teeth will tikahena.' And its root is kehat, and the [first letter,] yod in it is like the yod [at the beginning of] yitshar. And the matter of all [of its usages] is weakness and breaking: It is saying [here] that the rod of the taskmaster will not depart from Yehudah until his son, who [brings] the weakness of the nations and their breaking, arrives - as he will weaken all of them with the blade of the sword. And so [too], "If the iron kehah" (Ecclesiastes 10:10) - that it has become weak and cannot cut, like a knife "that has sat," in the language of the sages (Beitzah 28b), or that has become a little broken and has nicks in it. And so [too] did I also find there in Midrash Chazit (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:12), "The Holy One, blessed be He, made appear a good scent from the spices of the Garden of Eden, and their souls were (Shir HaShirim Rabbah 3:8)koheh to eat. They said to him, 'Moshe, our teacher, give us what to eat.' He said to them, 'So did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to me, "all sons of foreigners may not eat from it."' They stood up and separated the foreigners from among them and their souls were koheh to eat, etc." And the matter is that their souls were weakened and broken in their bodies from the greatness of their desire to eat from the Pesach sacrifice in which the good smell had cleaved. And so [too], " the law would not be koheh to them," [means that] it be weak and unsure in their hands. And "mekahu kehiata" is [that] they would ask challenging questions that would weaken the soul, because of their great effort (pain) and research. Or it is an expression of breaking and refuting, like the expression (Kiddushin 13b), "Rav Acha refuted." And so [too] did they say (Mekhilta, Parshat Bo 18), "You too should hekaheh his teeth" - [which means] break them or weaken them with your words. [It must also mean weaken] as unripe grapes weaken, and do not break; but weakening and breaking are the same [general] idea, and kehiah includes both of them.
  6. רבנו נסים, דרוש אחד עשר:
    וזה היה חטאם של ישראל בדבר המלוכה אשר שאלו, והוא כי אחרי שהיו מצווים להקים עליהם מלך כמו שנאמר "כי תבוא אל הארץ... ואמרת אשימה... שום תשים..." – מה חטאתם כששאלוהו? אבל דעתי הוא כך, שהם רצו שעיקר המשפט במה שבין אדם לחברו יהיה נמשך מצד המלכות משיימשך מצד השופט, והוא אמרם "שימה לנו מלך לשפטנו ככל הגויים"... ואילו שאלו להם מלך בסתם שיאמרו "שימה לנו מלך", או שיבקשוהו לסיבת תיקון מלחמותיהם – לא יימצא להם בדבר זה עוון או חטא אבל מצוה... אך היה חטאתם שרצו שיהיו משפטיהם נמשכים מצד המלכות, לא מצד שופטי התורה, ויורה על זה מה שכתוב אחרי "וירע הדבר בעיני שמואל כאשר אמרו תנה לנו מלך לשפטנו" לא "תנה לנו מלך" בלבד, ומפני זה אמר ה': "לא אותך מאסו כי אם אותי מאסו ממלוך עליהם"... כי הם בוחרים בתיקון עניינם הטבעי משיחול בהם העניין האלוקי... והיה ראוי להם לבחור יותר במה שיחול ממנו העניין האלוקי, והוא משפט השופטים, שזה ההבדל בין השופט והמלך, שהשופט משועבד יותר למשפטי התורה מן המלך, ומפני זה הזהיר את המלך וציוהו שיהא לו ספר תורה שני "לבלתי רום", כלומר שמתוך שהמלך רואה שאינו משועבד למשפטי התורה כמו השופט, צריך אזהרה מרובה לבלתי יסור מן המצוה... אבל בשופט לא הוצרך בכל אלו האזהרות, לפי שיכולתו מוגבל כפי משפט התורה.
  7. אברבנאל:
    יספר הכתוב, לדעתי, שבאחרית הימים, אחרי היות ישראל בארץ וירשוה וישבו בה בחמלת ה' עליהם, יהיו כפויי טובה כשהם ישאלו שלא לצורך למלוך עליהם מלך, לא מפאת ההכרח, כי אם להשתוות עם האומות הממליכים עליהם מלכים; כלומר, יהיה מהסכלות שבזמן המלחמות בכיבוש הארץ לא תשאלו מלך, שהוא היה הזמן היותר נאות לצרכו ואחרי שתירשו את הארץ ותחלקוה ותשבו בה בטח (וכל זה בהשגחת ה' יתברך ומבלי מלך) מבלי הכרח ומבלי צורך תאמר "אשימה עלי מלך", וזהו "ככל הגויים אשר סביבותי", כלומר לא להכרח ותכלית אחר; וכאשר יקרה זה, ציוה יתברך שלא ימליכו המלך כרצונם כי אם "אשר יבחר ה'...", וזו היא המצוה בעצם ואמת, רוצה לומר "שום תשים עליך מלך אשר יבחר ה'...", לא שיצוה בזה את ישראל שישאלו מלך. ולפי זה תהיה המצוה הזאת תלויה בדבר הרשות, כאמור; כאשר תרצה לעשות (עם היותו בלתי ראוי) אל תעשהו, כי אם בזה האופן... והוא דומה גם כן לפרשת (דברים ד' כ"ה) "כי תוליד בנים ובני בנים... והשחתם ועשיתם פסל... שאין זה מצוה, אבל הוא דבר מפועלי היצר הרע, וסוף הדברים (ל') "ושבת עד ה' אלוקיך", שהיא מצוות עשה לשוב בתשובה התלויה בדבר הרשות, כאשר תהיו חוטאים תשובו אל ה' ותשמעו בקולו.
  8. 1. מה הקושי שבפניו עומדים כל החכמים הנ"ל?
  9. 2. מהו ההבדל העקרוני בין שלוש הדעות המובאות בתוספתא?
  10. 3. בעקבות מי מן השלושה הולכים המפרשים שהובאו לעיל?
  11. 4. הסבר את המילים בתוך דברי ר' נהוראי ובתוך דברי רבנו נסים המסומנות בקו!
  12. 5. היכן מצינו בתורה עוד "מצוות התלויות בדבר הרשות עם היות הדבר בלתי ראוי" – כפי שמבאר אברבנאל את מצוות מינוי המלך כאן?
  13. 6. השווה את דברי אברבנאל כאן לדברי הרב קוק זצ"ל מתוך "טללי אורות" להיתר בשר תאווה שהובאו בגיליון ראה תש"ה שאלה ג'. מה המשותף לשניהם?
Made with the Sefaria Source Sheet Builder
Add Highlight הוספת צבע להדגשה
Create New
Save שמירה