Save "Hilchot Melachim - Jewish Political Theory

part 3
"
Hilchot Melachim - Jewish Political Theory part 3
In previous shiurim we explored the dual nature of the mitzva of appointing a king/kingship.
a) Appointing a sovereign with the authority of government as the state's executive arm.
b) The personal election of a monarch as representative of Divine action and presence upon earth.
What are the ramifications of this dual nature?

מתני׳ כהן גדול משמש בשמונה כלים וההדיוט בארבעה בכתונת ומכנסים ומצנפת ואבנט מוסיף עליו כ"ג חשן ואפוד ומעיל וציץ באלו נשאלין באורים ותומים ואין נשאלין אלא למלך ולאב ב"ד ולמי שהציבור צריך בו

MISHNA: Throughout the year the High Priest serves in eight garments, and the common priest serves in four: In a tunic and trousers and a mitre and a belt. The High Priest adds another four garments beyond those worn by the common priest: A breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a frontplate. When dressed in these eight garments, the High Priest may be consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim. And he may be consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim only on behalf of the king, or on behalf of the president of the court, or on behalf of one whom the community needs.

(יח) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהוָ֜ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֗ה קַח־לְךָ֙ אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁ֣עַ בִּן־נ֔וּן אִ֖ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־ר֣וּחַ בּ֑וֹ וְסָמַכְתָּ֥ אֶת־יָדְךָ֖ עָלָֽיו׃ (יט) וְהַֽעֲמַדְתָּ֣ אֹת֗וֹ לִפְנֵי֙ אֶלְעָזָ֣ר הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְלִפְנֵ֖י כָּל־הָעֵדָ֑ה וְצִוִּיתָ֥ה אֹת֖וֹ לְעֵינֵיהֶֽם׃ (כ) וְנָתַתָּ֥ה מֵהֽוֹדְךָ֖ עָלָ֑יו לְמַ֣עַן יִשְׁמְע֔וּ כָּל־עֲדַ֖ת בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (כא) וְלִפְנֵ֨י אֶלְעָזָ֤ר הַכֹּהֵן֙ יַעֲמֹ֔ד וְשָׁ֥אַל ל֛וֹ בְּמִשְׁפַּ֥ט הָאוּרִ֖ים לִפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה עַל־פִּ֨יו יֵצְא֜וּ וְעַל־פִּ֣יו יָבֹ֗אוּ ה֛וּא וְכָל־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֥ל אִתּ֖וֹ וְכָל־הָעֵדָֽה׃

(18) And the LORD answered Moses, “Single out Joshua son of Nun, an inspired man, and lay your hand upon him. (19) Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and before the whole community, and commission him in their sight. (20) Invest him with some of your authority, so that the whole Israelite community may obey. (21) But he shall present himself to Eleazar the priest, who shall on his behalf seek the decision of the Urim before the LORD. By such instruction they shall go out and by such instruction they shall come in, he and all the Israelites, the whole community.”

ואין שואלין אלא למלך מנא הני מילי אמר רבי אבהו דאמר קרא (במדבר כז, כא) ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמד ושאל לו במשפט האורים וגו' הוא זה מלך וכל [בני] ישראל אתו זה משוח מלחמה וכל העדה זו סנהדרין

§ It was taught in the mishna: And the High Priest may be consulted for the decision of the Urim VeTummim only on behalf of the king, or on behalf of the president of the court, or on behalf of one whom the community needs. From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Abbahu said that the verse states: “And he shall stand before Elazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before God; by his mouth they shall go out, and by his mouth they shall come in, both he and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congregation” (Numbers 27:21). “He”; this is a reference to a king, as “he” refers to Joshua, who had the status of a king. “All the children of Israel with him”; this is a reference to the priest anointed for war, as all of the Jewish people follow him to war according to his instruction. “Even all the congregation”; this is a reference to the Sanhedrin, who are the heads of the Jewish people.

This, though, raises an obvious question. The gemara proves that only a king can use the Urim Ve-tumim by citing a verse relating to Yehoshua, who wasn't a king himself but rather a shofet (leader). At first glance, it would seem that rather than proving its point, the gemara is actually contradicting itself. However, the answer is simple. Had the privilege of using the Urim Ve-tumim been due to the sacral element of the kingship, which would have enabled him to communicate with God in a more direct manner (similar to the halakha permitting him to sit in the mikdash), then it would indeed apply only to bona fide Davidic kings. However, if use of the Urim Ve-tumim is not a personal prerogative but rather a tool available to the public to assist ii in determining public policy, then it is available to any person leading the public on issues of public security. Since Yehoshua was the head of government, it is he who can use the Urim Ve-tumim, and for these purposes he is called "melekh," which here means "head of government." Therefore, we can conclude that Yehoshua and other non-Davidic rulers are considered melekh (sovereign) on all issues of government, but not on issues of personal status.

Thus, the Rambam (Hilkhot Melakhim 1:3) cites the example of Yehoshua as a source for the halakhot regulating the election of a king, since he deals with the selection process as a mechanism to choose a head of government, and not as a means of designating God's chosen.

(ג) אֵין מַעֲמִידִין מֶלֶךְ בַּתְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים זְקֵנִים וְעַל פִּי נָבִיא. כִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁמִּנָּהוּ משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ וּבֵית דִּינוֹ. וּכְשָׁאוּל וְדָוִד שֶׁמִּנָּם שְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי וּבֵית דִּינוֹ:

(3) At first, a king was not appointed other than by the Court of Seventy (Sanhedrin) and with consent of a Prophet. So was Joshua appointed by Moses our Teacher and his Court, and Saul and David by Samuel the Ramathite and his Court.

(ח) נָבִיא שֶׁהֶעֱמִיד מֶלֶךְ מִשְּׁאָר שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהָיָה אוֹתוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ הוֹלֵךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ הַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוָה וְנִלְחָם מִלְחֲמוֹת ה'. הֲרֵי זֶה מֶלֶךְ וְכָל מִצְוֹת הַמַּלְכוּת נוֹהֲגוֹת בּוֹ. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעִקַּר הַמַּלְכוּת לְדָוִד. וְיִהְיֶה מִבָּנָיו מֶלֶךְ. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲחִיָּה הַשִּׁילוֹנִי הֶעֱמִיד יָרָבְעָם וְאָמַר לוֹ (מלכים א יא לח) "וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּךָ וּבָנִיתִי לְךָ בַיִת נֶאֱמָן כַּאֲשֶׁר בָּנִיתִי לְדָוִד" וְגוֹ'. וְאָמַר לוֹ אֲחִיָּה (מלכים א יא לו) "וְלִבְנוֹ אֶתֵּן שֵׁבֶט אֶחָד לְמַעַן הֱיוֹת נִיר לְדָוִיד עַבְדִּי כָּל הַיָּמִים לְפָנַי בִּירוּשָׁלַםִ":

(ט) מַלְכֵי בֵּית דָּוִד הֵם הָעוֹמְדִים לְעוֹלָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל ב ז טז) "כִּסְאֲךָ יִהְיֶה נָכוֹן עַד עוֹלָם". אֲבָל אִם יַעֲמֹד מֶלֶךְ מִשְּׁאָר יִשְׂרָאֵל תִּפָּסֵק הַמַּלְכוּת מִבֵּיתוֹ. שֶׁהֲרֵי נֶאֱמַר לְיָרָבְעָם (מלכים א יא לט) "אַךְ לֹא כָל הַיָּמִים":

(8) Should a prophet install a king from any of the other Tribes of Israel, and that king follows in the ways of the Torah and observes the Commandments, and fights the Wars of G-d, he, too, is a king and all the Commandments of the King are applicable to him. This, even though the “essential” monarchy belongs to David and from his children there will be kings. For we see that Achiya the Shilonite appointed Jeraboam and said to him, “And it will be, if you listen to all that I command you…and I shall build for you a sure house as I built for David…” (I Kings 11:38). And Achiya said to him, “And to his son, I shall give one tribe, so that it shall be a remembrance for David my servant for all days before me in Jerusalem” (I Kings 11:39).

(9) The monarchy remains with the House of David forever, as it says, “your throne shall be established forever” (II Samuel 7:16). In contrast, if a king from (any of the other tribes of) Israel is appointed, the monarchy will cease from his House, as it says with regard to Jeraboam, “but not for all the days” (I Kings 11:39).

As can be seen, such a king has legitimacy, yet is inferior to a Davidic king regarding the dynastic element and the form of anointment. The legitimacy is due to his capacity as an active ruler, while the lack of a dynastic element reflects the fact that the perpetuation of the monarchy in a single family is not an issue of government but of personal status. This same point, though cloaked in somewhat different terminology is made by the Ra'avad (Hilkhot Melakhim 1:9)

(א) אבל אם יעמוד מלך משאר ישראל תפסק המלכות וכו'. א''א זה סותר מה שאמר למעלה ולא המלכות בלבד וכו'. א''ו כן הוא אילו היה ירבעם מלך כשר ובניו כשרים לא היתה מלכות פוסקת מזרעו אבל היתה שניה למלכות בית דוד כגון קיסר ופלג קיסר:

This is exactly the point that he is making: for the practical needs of government ("tzorekh ha-sha'a"), such a person is the recognized ruler, but he lacks the glory ("hod malkhut") since that is a function of the kedusha inherent the melekh as a sacral figure which is unique to Davidic kings.
The same principle holds true in he opposite case, i.e., a Davidic king who has lost his practical authority. If the issue at hand is an issue of government, then he is not considered a king, while if we are dealing with a halakha relating to his personal status, then he retains his status as a royal.
This distinction is brought home by the sugyot relating to the nasi (ruler).

(כב) אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָשִׂ֖יא יֶֽחֱטָ֑א וְעָשָׂ֡ה אַחַ֣ת מִכָּל־מִצְוֺת֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהָ֜יו אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹא־תֵעָשֶׂ֛ינָה בִּשְׁגָגָ֖ה וְאָשֵֽׁם׃ (כג) אֽוֹ־הוֹדַ֤ע אֵלָיו֙ חַטָּאת֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֥ר חָטָ֖א בָּ֑הּ וְהֵבִ֧יא אֶת־קָרְבָּנ֛וֹ שְׂעִ֥יר עִזִּ֖ים זָכָ֥ר תָּמִֽים׃

(22) In case it is a chieftain who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of the LORD his God ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt— (23) or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge—he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish.

איזהו נשיא זה מלך שנאמר (ויקרא ד, כב) מכל מצות ה' אלהיו שאין על גביו אלא ה' אלהיו:

Who is the nasi? This is a king, as it is stated: “When a nasi sins, and performs any one of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God that shall not be performed, unwittingly, and he is guilty” (Leviticus 4:22), referring to one who has only the Lord his God over him and no other authority. That is only the king.

(ב) כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ שֶׁעָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחוּתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָטָא, וְכֵן הַנָּשִׂיא שֶׁעָבַר מִגְּדֻלָּתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ חָטָא, כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ מֵבִיא פַר, וְהַנָּשִׂיא כְהֶדְיוֹט:

(2) If the anointed priest relinquished his high priesthood and afterwards transgressed, and similarly if a ruler relinquished his reign and afterwards transgressed, the anointed priest brings a bull while the ruler is like a regular person.

The kohen gadol's sacrifice is a function of his personal sanctity and is not due to his job as the chief kohen. This is attested to by the fact that the mishna there states that only a kohen gadol who has actually been appointed brings the special korban and not a functioning kohen gadol who hasn't been anointed (merubeh begadim), the difference between them being in their respective levels of kedusha and not in their functions in mikdash.
The status of nasi, however, is not a function of one's personal kedusha but of his office. This is attested to by the very fact that he is described as a nasi rather than a melekh (i.e., he is defined in terms of the authority of his position rather than his royal title) and by the fact that the gemara (11a) considers various people in positions of authority (such as the tribal nasi) and determines that the level of authority is the deciding factor.
Therefore, if the king is an active king, accompanied by all the dangers and temptations of abuse of power, there is a special chatat to emphasize the dangers involved in his power, while a retired king, who has forfeited his power, brings a regular individual chatat. Actually, any king stripped of his authority reverts to the regular chatat. Thus, the Yerushalmi in Horayot states in a famous passage that even David Ha-melekh himself did not bring a royal chatat during the period that he was in exile escaping from Avshalom's revolt.
In conclusion, a few observations should be made regarding the application of this principle in relation to various biblical episodes.
A. Yehoshua, as mentioned above, was a functional king without the personal status of the melekh as a meshiach Hashem (anointed of God). Therefore, whatever halakhot of kingship apply to him can be understood to relate to all rulers. The practical ramifications of this will be dealt with in future instalments (bli neder).
B. The status of Shaul is unclear. Was he intended to be only a functional ruler or also a royal king with the kedusha of malkhei beit David? This, too, will be dealt with at a later stage of the course (bli neder).
C. The verses describing the loss of Rechavam's kingdom are careful to use the phrase "mamlakha" which denotes only the power of government Yerovam is handed over the reins of power, but a symbolic enclave of Yerushalayim and its surroundings is left to Rechavam, as the offspring of David, who represents the element of the election of beit David.
D. The Rambam recognizes the legitimacy of later sovereigns, though non-Davidic. Thus, aside from the halakha quoted above regarding non-Davidic kings, the Rambam also mentions the fact of Hasmonean monarchy as a positive value (Hilkhot Chanuka 3:1) and describes the Exilarch (Reish Galuta) as having kingly authority (Hilkhot Sanhedrin 4:13).
Thus, the dual element of kingship expresses itself on all levels. In following shiurim we shall examine many of the details of monarchy and government, exploring both the ideal system the Halakha wishes to set up as well as the practical significance of these laws.