King of Lachayin
Sanhedrin 20:2 A dispute between Rav and Samuel: Is what is stated in Parashat Melech (1 Samuel Chapter 8) permissible in a king or was Samuel the prophet only threatening them with what would actually happen?
The king is allowed to do so, I understand that there is still a threat here (this is also implied in the verses).
A. Is it correct to *prove* from this that the people of Israel could not assemble a partial collection of characteristics of a king exactly according to their wishes (and call him, say, a ‘governor’) so that the ‘threat’ would be neutralized. That is, it is a package deal so that all laws apply and not every condition in the kingdom of Tanau exists.
on. In Rambam’s Laws of Kings, chapters 1-4, I saw that a king (according to the commandment, “You shall appoint a king over you”) has personal conditions and an appointment process, obligations towards him and obligations towards him, rights and permissions, and powers. (For example, he must be male and his mother must be from Israel, and he must be appointed according to 24 and a prophet, and it is forbidden to use his scepter, and he must not be a scepter or a scepter, and he must have a Torah scroll with him and bequeath it to his sons, and a king from the house of David must sit in the throne.)
The powers include (with restrictions) to kill rebels and those who oppose the world’s correction, to strike for its honor, to collect taxes on money and lives, and to declare war.
Assuming that the answer to ‘No’ is yes, is it correct to *prove* from this gemara that the consent of the entire people is not sufficient to grant someone all these powers (which are essentially freedom for him and his emissaries to transgress certain prohibitions), assuming that this is truly what interested the people, and not the rest of the details. That is, the people wanted to grant the king some subset of powers and Samuel informed them that that subset was impossible without the entire set.
third. Less interesting, but still – unlike the aforementioned collection of King’s Laws, in the verses the people only want a judge and a commander (and we too, like all the nations, would judge our king and fight our wars). So from the verses alone, what exactly is the problem with them accepting a judge and appointing him as a commander without giving him any other authority of a king that they do not want, such as “He will take your sheep and take your sons and daughters, etc.”
They wanted a king like all the nations, and such a king has absolute powers. But that doesn’t mean we can’t accept a king with partial powers. It is understandable that it is possible.
There is no problem in principle with a partial appointment (the judges were probably something like that), but Samuel is pessimistic about what would come of it. Such a partial king could also take on powers that were not given to him. History is full of such cases.
Are you interpreting that “Samuel is pessimistic about what will come of it” also for the method that “everything stated in Parashat Melech Melech is permitted”? I understood that for this method (as opposed to the method of Rav Shem who said to threaten them) the prophet Samuel simply read them laws from a clear Shena so that they would know exactly what they were asking for (albeit with the goal of making them repent).
Thank you for explaining that it is possible [actually, I thought it was specifically that it is impossible to distribute authority that is a Halachic permit to murder and steal].
In the law, beatings and punishments are not lawful. And judges or a government can be appointed to make such decisions, of course when there is a moral justification for it (and this is also required of a king).
You are right that according to Shmuel, this can also be a threat.
Thank you. If possible, please clarify for me one last time because I got confused.
Samuel in the Gemara says that everything stated in Parashat Melech Melech is permitted in it. That is, Samuel the prophet informed the people of the full set of powers of a king. And this itself is the threat, that they should know how far-reaching according to the Torah what they are taking upon themselves is (there must be an element of threat in the picture because it is clear from the verses that Samuel the prophet tells them the whole thing so that they get cold feet).
But the truth is that they could have defined a new role with partial powers.
So I don't understand why Samuel the prophet reads them the full powers according to the Torah, what are these powers related to? That he should appoint a king for them exactly according to what they want and then there is no element of threat (if they insist on arranging for themselves a king who can take their sons and daughters then there is no reason to threaten them that he will take their sons and daughters). And if he fears deterioration, then surely the end of the deterioration will not stop exactly with the powers according to the Torah. It's like someone went to the market looking for a free guard and the neighborhood policeman comes and warns him that if the deposit is stolen or lost, the guard will be exempt from three exclamation marks. Instead, the policeman should tell him calmly, "You know, the default is so-and-so, and if you're interested in other things, then make an explicit condition and good luck to you."
The truth is that in Shmuel Ho writes about the dangers of dictatorship. In my opinion, this is an amazing speech by Shmuel.
Because if they want a king, it's a king. Want something else? For health (to the point of the dangers of taking power)
Is this a broad and convenient interpretation or do we have to pay exorbitant prices for the explanation that partial powers are possible? (If partial powers are not possible, then it is seemingly more understandable that Shmuel does not offer them the healthier option, because there is none.)
I am writing a somewhat strange message and I am careful not to undermine the truth of the building (as is known, the interpreter does not pass without your brother in your heart). I think that the evidence here is good evidence from the Gemara that the consent of the people is not enough to grant to anyone (who is not a B „D and not for the sake of repairing the world) partial powers that are permission to transgress prohibitions.
And the rejection did not find a way in my heart and raised a snag and after rummaging around in myself, I recognize that this caused me to post my rants in other threads about the commandment and free choice (what is called displacement in the language). However, after my return, I took comfort and from now on I think that the excesses in Israel will cease. Although there is probably nothing to it and who cares, etc., etc., it may be less pleasant for the other readers because of the general atmosphere.
I would appreciate it if you could please consider it for a few more moments. Maybe there is a place for this evidence, and if there isn't, there isn't.
I don't understand what's wrong with my rejections. In law, there is certainly such authority, as many poskim have written regarding the regulations of the congregation and the powers of the community institutions.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
