Q&A: The Authority of the King
The Authority of the King
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Following your column about the death penalty for terrorists and the discussion around it, I wanted to ask your opinion about the authority of the king.
After the Ran’s distinction and the separation of powers, it would seem clear that the king’s authority derives from the religious court. True, the king and the secular authority are the ones who appoint the judges, but if our point of departure is religious (the commandment to appoint a king), then it is clear that the Sanhedrin would naturally inherit the king’s place and would be able to enact halakhic ordinances (after all, one can recite the blessing over Torah study on the commandment to appoint a king).
One can add to this the claim that if the authority of the Written Torah and the Oral Torah is Torah-based / prophetic, then all the commandments are ultimately religious.
In short, if the king fills the gaps in the religious law, then his role is also religious.
(Although I seem to remember a midrash that sees Moses as functioning also as a king, that seems more aggadic than halakhic.)
Thank you very much
Answer
And therefore what? Clearly, defining the king’s role and authority is itself a halakhic issue. The same is true of the prophet’s role. Does that mean the prophet’s actions are Jewish law?
I don’t understand the question here.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t understand the question. When appointing a king, that is a commandment (according to most opinions). So what?
The king’s commandments and the enactments of the religious court are binding because of the reasoning that a society needs authoritative government.
But when a religious court appoints a king, are they fulfilling a halakhic commandment?
What gives the commandments of the king and the enactments of the religious court their binding force? General morality, or actual authority?