המלוכה: מצוה, רשות או גנאי?

(14) If, after you have entered the land that your God ה' has assigned to you, and taken possession of it and settled in it, you decide, “I will set a king over me, as do all the nations about me,” (15) you shall be free to set a king over yourself, one chosen by your God ה'. Be sure to set as king over yourself one of your own people; you must not set a foreigner over you, one who is not your kin. (16) Moreover, he shall not keep many horses or send people back to Egypt to add to his horses, since ה' has warned you, “You must not go back that way again.”

The baraita continues: Rabbi Nehorai says: This biblical passage about appointing a king was stated only in response to the Jewish people’s complaint, as it is stated: “When you come unto the land that the Lord your God gives you, and shall possess it, and shall dwell therein, and shall say: I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me” (Deuteronomy 17:14). The verse indicates that appointing a king is not a mitzva and that when Samuel spoke to them, he intended to frighten them so that they might regret their complaint and retract their request for a king.

AND THOU SHALT SAY: ‘I WILL SET A KING OVER ME.’ In the opinion of our Rabbis [who say that “The Israelites were obliged to fulfill three commandments upon their entry into the Land: to appoint a king etc.”] this verse is like “and thou shalt surely say ‘I will set a king over me.’” This is a positive commandment, for He has obligated us to say so after conquering and settling [in the Land]. The expression is similar to and thou shalt make a parapet for thy roof [which is also a matter of obligation and not one of choice], and other verses besides these. He mentioned and thou shalt say because it is commanded that the people come before the priests of the tribe of Levi, and to the judge and say to them, “It is our wish that we set a king over us.”
It is my further opinion that this is also one of his [Moses’] allusions to future events, for so it happened when the people asked for Saul, saying to Samuel, Now make us a king to judge us like all nations, and similarly it is written there, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us etc. For what reason is there that the Torah should say in connection with a commandment [‘I will set a king over me] like all the nations that are round about me’ when it is not proper for Israel to learn their ways and neither be envious against the workers of evil. But this is an allusion to what will be, and therefore the section is written in an intermediate tense [and not in the form of a command] as I have already explained.

THOU SHALT IN ANY WISE SET HIM KING OVER THEE. This is optional.

First Introduction: Behold, it is fitting that we know if a king is a necessary and intrinsically obligatory thing for a nation or whether it is possible without him. And the philosophers already thought that it was [necessary] and that the dominion of a king to a politically organized nation is like the relationship of the heart to the body of a living being that has a heart, and like the relationship of the First Cause to the world more generally. And even though these analysts reason that monarchy insures three things – the first being unity and the absence of [division], the second being continuity and the lack of [instability], and the third being absolute power – [in fact], their thinking about the obligation and necessity of a king is actually false. [This] since it is not to be denied that there can be many leaders of the people that gather and unite and agree upon one policy and that the leadership and law be according to them – and this goes against the first [claim]. And why should their leadership not be [for] one year or three years like the years of an employee or less? And when the turn of other 'judges and officers' arrives, they will rise instead of them and faithfully investigate the sin of the first ones, and that which they condemn must pay all that they have done badly – and this goes against the second [claim]. And why should their power also not be limited, as with religions and mores [– and this goes against the third claim]. And logic dictates that when an individual [disagrees] with a group, the law follows the group. And it is more likely that the lapse be with one man – as it stated (Proverbs 16:14), “The king’s wrath is a messenger of death” - than it be that the many would trespass when they take counsel together. As if one strays from the path, the others will protest against him. And since their leadership is temporary and they will have to be accountable after a 'few days,' that fear of flesh and blood is upon them. And why do we need to bring theoretical claims for this, as behold, experience trumps modeling: Look and see the lands the leadership of which is with kings, and [by contrast,] today we have seen many lands the leadership of which is is with temporary judges and leaders that are chosen among them and the King God is with them. Their law is refined by ordered limits, and [their leaders] are the ones that control the people that make the matters of war; none can stand in front of them – not from a tribe, and not from his land. Did you not know, did you not hear that a great land governed over the whole world, consumed the whole earth – search it and note it – while its leadership was through the Councils, that were wholesome and many and their leadership was temporary. However, afterward they were made a tributary. And also today, the Commonwealth of Venice, that great mistress among the nations, the rulers over states; and the Country of Florence, the beauty of all the lands; and other countries small and large are run by the mouth of leaders elected for set periods of time. And behold, the elected governments have 'in them nothing perverse or crooked' – no one raises his hand or foot to [do] a wrongful thing – and they conquer lands that are not theirs with wisdom, understanding and knowledge. And all of this shows that the presence of a king is not necessary for a nation, and like the teacher of the Guide (Maimonides) mentioned. And it is a wonder about this supposed opinion, that compares the unity of a [human] king over the control and will of people to the unity of the ancient necessary First Cause, may He be blessed. However, [even] in an animal body, the sages have already written that there are three main organs in its governance. And even according to the opinion of the head of the philosophers that only the heart is the main [one], behold, this is concerning the generation of the spirit, but it does not contradict that the government of the living faculties is from the brain, and the natural ones is from the liver. In the final analysis, it is impossible for natural matters not to be like this; as from the act of [Divine] will, they are [only] from the substance of that [which] is possible - ‘how can straw be compared to grain?’ And one should not ask from the statement (Proverbs 28:2), “When there is rebellion in the land, its ministers are many,” as there it is speaking about ministers, not about leaders and judges. And how will we [miss] that which is well-known among all, that when the leaders are good, it is better that they be many; and if they are bad, it is more dangerous. And therefore, I think that the kings were not set up with the examination of the people at first, and as it is written (Isaiah 7:6), “We will march against Yehudah and invade it […], and we will set up a king in it.” And even if they were only appointed by way of trustees to serve the people, and they are made masters, as if God, may He be blessed, gave them the ‘land and its fullness’; and they bequeathed it to their sons after them forever, as if it was land that he bought with his money, this too is ‘not worthwhile (literally, the same)’ with all reigns, as there will be kings that do not have leadership abilities. And this is the First Introduction.

When יהוה enlarges your territory, as promised, and you say, “I shall eat some meat,” for you have the urge to eat meat, you may eat meat whenever you wish. If the place where יהוה has chosen to establish the divine name is too far from you, you may slaughter any of the cattle or sheep that יהוה gives you, as I have instructed you; and you may eat to your heart’s content in your settlements.

And you shall say, etc.: The explanation of "saying" [here] is not like its simple meaning, but rather like [its] usage in the phrase (Deuteronomy 12:20), “and you shall say,' I want to eat meat'” and in similar [instances]. However according to this usage, it is implied that this is not an absolute commandment to appoint a king, but rather optional, as in the case of “and you shall say, 'I want to eat meat,' etc.” And behold it is known in the words of the sages, may their memory be blessed, that it is a commandment to appoint a king. But, if so, why is it written, "and you shall say, etc.?" And it appears that it is because the government of a state depends upon whether it is run according to the opinion of a monarchy or according to the opinion of the people and its representatives: and there are states that cannot support the opinion of the monarchy and there are states that without a king are like a ship without a captain. And [so] such a thing cannot be done according to the coercion of a positive commandment, since a matter that is relevant to the government of the public touches upon mortal danger (sakanat nefashot) which pushes off a positive commandment. For this reason, it is impossible to absolutely command the appointment of king so long as it is without the consent of the people to support the yoke of the king as a result of their seeing states around them functioning more properly [with a king]. And then [only when they do so] is it a positive commandment for the Sanhedrin to appoint a king. And behold, it is certainly impossible to explain that there is no positive commandment here at all, but rather it is like, “and you shall say, 'I want to eat meat,' etc. and you shall slaughter from your cattle, etc.” which is only a negative commandment that comes out of a positive [statement], not to eat without ritual slaughter (shechita); [and that] here too, we would say that this is its explanation - "Surely place upon yourself a king that He will choose, etc., you may not, etc.," [meaning] specifically "that He will choose." But it is impossible to explain like this, as if so, what is it saying, "and you will possess and you will settle" and not before? Behold, even before the possession, it is permitted to [establish] a king, as behold, Yehoshua was like a king, as is written by Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 1:3 and 3:8, see there, and Sanhedrin 19. But rather perforce, it is a commandment; yet regardless the Sanhedrin is is not commanded [to act upon it] until the people say that they want the administration of a king. And it is for this reason that for all of three hundred years, while the Tabernacle was in Shilo, there was no king; because it was lacking the people’s agreement.