(4) "and you say: I shall place over myself a king, as all the nations that are around me": R. Nehorai says: This verse speaks in denigration of Israel, as in (I Samuel 8:7) "For it is not you (Samuel) that they have rejected (in asking for a king), but it is Me whom they have rejected from reigning over them."

(5) R. Yehudah said: Is it not a mitzvah of the Torah to ask for a king? viz. (Ibid. 15) "Place shall you place over yourself a king, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose"? Why, then, was Israel punished for this in the days of Samuel? — Because they (the "ignoramuses" of that generation) preempted them (the elders) by placing "like all the nations that are around us" (before "to judge us").

(6) R. Nehorai said: They sought a king only to lead them to idolatry, as it is written (I Samuel, Ibid. 20) "And we, too, will be like all the nations, and our king will judge us and go out before us, and fight our wars."

(1) Israel was commanded to fulfill three mitzvot upon entering the Promised Land:
a) To choose a king, as Deuteronomy 17:15 states: 'Appoint a king over yourselves;'
b) To wipe out the descendents of Amalek, as Deuteronomy 25:19 states: 'Erase the memory of Amalek;'
c) To build God's Chosen House, as Deuteronomy 12:5 states: 'Seek out His Presence and go there.'

(1) To appoint a king from Israel: That we were commanded to appoint upon ourselves a king from Israel, so that he can gather us all together and administer us according to his desire. And about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 17:15), “Surely place upon yourself a king, etc.” And in Sifrei Devarim 157, “‘Surely place upon yourself a king’ is a positive commandment.”

(2) I have written from the roots of the commandment in the Order of Mishpatim on the negative commandment of the chieftain (Sefer HaChinukh 71). And there I wrote at length about the benefit that is found for a people in there being one person upon them as the head and as the officer; as the order of the people will not be preserved without this. And behold, you see in the books of the Prophets that it comes as a curse when many people are the head in one place — and as it is written. (See the book of Judges 9.)

(1) AND THOU SHALT SAY: ‘I WILL SET A KING OVER ME.’ In the opinion of our Rabbis, This is a positive commandment,95See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 182-183. for He has obligated us to say so after conquering and settling [in the Land]... 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,97I Samuel 8:5. and similarly it is written there, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us etc.98Ibid., Verse 20. 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 ways99Jeremiah 10:2: Learn not the way of the nations. and neither be envious against the workers of evil.100Psalms 37:1. But this is an allusion to what will be

(1) בי תבא..ואמרת..שום תשים עליך מלך. "When you come to the land…and you will say..l want to appoint a king,…appoint a king over yourself, etc." The wording: "when you come and you will say, etc." shows that G'd did not decree that the people have to appoint a king for themselves. If they want to, however, the Torah gives them the right to do so. The repetition of שום תשים at the end of the verse appears to suggest that it is indeed a positive commandment to appoint a king. Are we faced with a contradiction here? (2) It appears to us that the best way to understand the wording of the verse is as follows. There may be two reasons why the people want to appoint a king. 1) They want a king with superior intelligence in whose ability to conduct wars successfully they have confidence. They want him to be able to compete successfully with the bravery, etc., of Gentile kings. This is something G'd mightily disapproves of. The reason for this is that the kings of the Gentile nations are not motivated by what is right but merely what appears expedient, even if objectively speaking their undertakings are not even useful in the long run. Not only that, but they do not trust in G'd but in their own prowess. The second reason for Israelites wanting a king is that they want their king to represent the glory of Israel, G'd's people. They want the king to be the kind of person on whose account (merits) G'd will make the whole nation successful in its undertakings. G'd had done so repeatedly in the days of the Judges when the merit of the individual judge ensured that G'd would grant him victory over enemies who were (or appeared) much stronger...(3) This is why our verse commences with: "when you come to the land and you want to appoint a king over yourself to match what other nations are doing, etc." Clearly, here the Torah describes the first of the two scenarios we described for the Israelites wanting a king. This is the scenario, which, basically, G'd does not approve of. The verse concludes with the Torah encouraging us to appoint a king, i.e. שום תשים. This means that the prerequisite for the Israelites appointing a king is that G'd approves, i.e. אשר יבחר ה׳ אלוקיך (you consult the Supreme Court of 71 elders who in turn consult with a prophet as they are G'd's representatives). When a king is appointed on such a basis he cannot be compared to the kind of king Gentile nations appoint for themselves. Under such conditions we are entitled to understand the words שום תשים עליך מלך as a positive commandment. These words are simultaneously a positive commandment and a negative commandment not to appoint the wrong kind of king for the wrong reasons. Without these words I would have assumed that the appointment of a king with the powers of kings amongst Gentile nations was altogether forbidden. Even though the Torah also writes that a Jewish king is subject to being chosen by G'd, i.e. אשר יבחר ה׳ אלקיך, this would not have been enough to forbid the monarchy as a valid form of government in a Jewish state. Once the Torah wrote שום תשים, repeating the instruction, it was not worried that we would interpret the verse as merely offering us the monarchy as an option. (4) You will have noted that G'd was quite upset about Israel in the days of the prophet Samuel when the people demanded from the prophet that he would appoint a king who would rule over them. (Samuel I chapter 8). At first glance this appears quite out of step with what we have learned here. Why would G'd (or the prophet) have been upset if the permission to appoint a king was already solidly based on our passage in the Torah? When you consider what we have written you will have no difficulty understanding why G'd was angry at that time. The Torah had specifically commanded that the reason for establishing a monarchy should not be in order to become more like the Gentile nations; however, this was precisely what motivated the people who demanded that Samuel appoint a king over them. We are told in Samuel I 8,5 that the reason for demanding a king was inter alia לשפטנו ככל הגוים, "to judge us like all the other nations." It was the rationale for the request which angered G'd at that time. Had they asked for a king who would be guided first and foremeost by G'd's wishes, instead of because they hoped to increase their military clout once they had a king, they would have performed a positive commandment with their very request. (5) We find a dispute in Sanhedrin 20 concerning the three commandments the Israelites were to fulfil after taking possession of their homeland. Rabbi Yehudah said the three were: 1) to appoint a king; 2) to exterminate the descendants of Amalek; 3) to construct a permanent Temple. Rabbi Nehorai claimed that our passage was written only as a response to people who would demand to be ruled over by a king, but that it does not constitute a positive commandment. Our comments are based on the viewpoint of Rabbi Yehudah and this is the halachah. Maimonides also rules like Rabbi Yehudah that appointment of a king is a positive commandment in chapter one of Hilchot Melachim. Nonetheless the viewpoint of Rabbi Nehorai deserves further examination. After all, the plain meaning of the words שום תשים עליך מלך is clearly a commandment and not merely an option. (6) Perhaps we can understand the situation as follows. If all of Israel were to be righteous, would not request a king, and would be content to let G'd be their only king as the prophet said in Samuel I 12,13, then G'd would be willing to act as its exclusive king. If, however, Israel had already reached the stage where they asked for a king other than G'd or in addition to G'd, then the commandment שום תשים would become applicable. This may be the reason the Torah did not commence the passage with the words שום תשים, but prefaced it with the words: "if you will say 'I want to appoint a king over myself.'" When you look at the two verses 14 +15 in this way you find that provided the conditions of the first verse have been met even Rabbi Nehorai could agree that the words שום תשים constitute a positive commandment.

(1) "JUDGES AND OFFICERS SHALL YOU APPOINT IN ALL YOUR GATES THAT THE L-RD YOUR G-D GIVES YOU, ACCORDING TO YOUR TRIBES, AND LET THEM JUDGE THE PEOPLE A RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT" (DEUTERONOMY 16:18)

(27) And because a well-ordered society is not achieved through judges alone but requires the complement of a king, as we have explained, the Torah now turns to the commandment of his appointment, saying (Deuteronomy 17:14): "When you come to the land… and you say: 'I will place a king over me as all the nations around me…'" Apparently, "I will place" is an intimation of what was actually to occur in the days of Samuel, as explained by the Ramban of blessed memory.

(28) But I would add to the interpretation of these verses, saying that the intent is: When you come to the land, though you may be overcome by the desire to be like the nations around you and to have your lives ordered primarily by the king (a desire which is not at all appropriate for you), still, take heed not to desire to be like them completely. For they appoint their king on the basis of popular acclaim, but you, do not allow your desire to rule you so completely that you say: "I will place a king over me as all the nations around me," for this does not befit you. Take care not to establish a king according to all the desire of your soul, but let that king be (Ibid 15) "him who the L-rd your G-d chooses," upon which Sifrei (Deuteronomy 157) comments: "by the word of a prophet."

(29) And because the powers of a king are so great that he is not subservient to the laws of the Torah as is a judge, and where the danger exists that if he is not perfect in his fear of the L-rd he might exert more authority than is necessary for the good of the nation, he was commanded that a Torah scroll be with him at all times, as it is written (Ibid 18-19): "And it will be, when he sits upon his throne of kingdom, that he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah… and it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all of his days, so that he learns to fear the L-rd his G-d, to heed all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to do them." That is, in respect to the mitzvoth of the Torah in general, if the king abrogates a mitzvah of the Torah for the good of the kingdom, he should be in no way motivated by the desire to transgress words of Torah or to cast off from himself the yoke of the fear of Heaven, but his intent should be "to heed all the words of this Torah and these statutes, to do them." In all that he adds or detracts, his intent should be the greater observance of the statutes and mitzvoth of the Torah. So that, for example, if he orders a murderer killed in the absence of witnesses or prior warning, his intent should be not to impress the people with his power, but to strengthen the mitzvah of "Thou shalt not kill" and keep it from being undermined.

(30) And because he exercises great sway and is susceptible to pride, he was exhorted to guard against it, as it is written (Ibid 20): "So that his heart not be lifted up above his brothers." This is a generic exhortation, to king and commoner alike, the king being singled out for two reasons: first, because he is more prone to succumb to pride and haughtiness; second, so that the commoner shun pride, a fortiori from a king's being warned against it.

(6) ... His heart is the heart of the entire congregation of Israel. Therefore, the verse commanded him to have it cleave to the Torah to a greater degree than the rest of the nation, as it is stated: 'all the days of his life.'

(1) אשימה עלי מלך ככל הגויים, a monarch whose authority will be transferred from him to his biological heir after his death throughout the generations. This is quite different from judges, each of whom is appointed for his lifetime, with his heirs having absolutely no claim to succeed their father. The people were commanded to appoint such a hereditary position of king after they had conquered and settled in the land of Israel, the principal reason being to ensure that the Jewish people would not be like a flock without a shepherd, (Moses’ words in Numbers 27,17.) The fact is that G’d disapproved of a hereditary type of monarchy such as is customary among the gentile nations, so that He stipulated that if the people insisted on appointing a king who would start a dynasty, the initial king had to be approved not only by the people but by G’d’s representative on G’d’s behalf, as we know from Samuel I 8,18. The restrictions in appointing the original king were designed to ensure that such a king could not lead the people away from G’d’s Torah; on the contrary, they are meant for the people to see in him a shining example of Torah-observance, which in turn would inspire their own piety. Seeing that when the people asked Samuel for a king their purpose was far from what the Torah had legislated having a king for, the people were suitably punished as per the verse in Samuel I 8,18 that we referred to earlier. The prophet Hoseah 13,11 describes G’d granting the people’s wish as stemming from the fact that He was angry at them. Summing up, we may view the permission to appoint a king as being in the same category as the permission for a soldier to marry a physically attractive prisoner of war. G’d, the master psychologist, knows that sometimes in order to become wise enough to appreciate the Torah’s prohibitions, an individual, or even a whole nation, must find this out by having chosen in their own wisdom to ignore the Torah’s preferences. David’s experiences with his son Avshalom, born to such a prisoner of war whom he married because he was initially physically attracted to her, bears this out.