A Kingly Light

One of the sections that we learn in this week’s Parsha is the role of a Melech in Klal Yisroel. Though we do not have a Melech while we are in Galus, as we yearn for the Melech HaMoshiach, there is an important lesson that can be nonetheless gained from a study of this Parsha.

The Passuk begins by telling us that when we arrive in Eretz Yisrael, and settle in the land, there may be a time at which we desire to have a king, saying “Asima Alai Melech K’Chol HaGoyim Asher Sivivosai: I will place upon myself a king like all the nations surrounding me.” In that case the Torah tells us: “Som Tasim Alecha Melech: Place upon yourself a king.”

The Gemarah in Sanhedrin (20b) expands on these Pessukim and tells us that there are three Mitzvos that Bnei Yisroel were commanded to do when we arrived in Eretz Yisroel: appoint a king, destroy Amalek and build the Bai Hamikdash. Based on this Gemarah it is clear that the Pessukim in this week’s Parsha are delineating a Mitzvas Assei to appoint a king. Fittingly, the Rambam and Chinuch both count this as one of the Taryag Mitzvos. In fact, the Rambam, based on one view in the Gemarah, states that the three Mitzvos that the Gemarah mentions are to be done in that order: the appointment of a king proceeds the other Mitzvos.

This being the case, that these Pessukim are meant to teach us the positive Mitzvah of appointing a king, we must understand why they are written in this particular way. In most cases when the Torah wishes to teach us a Mitzvah, it tells us the Mitzvah—“Lo Silbash Shatnez” for example. Why in this case is it necessary to tell us that we may say “Asima Alei Melech” and if so we should appoint a king. This makes it sound as if the Mitzvah of appointing a king is optional—a Mitzvah Kiyumis—and that if Klal Yisroel does not wish to have a king they are not required to.

The Gemarah however seems to say that this is a Mitzvah Chiyuvis—that we are obligated to have a king upon entering Eretz Yisrael. In fact, based on the opinion of the Rambam, that the Melech is a prerequisite to the other Mitzvos, if we could chose not to have a king we would not be able to be Mikayem the other Mitzvos, which are certainly absolute requirements.

It would therefore seem that the Torah is in fact conveying a Mitzvah Chiyuvis to appoint a king. If so, why are the Pessukim written in this way?

This idea leads to another question, which is raised in one way or another by most Meforshim. The Pessukim in Sefer Shmuel tell us that the events described in this Parsha in fact came to pass. As Shmuel grew older, Klal Yisroel told him that they wished themselves a king “L’Shfoteinu K’chol HaGoyim: to judge us, like all other nations.” Shmuel was upset at this request and Davened to Hashem. In response Hashem told him “Shema B’Kol HaAm L’Chol Asher Yomru Eilecha, Ki Lo Oscha Ki Osi Muasu M’Miloch Aleihem: Listen to all that the nation tells you, for they have not rejected you, rather they have rejected me and my reign upon them.”

Clearly, both in the eyes of Shmuel and Hakadosh Baruch Hu, the request made by Bnei Yisroel was incorrect. In light of the Pessukim in our Parsha, however, this is difficult to understand. We have established that there is an imperative to appoint the king, so it would seem that it was not the content of the request that was offensive, but rather the way in which it was made. However, it would seem that Bnei Yisroel is following the script, so to speak: the Passuk here says “Asima Alai Melech K’Chol HaGoyim Asher Sivivosai” and Bnei Yisroel in fact asked for a king “L’Shfoteinu K’chol HaGoyim.” The words may not be identical, but the sentiments certainly seem aligned. Why then did this request raise the ire of Hashem and his Navi?

As we mentioned, this questions is asked by a number of Meforshim, and a variety of explanations are offered. I would like to focus on one approach, based on the words of the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh.

The Ohr HaChaim explains that the two Pessukim—“Asimah Alei” and “Som Tasim”—are very different from one another, and in fact the second Passuk is meant to negate the first one—to indicate that the request was made in error.

First the Torah anticipates the type of request that might be made by Klal Yisrael—“Asima Alei Melech K’Chol Hagoyim.” This indicates that the desire to have a king is based on the role that a king plays in other nations: leading their armies into war and providing law and order. This, however, is not the function of a Melech Yisroel. Therefore the Torah tells us “Som Tasim Alecha Melech Asher Yivchar Hashem Elokecha Bo”, which is meant to tell us that rather than a king like other nations we should enthrone a leader who is chosen by Hashem, to occupy the position envisioned by the Torah.

The Ohr HaChaim explains that this is why Hashem was angry with Klal Yisroel in the days of Shmuel. The nation’s request for a king “L’Shfoteinu K’chol HaGoyim” indeed mirrors the words of our Pessukim, but the Torah has told us that this approach is incorrect—a Melech Yisrael is not meant to serve the same purpose as all other kings. Thus Hashem told Shmuel that although the nation had strayed in the way that they asked for a king, one should nonetheless be appointed. This too is a Kiyum of the Passuk in our Parsha: “Som Tasim Alecha Melech Asher Yivchar Hashem Elokecha Bo”. It is interesting to note that when Hashem spoke to Shmuel he said “Ki Lo Oscha Ki Osi Muasu M’Miloch Aleihem” indicating that within the nations request there was an implicit rejection of the Malchus Hashem. Based on the explanation of the Ohr HaChaim, though, this is a bit difficult to understand: while their request belied a lack of understanding of the role and purpose of the Melech Yisroel, it does not seem to include any apparent measure of rebellion. It is understandable that Hashem would be angry because the Parsha of Melech Yisroel—as learned in our Sedra—was misunderstood, but why does this rise to the level of “Osi Muasu M’Miloch Aleihem”?

In order to understand the source of Hashem’s anger, we must first gain some insight into the central role and purpose of a Melech Yisroel, based on concepts explained by R’ Shimshon Pincus in the introductory chapters to his Sefer Shabbos Malkasa, wherein he discusses the concept of Malchus at length.

We know that there are various Middos, or traits, that are related to Hashem, which are enumerated in the Passuk “Lecha Hashem HaGedula…” One of those Midos is that of Malchus, as the Passuk concludes “Lecha Hashem HaMamlacha.” R’ Shimshon explains that any presence of Malchus in this world is based upon this Middah, and therefore a Melech B’Yisrael is not merely a king but rather an embodiment of the Midah of Malchus on this world. While his discussion of the Middah of Malchus is lengthy--and at times beyond our basic level of comprehension—I will try to capture the essence of his words as they pertain to us.

The Middah of Malchus is different from the other Midos that the Passuk attributes to Hashem—such as Gedulah and Gevurah—because it does not have its own affect: there is no act that is carried because of Malchus. Rather, it is through the Middah of Malchus that that all other Middos are expressed. The fact that Hashem is the Melech Malchei HaMelachim enables him, so to speak, to carry out his will which is dictated by his other Middos.

Thus the Middah of Malchus is in affect defined by the ability to take that which is latent and make it actionable, to take it “Min HaKoach El HaPoel.” Without the Middah of Malchus, all other Middos would not be able to have an effect on the world, it is only through the Koach of Malchus that these attributes can be seen.

Because of this attribute of Malchus—that it brings the other Middos into actuality, but has no expression of its own—this Middah is said not to have any “light” of its own. One example of Malchus, which may enable us to conceptualize this aspect, is the moon. We know that the moon has no light of its own, rather it reflects the light of the sun. R’ Shimshon explains that Hakadosh Baruch Hu wished for there to be an aspect of the sun even during the night and the role of the moon is to reflect the sun’s light onto the earth during that time. This is an example of Malchus: the moon has no light of its own, but allows the sun’s light to affect the earth.

Given that a Melech B’Yisrael is the embodiment of the Middah of Malchus, we can perhaps now understand the true role and function of a Melech: to reflect the light of Hakadosh Baruch Hu onto Klal Yisroel.

A king is given his stature due to the Middah of Malchus: he has no specific virtue of his own, but given the reign of Melucha he is able to serve certain functions so as to bring Hakadosh Baruch Hu into the world. R’ Shimshon points out that the Passuk in Divrei HaYomim says: “VaYashev Shlomo Al Kisei Hashem”—it was not the throne of Shlomo, but the seat of Hashem, because the role of Shlomo Hamelech is limited to an expression of the Middos and Koach of Hakadosh Baruch Hu in this world.

This concept can be further clarified based on the way that we treat a King and some of the Halachos that pertain to him. For example, the Rambam writes that Melech B’Yisrael must wear a crown. Now, if it is true that a Melech has no stature on his own, but is rather an earthly expression of the Malchus Shamayim, why must he wear a crown? The king himself is no different from the rest of us, he has no “light” of his own—why then does he have these Dinim?

R’ Shimshon explains that the Kesser Malchus is actually an apt representation of the role of the king. Though he walks among the people, and is not elevated in-and-of-himself, he bears the crown of royalty—thus bringing Malchus to the Hamon Am. That a mere mortal bears the sign of Malchus is itself a way to reflect the Malchus of Hashem amongst Bnei Yisrael.

With this in mind we can further understand how what seems like a misunderstanding of the role of the Melech—as displayed by Klal Yisroel in the time of Shmuel HaNavi—was actually tantamount to a rejection of Malchus Shamayim.

When Bnei Yisroel asked for a king “L’Shfoteinu K’chol HaGoyim” what they were in affect saying was that they wanted a ruler in the most mundane sense. They had no interest in a Melech Yisroel to serve as a conduit for the Malchus Shamayim—they only wanted someone to maintain law and order and lead them into battle. There is no room for this type of kind in Yiddishkeit—we have a system of law that is upheld by Dayanim or Shoftim and we believe that battles are primarily won and lost by the will of Hashem. The only purpose of a Melech is to serve as a representation of the Malchus Hashem. It is therefore understandable why the request of “Sima Lanu Melech L’Shfoteinu K’chol HaGoyim” was met with disgust by Shmuel and Hashem himself, for this request revealed a lack of desire for this connection to Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

I believe that there is a message of great Chizuk to be found in this Parsha.

As we mentioned earlier, the moon is an example of Malchus as it reflects the light of the sun onto the earth when there is no light. So to, when we are on the right level, Hashem provides us with a king to reflect his light onto our world—thus establishing a presence of Malchus Shamayim in our very midst.

Although we do not have a king while in Galus, it is vital to remember that the Ratzon Hashem is to afford us the opportunity to connect with him in this way. We all yearn for the time that we will be Zoche greet the Melech Hamoshiach, who will embody the Malchus Hashem, spreading his light onto the world. Until then, however, we must keep in mind that we have the opportunity to bring the light of Malchus Shamayim into the darkness of Galus: if we act as apt representatives of the Dvar Hashem, we can be as the moon, shedding just a bit of light into a dark, dark world. That will surely lead to the day that we will be Zoche to a Kiyum of “Som Tasim Alecha Melech Asher Yivchar Hashem Elokecha Bo.”