Son of Kings

Of the many Mitzvos discussed in Parshas Shoftim, there is one that is no longer Nogeah L’Maisah, though we hope that it will be one day soon. The Passuk tells us that, once settled in Eretz Yisroel, there is a Mitzvah to appoint a king: “Som Tasim Alecha Melech”. The Pessukim continue, speaking about the roles and responsibilities of the Melech, but we know that this is no mere title. The Melech Yisroel serves a unique purpose, beyond that of a political leader of statesman, and embodies Malchus. Although there is no Melech today, there are important lessons to be learned from this Mitzvah, and there is perhaps no one more qualified to teach us these lessons than Dovid Hamelech himself.

Kapital 72 begins with the word “L’Shlomo” which, as Rashi explains, indicates that Dovid wrote these lines a Teffilah for his son Shomo, who was to assume the Malchus. Radak points out that this Kapital was the final one written by Dovid, just before his Petirah, as seen in its closing words: “Kalu Tefilos Ben Yishai”. It emerges that these Pessukim form a unique Perek, passing on Dovid’s final thoughts as he contemplated the continuation of his legacy.

The Pessukim themselves are written in a direct manner, as Dovid pleas with Hashem to allow Shlomo success in his reign. Dovid asks that Shlomo be granted the ability to judge correctly, “Yadin Amcha B’Tzedek V’Aniyecha B’Mishpat”, as this is a central role of the Melech. he also understood that a king is judged by the prosperity of his subjects, and asks for bounty as well: “Yisu Harim Shalom L’Am” and later “Yirash K’Levanon Piryo”. Dovid also speaks about the Ruchnias of the nation, asking that they fear Hashem, and that they absorb the words of Shlomo “K’Matar Al Gez”.

As we know, however, a king does not only worry about the internal well-being of his subjects. Dovid therefore Davens for external peace as well: “Malchei Tarshish V’Iyim Mincha Yashivu…V’Yeshtachavu Lo Kol Malachim”.

There are a number of Pessukim that seem repetitive, and speak about the need for Shlomo to be concerned with the plight of the “Dal V’Evyon” or the general welfare of the nation. Radak explains that these themes are mentioned again in order to highlight their importance, and centrality to the responsivities of the Melech.

Indeed, the Pessukim are full of very specific Teffilos on behalf of Shlomo, but the Perek begins with a very broad request: “Mishpatecha L’Melech Ten V’Tzidkasecha L’Ben Melech”. Dovid asks that Hashem imbue Shlomo with a sense of Mishpat and Tzedek, which he will need in order to serve his subjects properly. While this is of course true, one cannot help but notice the way in which this request is made: both the terms “Melech” and “Ben Melech” are used.

Rashi, in keeping with his view of the Perek, explains that both refer to Shlomo Hamelech, about whom Dovid is speaking. That said, we must understand why Dovid speaks in this way. Why does he call his son, Shlomo, a Melech as well as a “Ben Melech”. Though both are of course true—Shlomo was a Melech ben Melech—certainly these terms are used intentionally. Why?

As always, we can look to the Divrei Chazal to help us better understand the words of the Passuk.

There is a Medrash Rabba in Parshas Emor, which appears elsewhere as well, that brings these words in an interesting context.

R’ Avin teaches “Ain Anu Yecholin L’Amod Al Apo Shel Dovid”, it is difficult to grasp the temperament of Dovid Hamelech, who sometimes refers to himself as a “Melech”, and sometimes as an “Ani”. The Medrash explains this apparent dichotomy is based on how Dovid saw the future. When he saw that Tzaddikim--such as Asa, Yehoshafat, Chizkiya and Yeshaya—would come from him, he referred to himself as Melech. However, when he saw that his offspring included Reshaim—such as Achaz, Menashe and Amon—he used the term “Ani”. The Medrash then brings an example of each of these terms: “Tefillah L’Ani Ki Yatof” and “Mishpatecha L’Melech Ten V’Tzidkasecha L’Ben Melech”. By calling Shlomo a “Ben Melech”, infers the Medrash, Dovid referred to himself as a Melech.

This Medrash requires explanation: why does Dovid’s view of himself change based on the nature of his offspring? In the many generations that followed him, some were Tzaddikim, and some Reshaim—why does this affect the way Dovid Hamelech speaks of himself? In addition, the two terms he chooses don’t seem to be related to each other: the opposite of Ani is Ashir, not Melech. It might be understandable that one whose offspring do not follow in his path may seem himself as destitute, but the opposing emotion should follow suit. Why, then does Dovid refer to himself as a “Melech” when he sees that his offspring would follow in his ways?

It seems that from the Medrash that, in some way, Malchus is expressed through ones children. This would explain why the Medrash chose a Passuk in which Dovid refers to his son as Ben Melech, and in so doing identifies himself as a Melech. How can we understand this? Why is the path followed by ones children itself an expression of Malchus? What does this teach us about the concept of Malchus in general?

To answer these questions, we must better understand the Malchus truly represents.

The Mishna in Avos tells us that Torah is greater than both Malchus and Kehuna for Malchus is “Nikneh B’Shloshim Ma’alos” and Kehuna “B’Esrim V’Arba” but Torah is “Niknis B’Arbiim U’Shmonah Devrim”. The Mishna goes on to enumerate the forty-nine “Devarim SheHaTorah Niknis Bahem” but does not mention those that relate to Kehuna or Malchus. In general, however, we must understand this statement: why does the fact that Torah is Niknis with forty-nine “Devarim” indicate that it is greater than Malchus and Kehuna that are Niknis with thirty and twenty-four, respectively?

Even the comparison between the “Ma’alos” of Malchus and the “Devarim” of Torah must be explained. Although the Mishna in Avos does not tell us the Ma’alos of Melucha, they are listed in Meseches Kallah Ribasi and include items such as Kesef, Zahav, Nashim, Besamim and Rechev. How can these be compared to the Devarim SheHaTorah Niknis Bahem which include Anava, Simcha, Mi’ut Taanug and Emunas Chachamim?

R' Yerucham Levovitz in Da’as Torah on this week’s Parsha, discusses the Mitzvos and Dinim that apply the Melech, bringing forth an important point. Rashi in Avos explains that the Ma’alos refer to the Mitzvos of the Melech, those outlined in Parshas Shoftim. Reb Yerucham points out that these Mitzvos, such as “Lo Yarbeh Lo Susim” and “Lo Yarbeh Lo Nashim”, all seem to be Gedarim. Since a Melech is prone to largesse, and susceptible to certain types of Aveiros, the Torah put in place Mitzvos that would prevent him from falling into these traps.

If this is the case, asks the Mashgiach, why does the Mishna refer to them as Ma’alos? They are rules meant to steer the Melech clear of the pitfalls that come with his station in life—they highlight his “Genus”—why do Chazal call them “advantages”?

R’ Yerucham explains that this question allows us a new insight: indeed, these Mitzvos were put into place because a Melech is prone to certain behaviors. Once they exist, however, they are indeed Ma’alos. The Mashgiach explains this idea with a Mashal: there are several stages through which a tree must pass before it bears fruit. Although each of these is merely a step towards the ultimate goal—the fruit themselves—each is a “Ma’aleh” nonetheless. So to, the Mitzvos that are given to a Melech are not an ends unto themselves, but the Ma’alos needed to reach the actual goal of Malchus.

Now we can understand the comparison between the Ma’alos of Malchus and Kehuna: just as one must utilize the forty-eight Devarim SheHaTorah Niknis Bahem in order to truly acquire Torah, in order to obtain true Malchus, a king must master the Ma’alos listen in Kalah Ribasi —exercising proper caution and control when confronting these obstacles.

It is interesting to point out that the Mishna also refers to the twenty-four Ma’alos of Kehuna, which Rashi identifies as the twenty-four Matnos Kehuna. The Ma’alos of the Melech are gifts as well: if the Melech properly navigates them, he will obtain Malchus.

Based on this , we may be able to explain the Medrash Rabbah.

Dovid Hamelech understood that one becomes a Melech by Yerusha, but Malchus must be separately acquired. When a Melech successfully undergoes the Ma’alos, he obtains Melucha but he must pass this message on to his sons. If his offspring follow in his footsteps, it is clear that he has used the gifts of the Ma’alos appropriately and was indeed a true Melech. If, however, those who follow him veer from his course, than he has perhaps not fulfilled the Ma’alos affectively.

When Dovid saw that he would have descendants that were Tzaddikim, he felt himself a Melech—the Ma’alos had brought him to Melucha, and his children affected. when, however, he saw that some of his children would not follow his path, he felt that his Melucha was itself in some way incomplete—that the Ma’alos had not all be used properly.

“Mishpatecha L’Melech Ten V’Tzidkasecha L’Ben Melech”. In davening for Sholomo, Dovid’s first request was that he be a Melech ben Melech, that the success realized by Dovid Hamelech in the thirty Ma’alos affect his son, so that Shlomo may also acquire true Malchus, fulfilling the Tafkid of a Melech Yisroel.

Although we are all Bnei Malachim, the Mitzvos of the Melech do not apply to us. The message of the Ma’alos, however, is clear: we should not look at Mitzvos as constraints, they are in fact gifts, meant to elevate us, the Ma’alos we need to reach our ultimate goal.