Sanhedrin 039

Today's shiur is dedicated by Steve Koppel to the memory of his father, Walter – Shim'on ben Ya'akov z"l – whose Yahrzeit was last week.

1:
Our mishnah continues to elaborate on the remaining verses of the Torah text establishing the ground rules for the monarchy, Deuteronomy 17:16-20 –

The obvious concern of the Torah law against the amassing of horses is the fear of Egypt. During the period of the first Bet Mikdash Egypt was the major centre for procuring horses, especially war horses – horses that could be hitched up to a war chariot. The fact that Egypt was the leading supplier of horses can be learned from several Biblical references, the clearest one probably being Ezekiel 17:15. During most of the period from about 1100 BCE to 700 BCE Egypt was a backwater "has been". It was only during the 7th Century BCE that Egypt enjoyed a temporary revival and renewed her pretensions of being a world power, challenging Babylon for the hegemony of the Middle East. The relationship between Judah and Egypt was a bone of severe contention between the prophets and the kings. The prophets – particularly Jeremiah – were pro-Babylonian, probably because Jeremiah understood that Egypt was "Crocodile Do-nothing" [Isaiah 30:7], that Pharaoh was "just a load of noise and has missed the boat" [Jeremiah 40:17], that Egypt was "a broken reed which, if a person lean on it for support will just pierce his hand" [2Kings 18:21]. Almost all the kings of the period were anti-Babylonian and therefore looked to Egypt for support in their anti-Babylonian policies. It is not surprising then that the Torah legislation would prohibit the kings from amassing a large cavalry, which would just make them even more dependent on Egypt. Our mishnah, in interpreting the Torah's prohibition, would limit the government's purchase of horses to the military needs of the day, refusing to permit the government to "stock pile".

To be continued:

Christian Günther finds a problem with my rendering of Deuteronomy 17:14. I translated the words as: "When you reach the land … should you say 'I shall appoint me a king like all the nations around me', you must appoint a king over you that God chooses…"

Christian's first question:

Does a monarchistic movement exist among some orthodox Jews?

I respond:

Not to the best of my knowledge. I have already indicated that the term 'king' is accepted from Mishnaic times onwards as referring to any kind of organized government.

Christian's second point:

Why not translate the verse "when you say"? Why use an imperative? I think the point is the following: If Israel says: 'I want to appoint me a king like all the nations around me' then Israel must leave the choice to God.

I respond:

I have already related to this issue. I wrote that "the exact meaning of this paragraph is unclear. Some commentators [Avraham Ibn-Ezra, North Africa, 11th century CE, Yitzchak Abrabanel, Spain, 15th century CE] understand the Hebrew "should you say…" as indicating that the appointment of a king is made only if the people demand it. Most commentators, however, read the phrase as "you should say…" indicating that a king must be appointed." The Hebrew will support either interpretation, and many sages have decided against a monarchical form of government. Indeed, in his comment on this very verse, Yitzĥak Abrabanel [Spain, 15th Century CE] writes in glowing colours of the glories of a republican form of government. (Perhaps he knew Ferdinand and Isabella only to well!)

---

Ken Kraft writes:

In your discussion you mentioned that the passage in Deuteronomy about the king not having too many women reflects "the extreme disquiet that the Solomonic experience [referenced in 1Kings] generated in the hearts of the sages". I am having difficulty understanding this unless Devarim was written by our Sages and not by Moshe (or at least given to Moshe and transcribed soon thereafter). I am aware that there are various theories about when exactly Devarim (and other books of the Torah were written) and am I to take from your lesson that you are of the view that Devarim was written some time after the time of Solomon?

I respond:

I apologize for having penned a sentence that was too elliptic. Of course the sages of the period of the Mishnah had nothing whatsoever to do with the composition of the book of Devarim, and no scholar has ever dreamed of making such a suggestion. What I meant to write was that the text of Devarim reflects an extreme disquiet that the Solomonic experience generated, and that this disquiet finds an echo in their interpretation of the law.

Ken also raises the question of the date of composition of Devarim. I find the arguments put forward concerning the date that Deuteronomy was composed to be utterly convincing and almost irrefutable (except from the standpoint of a theological stance). This attitude has always been a legitimate on within the parameters of Conservative Judaism.

I am prepared to expatiate on this issue if there are subscribers who ask me to.