Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 1

Sugya Map

The inaugural chapter of Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim u'Milchamot, lays the groundwork for the institution of kingship in Israel, outlining its foundational mitzvot, prerequisites, and succession laws.

• Primary Issue: Elucidating the three mitzvot incumbent upon Bnei Yisrael upon entering Eretz Yisrael, their hierarchical order, and the detailed halakhot pertaining to the appointment and succession of a king.
• Nafqa Mina(s):
  • The precise sequence of fulfilling Mitzvat Melech, Mitzvat Mechiyat Amalek, and Mitzvat Binyan Beit HaBechira.
  • Who is eligible to be appointed king, and by whom.
  • The conditions under which a king is anointed, and with what oil.
  • The nature of Davidic kingship versus other Israelite monarchies.
  • The transferability of all positions of authority (sarim, dayanim, nasi) by inheritance.
• Primary Sources:
  • Deuteronomy 17:15, 17:20, 25:19, 12:5 (for the core mitzvot and disqualifications).
  • I Samuel 8:7, 10:1, 15:1-3 (for the king's appointment, anointing, and Amalek).
  • II Samuel 7:1-2, 7:16 (for the Beit HaBechira and Davidic covenant).
  • I Kings 11:36, 11:38-39 (for Yerovam and non-Davidic kingship).
  • Psalms 89:31-38, 132:12 (for the conditional Davidic covenant).

Text Snapshot

The Rambam opens his magnum opus on Jewish kingship with the following foundational statements:

ישראל נצטוו בשלוש מצוות בכניסתן לארץ: א) למנות להם מלך, שנאמר (דברים יז, טו): "שום תשים עליך מלך". ב) להכרית זרעו של עמלק, שנאמר (דברים כה, יט): "תמחה את זכר עמלק". ג) לבנות להן בית הבחירה, שנאמר (דברים יב, ה): "לשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה". ומינוי מלך קודם למלחמת עמלק, שנאמר (שמואל א טו, א-ג): "שלחני ה' למשחך למלך... ועתה לך והכית את עמלק". והכרתת זרעו של עמלק קודמת לבניין בית הבחירה, שנאמר (שמואל ב ז, א-ב): "ויהי כי ישב המלך בביתו וה' הניח לו מסביב מכל אויביו, ויאמר המלך אל נתן הנביא: אנכי יושב בבית ארזים... וארון ה' יושב בתוך היריעה".

Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim u'Milchamot 1:1-2

Dikduk / Leshon Nuance

The Rambam's phrasing "ישראל נצטוו בשלוש מצוות בכניסתן לארץ" (Israel was commanded three mitzvot upon entering the land) is precise. It signals these are mitzvot klaliyot for the nation, not individual obligations. The use of the plural feminine "בכניסתן" for "Israel" (referring to the people) is standard. The sequential listing of the mitzvot and their subsequent hierarchical ordering ("ומינוי מלך קודם למלחמת עמלק... והכרתת זרעו של עמלק קודמת לבניין בית הבחירה") is crucial. The term "בית הבחירה" (the Chosen House) is the Rambam's consistent nomenclature for the Temple, emphasizing its divine selection rather than mere human construction.

Later, regarding the disqualification of a ger:

אין ממנים מלך מן הגרים, אפילו אחר כמה דורות, אלא מלידי ישראל, שנאמר (דברים יז, טו): "לא תוכל לתת עליך איש נכרי אשר לא אחיך הוא". ולא המלכות בלבד, אלא כל שררה שבישראל, כגון שר צבא ושר חמישים ושר עשרה ואפילו ממונה על אמת המים למדוד כמה מים נותנין לכל שדה ושדה, אין ממנים עליהם אלא מלידי ישראל. קל וחומר שאין עושין אותם לא דיינין ולא נשיאין, שנאמר (שם): "מקרב אחיך תשים עליך מלך". כלומר כל משימות שאתה משים עליך, לא יהיו אלא "מקרב אחיך".

Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim u'Milchamot 1:4

The Rambam extends the pasuk "מקרב אחיך תשים עליך מלך" beyond just kingship to "כל משימות שאתה משים עליך" (all appointments you make). This is a derasha of Ribui (inclusion) from the lashon "מלך" being representative of any position of authority. The kal v'chomer (a fortiori) for dayanim and nesi'im is thus based on this expansive reading.

Readings

1. Kessef Mishneh (R. Yosef Karo) on the Order of Mitzvot

The Kessef Mishneh on Hilkhot Melakhim u'Milchamot 1:1 primarily seeks to identify the Talmudic sources for the Rambam's hierarchy of mitzvot. The Rambam asserts that Minuy Melech (appointment of a king) precedes Mechiyat Amalek (eradication of Amalek), which in turn precedes Binyan Beit HaBechira (building the Temple). The Kessef Mishneh notes that this order is derived from Sanhedrin 20b, which explicitly states: "תנו רבנן: שלש מצוות נצטוו ישראל כשנכנסו לארץ... למנות להם מלך... ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק... ולבנות בית הבחירה." The Gemara then proceeds to establish the sequence, citing the very pesukim that the Rambam brings.

• Chiddush: The Kessef Mishneh's chiddush here is not to challenge the Rambam's statement, but rather to highlight the Gemara's role in establishing this order. It clarifies that this is not a Rambam-specific sevara but a received tradition. He also addresses a potential difficulty: If Minuy Melech is listed first in the Gemara, why does the Rambam need pesukim from Shmuel to prove its precedence over Amalek? The Kessef Mishneh implies that the Gemara's listing is merely an order of presentation, while the pesukim provide the halakhic precedence. This distinction is subtle: the Gemara states "שלש מצוות נצטוו ישראל... למנות מלך... ולהכרית... ולבנות", which could be interpreted as a mere listing. The Rambam, following the Gemara's subsequent analysis, explicitly states the precedence using the pesukim (I Samuel 15:1-3, II Samuel 7:1-2). Thus, the Kessef Mishneh shows that Rambam is faithfully transmitting the Gemara's derashot that establish the kedimat ha'Mitzvot.

2. Noda B'Yehudah (R. Yechezkel Landau) on the Ger as King

The Rambam rules in Hilkhot Melakhim u'Milchamot 1:4 that a ger (convert) cannot be appointed king, extending this disqualification to all positions of authority. The footnote in the Sefaria text (which references Tosafot Yevamot 102a and Noda B'Yehudah, Choshen Mishpat, Responsum 1) points to an important machloket and nuance. The Noda B'Yehudah discusses the precise conditions under which a convert or their descendants might be permitted to hold authority.

• Chiddush: The Noda B'Yehudah's chiddush explores the Tosafot's position in Yevamot 102a s.v. "Rabbi Yehudah" which seems to imply that if a person's father is a native-born Israelite, they may be appointed to positions of authority, regardless of the mother's origins (e.g., if the mother is a giyoret). This stands in tension with the Rambam's strict reading of "לא תוכל לתת עליך איש נכרי אשר לא אחיך הוא" (Devarim 17:15), which the Rambam explicitly applies even to those whose ancestors were Jewish for generations, unless the mother (or father) is a native-born Israelite. The Noda B'Yehudah reconciles this by suggesting that the Tosafot's leniency might apply only to situations where the yichus (lineage) is questioned at the beginning of a dynasty. Once a dynasty is established, a son might assume his father's position even if his mother is a convert, thereby avoiding the initial appointment of a "non-brother." This implies a distinction between the initial establishment of a monarchy (where yichus is paramount) and its continuation. He argues that the Rambam's stricture refers to the absolute initial appointment. Alternatively, the Noda B'Yehudah grapples with the Tosafot's implication that "אחיך" refers only to the father's lineage. This is a profound chiddush because it suggests the pasuk's prohibition may be less absolute than initially conceived, or at least has different applications depending on the stage of the monarchy. The Noda B'Yehudah therefore provides a framework for understanding how different interpretations of "אחיך" could lead to varying halakhic outcomes regarding the lineage requirements for leadership positions, particularly for gerim.

Friction

The Mitzvah vs. Divine Displeasure

The Rambam states: "Since it is a mitzvah to appoint a king, why was God displeased with the people's request of a king from Samuel? Because they made their request in a spirit of complaint. Rather than seeking to fulfill the mitzvah of appointing a king, they were simply intent on rejecting the Prophet Samuel as implied by God's reply to him (I Samuel 8:7 : 'It is not you, but Me they have rejected.')" (Hilkhot Melakhim u'Milchamot 1:2).

Kushya: This explanation, while straightforward, presents a kushya of understanding the nature of Mitzvat Minuy Melech. If it is a mitzvah, why is its fulfillment contingent on the kavannah (intent) of the people? Moreover, the Gemara in Sanhedrin 20b explicitly states that the request for a king was a mitzvah ("שאלו מלך כהוגן"). How does the Rambam reconcile the mitzvah status with the divine displeasure and the pesukim in Shmuel I which clearly indicate Hashem's negative reaction? It seems to imply that a mitzvah can be performed in a way that causes sin, which is a problematic concept. Is the mitzvah itself conditional, or only the manner of its performance?

Terutz (1): The Spirit of the Request as a Defining Feature of the Mitzvah The Rambam's terutz is that the kavannah was not merely a secondary factor, but rather intrinsically linked to the mitzvah's proper fulfillment. The mitzvah of appointing a king is not just about having a king, but about accepting a form of governance that brings Klal Yisrael closer to Hashem's will. The people's request, as described in Shmuel I 8:5, was "תנה לנו מלך לשפטנו ככל הגוים" (Give us a king to judge us like all the nations). This "like all the nations" is the crux of their error. They desired a king not for the sake of divine command or for strengthening the nation under God, but out of a desire for assimilation, to emulate pagan monarchies, and, critically, to reject Samuel's prophetic leadership, which represented direct divine rule. Therefore, their kavannah transformed the mitzvah from an act of submission to God into an act of rebellion. The mitzvah is to appoint a king in the spirit of Torah, for the sake of Heaven, to solidify the nation's unique identity. When performed with an intent to reject God's direct rule and emulate other nations, it becomes a churban ha'mitzvah (destruction of the mitzvah) rather than its fulfillment, even if the outward action is the same. Thus, the mitzvah itself has an inherent qualitative component of kavannah that must be present for it to be a true mitzvah.

Terutz (2): The Difference Between a Mitzvah and an Obligation of the Hour Another approach, suggested by commentators like the Malbim on Shmuel I 8:7, distinguishes between the general mitzvah to have a king and the timing and motivation for its implementation. The mitzvah of Minuy Melech is a permanent commandment for the nation of Israel. However, the obligation to act on it at a specific time depends on the prevailing circumstances and the nation's spiritual readiness. At the time of Samuel, the divine presence was directly manifest through the prophet, a higher form of governance than kingship. The people's demand for a king at that moment, while technically fulfilling the mitzvah's outward form, was premature and driven by a spiritual regression. They were rejecting a superior form of divine leadership for an inferior one, motivated by a desire for superficial emulation of other nations. Thus, the mitzvah itself is pure, but the decision to activate it prematurely, and with corrupt intentions, incurred divine displeasure. It's akin to the mitzvah of prichah u'rvichah (procreation): it's a mitzvah, but one who marries for the wrong reasons (e.g., for money only) might still technically fulfill the mitzvah but their intent is flawed. Here, the flaw was so severe that it constituted a rejection of God.

Intertext

1. The Disqualification of a Convert in the Sifra

The Rambam's extension of the prohibition against a ger holding authority beyond just kingship to "כל שררה שבישראל" (Hilkhot Melakhim u'Milchamot 1:4) is a significant derasha. This is rooted in Sifra, Parshat Kedoshim, Perek 1, which states: "מקרב אחיך תשים עליך מלך (דברים יז, טו) — מלך מקרב אחיך, ולא מלכה מקרב אחיך. מלך מקרב אחיך, ולא גר מקרב אחיך. מלך מקרב אחיך, ולא עבד מקרב אחיך." The Sifra is the primary source for the derasha that expands "מקרב אחיך" to exclude a ger, a woman, and a slave from kingship. The Rambam takes this a step further by applying it to all positions of authority, reasoning that since the highest authority (king) is restricted, all lesser authorities must also be. This kal v'chomer is not explicitly in the Sifra for all positions but is a logical extension. This demonstrates a core interpretive principle in halakha: that a mitzvah or prohibition concerning a supreme office often sets the standard for all subordinate offices, reflecting a unified vision of leadership within Klal Yisrael.

2. The Conditional Nature of Davidic Kingship in Midrash Tehillim

The Rambam, in Hilkhot Melakhim u'Milchamot 1:9, grapples with the apparent contradiction between God's eternal promise to David ("Your throne shall be established forever" - II Samuel 7:16) and the conditional nature of this promise based on his descendants' righteousness ("If your children will keep My covenant... their children shall also sit on your throne forever" - Psalms 132:12). The Rambam resolves this by stating that despite the condition, the monarchy would never be taken from his descendants forever, though individual transgressions might bring punishment. This complex relationship is echoed and expounded upon in Midrash Tehillim 89:7. The Midrash explains that even when David's descendants transgress, the kingdom will not be permanently severed from his house, as it was from Saul. Instead, it might be afflicted, interrupted, or temporarily given to another, but ultimately, the promise of an eternal Davidic dynasty remains. "לא אפר כוחי וגו' אם יהיו בניך שומרי תורתי" (I will not annul My covenant... if your children keep My Torah) implies that even if they do not keep it perfectly, the covenant endures in some form, perhaps through suffering and exile, until the ultimate redemption. This midrashic understanding underpins the Rambam's nuanced position, affirming both divine justice and unwavering covenantal loyalty, which are not mutually exclusive but rather facets of a deeper divine plan.

Psak/Practice

The principles outlined by the Rambam in Hilkhot Melakhim u'Milchamot 1 have profound implications for both halakha l'ma'aseh and meta-psak heuristics.

Firstly, the hierarchy of mitzvot (King, Amalek, Temple) serves as a foundational understanding of national priorities in Jewish thought. While Mechiyat Amalek and Binyan Beit HaBechira are not currently practicable in their full scope, the mitzvah of Minuy Melech informs contemporary discussions on Jewish sovereignty and leadership. The disqualifications (convert, woman, professions of low esteem) remain standard halakha for any position of national or religious authority (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 7:2, 4) and underscore a particular vision of leadership rooted in lineage, gender, and public honor.

Secondly, the distinction between Davidic kingship (eternal, anointed with special oil, near a spring, even if successors are not) and other Israelite kingship (temporary, anointed with Afarsimon oil) provides a heuristic for understanding different categories of kedushah and permanence in Jewish institutions. It teaches that not all legitimate authority carries the same weight or divine promise. This framework informs our understanding of the Messianic era, where the re-establishment of the Davidic dynasty is central, distinguishing it from any prior or interim forms of Jewish self-governance. It highlights the ma'alah of Malkhut Beit David as not merely a political institution but a divinely ordained, eternal covenantal promise.

Takeaway

The Rambam's opening to Hilkhot Melakhim establishes a divinely ordered national agenda, emphasizing not just the actions of mitzvot but the kavannah and yichus behind them, setting a high standard for leadership rooted in unique Israelite identity and a covenantal relationship with God.