Jewish Monarchy

So we'll try be'ezrat Hashem to look at the Ramban's on Chanukah this week. So if you take a look here in

פרק מט פסוק י לא יסור שבט מיהודה. אין עניינו שלא יסור לעולם.

It doesn't mean again shevet, which represents the power of Malchus, doesn't mean that Malchus will be uninterrupted. אין עניינו שלא יסור לעולם כי כתוב, it says in the Tochacha

יולך ה' אותך ואת מלכך אשר תקים עליך אל גוי אשר לא ידעת אתה ואבותיך והנה הם ומלכם בגולה. אין להם עוד מלך ושרים. וימים רבים אין מלך בישראל.

The Torah itself says that there will be Galus in which Malchus is interrupted.

והנביא לא יבטח את ישראל שלא ילכו בשבי בשום עניין בעבור שימלוך עליהם יהודה. אבל עניינו שלא יסור

doesn't mean that it'll be uninterrupted, but rather שלא יסור שבט מיהודה אל אחד מאחיו. It means it won't go from Yehuda to one of the other shevatim. Ay, but again we know that from the times of Rechavam there were Malchei Yisrael as well. So how does that mesh with this? Again, it's at this point the Ramban is talking about it as a havtacha. We'll see subsequently he says it's more than a havtacha. But how is that history consistent with this havtacha?

כי מלכות ישראל המושל עליהם ממנו יהיה ולא ימשול אחד מאחיו עליו.

Yehuda was never ruled by Malchei Yisrael.

וכן לא יסור מחוקק מבין רגליו שכל מחוקק בישראל אשר בידו טבעת המלך ממנו יהיה. כי הוא ימשול ויצווה בכל ישראל ולא חותם המלכות עד כי יבוא בנו ולא יקהת כל העמים,

they'll be gathered,

לעשות בכל כרצונו וזהו המשיח. כי השבט ירמוז לדוד שהוא המלך הראשון אשר לו שבט המלכות ועד כי יבוא שילה ושילה הוא בנו אשר לו יקהת העמים. ולא ייתכן מאמר רבי אבא שאמר שיהיה שילה דוד כי לא היה ליהודה שבט קודם דוד.

It's clear

לא יסור שבט מיהודה ומחוקק מבין רגליו עד כי יבוא שילה

that the malchus ante in shevet Yehuda precedes Shilo. So how can Shilo refer to David? כי אף על פי ששבטו נכבד ונוסע בתחילה שבט represents melucha.

אין שבט רק למלך ומושל כדכתיב שבט מישור שבט מלכותך שבט מושלים שבט למשול. והכתוב הזה רמז כי יעקב המליך שבט יהודה על אחיו והוריש ליהודה הממשלה על ישראל. והוא מה שאמר דוד ויבחר ה' אלוקי ישראל בי מכל בית אבי להיות למלך על ישראל לעולם כי ביהודה בחר לנגיד ובבית יהודה בית אבי ובבית אבי בי רצה להמליך על כל ישראל.

So the pasuk by Dovid HaMelech indicates that the bechira of David sort of was a subset of a prior bechira. That there was an original bechira of Shevet Yehuda, ki biYehuda bachar, and then within that, so it was. It it it it it it was specified that it would be Malchus Beis Dovid.

ואמר לא יסור לרמוז כי ימלוך שבט אחר על ישראל אלא מאשר שיחל להיות ליהודה שבט מלכות לא יסור ממנו אל שבט אחר.

Right, Yaakov Avinu doesn't say that shevet belongs exclusively to Yehuda but he says lo yasur. Lo yasur means from the time that melucha will begin within shevet Yehuda, so then lo yasur, again hinting that there will be a melech from shevet acher prior to the inception of melucha by Yehuda.

ואמר לא יסור לרמוז כי ימלוך שבט אחר על ישראל.

So, as the next line in the Ramban continues, it's clear the Ramban is talking about Shaul, right? Because Shaul is not from shevet Yehuda. But why is he only talking about Shaul? Moshe Rabbeinu and Yehoshua were also, also had din melech. And and yet the Ramban doesn't say לרמוז כי ימלכו שבטים אחרים, and it's quite clear because that's why he segues when he says ve-inyan Shaul in the next sentence, it's because he's been talking about Shaul. But, but why is the Ramban sort of says that what accounts for the lashon of לא יסור שבט מיהודה is that there will be a melech prior to Yehuda from a different shevet, it's really melachim, shevet Levi, shevet Ephraim. So maybe it means like this, and this is certainly true for Moshe Rabbeinu, but I don't know, maybe it's true for Yehoshua as well, I'm not sure. The Meshech Chochma has a kasha in Parshas Yisro. The pasuk says that

ויבא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל לאכל לחם עם חותן משה לפני האלקים.

So Chazal say where was Moshe Rabbeinu? Moshe Rabbeinu wasn't part of this seuda.

ויבא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל לאכל לחם עם חותן משה.

So Chazal say Moshe Rabbeinu was the waiter, Moshe Rabbeinu was omed u-meshamesh. And so the Torah is giving you the guest list, those who were, who were seated at the seuda. Moshe Rabbeinu wasn't seated at the seuda, he was omed u-meshamesh. So the Meshech Chochma asks a kasha about מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול, and Moshe Rabbeinu had a din melech. So how could Moshe Rabbeinu be, how could Moshe Rabbeinu be acting in a capacity as the, as being meshamesh, as being the waiter, if a melech is not allowed to be mocheil al kvodo? That's the Meshech Chochma's kasha. So my brother, Hashem yikom damo, said that he once asked a rav that question. He posed the, he posed, he told him the Meshech Chochma's question and the rav right away said that the din of מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול is only when there's minuy melech. And Moshe Rabbeinu had a din melech without, without minuy, meaning How do we know the din of מלך שמחל כבודו אין כבודו מחול? Because the Gemara says שום תשים עליך מלך shetehei eimato alecha. So שום תשים עליך מלך, right? When you're memaneh a melech, you're memaneh a melech that you'll have that you'll have constant ever-present eimat hamalchut. So that tells you that that the melech can't be mocheil al kevodo. But the Torah takeh says it in in within the din of minuy. The minuy of melech is such that he's memuneh that that he can't be mocheil al kevodo. Moshe Rabbeinu was melech but without a minuy. Moshe Rabbeinu was melech just by by virtue of of who he was. So maybe in a so ad kan. That was the Rav's answer to the Meshech Chochma's kashya. The question is do do we find a minuy by Yehoshua bin Nun? Or Yehoshua bin Nun also just as Moshe Rabbeinu's memaleh makom mimmela had the status of of a melech. And and maybe Shaul was nimshach and appointed as as a melech. Right, we certainly don't find meshicha by Yehoshua bin Nun. Again, that may or may not be a rayah. But yitachen there wasn't even a minuy comparable to that of Shaul. Yehoshua bin Nun was a melech. The Ramban is talking about the exception of where we were memaneh a melech shelo mishevet Yehuda as opposed to those who who just me'atzmam had had a din melech. Ayin alef. Ve'inyan Shaul hayah. So why takeh does Hakadosh Baruch Hu what's the pshat that Hakadosh Baruch Hu initially with the first minuy melech

ועניין שאול היה כי באשר דבר שאלת המלכות בעת ההיא נתעב אצל הקדוש ברוך הוא לא רצה להמליך עליהם מן השבט אשר המלכות שלו שלא יסור ממנו לעולם ונתן להם מלכות שעה ולזה אמר הכתוב שאמר אתן לך מלך באפי ואקח בעברתי שנתנו לו שלא ברצונו ולכן לקיחתו בעברתו שנהרג הוא ובניו ונפסקה ממנו המלכות.

So it it would be inappropriate for malchut Beit David to begin in response to an inappropriate demand from Bnei Yisrael. So mimeila Hakadosh Boruch Hu didn't begin Malchos Beis Dovid at that point. Why was it inappropriate? But the Gemara in Sanhedrin says that שלוש מצוות נצטוו ישראל בכניסתן לארץ and one of them is limnos lohem melech, so why was the why was it inappropriate?

והיה כל זה מפני שהיה שמואל שופט ונביא ולוחם מלחמותיהם על פי השם מושיע אותם ולא היה להם לשאול מלך בימיו.

So again, what's the explanation? Why was the request inappropriate bimei Shmuel?

מפני שהיה שמואל שופט ונביא ולוחם מלחמותיהם על פי השם מושיע אותם.

So lechora what the Ramban is saying is along the lines of the Rambam at the end. It's a question how you learn peshat in the Gemara in Sanhedrin. But the Rambam has at the end of פרק ד הלכות מלכים like this:

ובכל יהיו מעשיו לשם שמים ותהיה מחשבתו ומגמתו להרים דת האמת.

He should be focused and his goal should always be to elevate Yahadus, the true religion,

ולמלאות העולם צדק ולשבור זרוע הרשעים ולהלחם מלחמות השם שאין ממליכים מלך תחילה אלא לעשות משפט ומלחמה.

So what's the definition of the position of Melech? What's the function of the Melech? What's his responsibility? It is la'asos mishpat umilchama, שנאמר ושפטנו מלכנו ויצא לפנינו ונלחם את מלחמותינו. Now, that's what the people say when they ask for the king, which again, Hakadosh Boruch Hu rules out of order, but it's clear that both according to the Rambam and we'll see in a minute the Ramban, what it means is that the timing was out of order. The description of melucha was right on target. When they said that we want a Melech that ושפטנו מלכנו לעשות משפט, A, and B, that ויצא לפנינו ונלחם את מלחמותינו, so that definition of melucha is entirely correct. The timing was wrong. And why was the timing wrong? So that's what the Ramban says because heyos that at this time Shmuel was al pi Hashem being shofet venilcham milchamosyehem, so there was no room for a Melech. The whole mitzvah of minuy melech is that the Melech should assume those responsibilities of la'asos mishpat and lehilachem. And so if presently Shmuel Hanavi is doing is filling both of those roles על פי דבר השם, so there's no vacuum, there's no room for a Melech presently. And that's what the Ramban says: ולא היה להם לשאול מלך בימיו. As long as Shmuel was alive, so there's no room for a Melech, כמו שאמר להם והשם אלקיכם מלככם. Vehakosuv omar lo oscha, again Hakadosh Boruch Hu speaking,

לא אותך מאסו כי אותי מאסו ממלוך עליהם ולפיכך לא נתן להם מלכות של קיימא.

Okay. See Rashi in Sanhedrin understands that the role of the king is only לשופטם ולרדות הסרבנים שבהם to judge and to enforce mishpat. אבל עם הארץ תלו עליו מלחמותיהם but but the Rambam and the Ramban say no, again, Bnei Yisrael were correct in saying that the king should have the responsibility of waging milchama, but it was the timing that was wrong. U’ma she’amar hakasuv now the Ramban segues to a different question here u’ma she’amar hakasuv

נסכלת לא שמרת את מצות השם אשר צוך כי עתה הכין השם את ממלכתך אל ישראל עד עולם.

When Shaul sins, so Shmuel tells him, you acted foolishly. Had you not sinned, had you fulfilled your mission as melech Yisrael, so then your malchus would have been established ad olam. So how can that be if all along the plan is that לא יסור שבט מיהודה is that malchus is going to be given to shevet Yehuda? She’im lo chata so the Ramban says pshat

היה לזרעו מלכות בישראל לא על כולם. וזה טעם אל ישראל. אולי היה מלוך על שבטי אמו על בנימין ואפרים ומנשה.

So maybe the ad olam which Shaul would have had, had he not sinned, means he would have had a small segment of kal Yisrael, he would have been melech. Alternately, he says, או יהיה מלך תחת יד מלך יהודה or maybe it means he would have been second in command. There would have been a president and then a vice president, so that Shaul and זרע שאול עד עולם would have been second in command. In Hilchos Melachim the Rambam and the Ra'avad talk about this kasha as well, and and the Ra'avad gives this answer which is the second answer of the Ramban, the Ra'avad gives also.

אבל הייתה שנייה למלכות בית דוד כגון קיסר ופלגי קיסר.

That would have been the structure. The Rambam says it's a question how to read this pasuk according to the Rambam, but what the Rambam writes in פרק א הלכה ט is that מלכי בית דוד הם עומדים לעולם shene’emar Hashem says to Dovid HaMelech

כסאך יהיה נכון עד עולם. אבל אם יעמוד מלך משאר ישראל תפסק המלכות מביתו שהרי לירבעם נאמר אך לא כל הימים.

So the Rambam says that any melech mish’ar Yisrael can only be temporary. It can't be ad olam. How did the Rambam read this pasuk that where Shaul was told that his melucha would have been ad olam had he not sinned? So lechora it’s clear that according to the Rambam the pshat is like this. The Rambam is saying once malchus beis Dovid was inaugurated, once malchus beis Dovid began, so then any subsequent melech Yisrael would only be lesha’ah. But Shaul who preceded malchus... He's saying once Malchus Beis Dovid was inaugurated, once Malchus Beis Dovid began, so then any subsequent Melech Yisroel would only be l'sha'ah. But Shaul who preceded Malchus Beis Dovid, so the Rambam's not talking about that. Now the Rambam in Halacha Tes, when he says אבל אם יעמוד מלך משאר ישראל תפסק המלכות and the raya's from Yaravam, right? So Yaravam means after Malchus Beis Dovid had begun. So after Malchus Beis Dovid had begun and it had been given to Dovid ad olam, so then that dictated that all Malchei Yisroel were only l'sha'ah. But Shaul HaMelech, again, I, how would that have left room for the kiyum? Okay, I don't know, so maybe the Rambam would also agree with a case by case, but either way when the Rambam is talking about Malchos l'sha'ah, he's talking about post Dovid HaMelech. He's not being mesyachesh to Shaul. U'lefi de'ati, says the Ramban,

היו המלכים המולכים על ישראל משאר השבטים אחרי דוד עוברים על דעת אביהם ומעבירים נחלה. והם היו סומכים על דבר אחיה השילוני הנביא שמשח לירבעם ואמר ואענה את זרע דוד למען זאת אך לא כל הימים. וכאשר האריכו ישראל להמליך עליהם משאר השבטים מלך אחר מלך ולא היו חוזרים אל מלכות יהודה עברו על צוואת הזקן ונענשו בהם.

So the Ramban says the horah'as sha'ah that Hakadosh Baruch Hu gave that the malchus should be divided, then there should be a Malchus Yisroel, was intended just initially for that generation. And when they perpetuated that system of two malchiyos, so then they were in violation, here's where the Ramban tells us again that לא יסור שבט מיהודה is not only a haftacha but also an azharah, they were in violation of this din of

לא יסור שבט מיהודה. וכאשר האריכו ישראל להמליך עליהם משאר השבטים.

The fact that Achiyah HaShiloni was sent to anoint Yaravam, so that was intended l'sha'ah, it wasn't intended again to set up long-term this system of Malchus Yehuda and Malchus Yisroel. Ve-ka'asher he'erichu Yisroel, and when they perpetuated that breakaway system, so then that was shelo k'din. עברו על צוואת הזקן ונענשו בהם. Tosafos in סנהדרין דף כ' עמוד ב' when Shmuel describes after they ask for a melech, when he describes everything the melech is going to do, so the Gemara's a machlokes whether

כל האמור בפרשת מלך מלך מותר בו או מלך אסור בו.

Is Shmuel describing the absolute power that the melech legitimately wielded or he's describing the potential abuses that can and and would happen? So Tosafos asks, according to the view that melech mutar bo,

למה נענש אחאב על נבות כיון שלא רצה למכור לו כרמו?

Tosafos gives a few answers. The assumption until the last answer is that Achav legitimately, again, not commenting on his lifestyle and his values, but Achav legitimately has a din melech, and that's why Tosafos is asking, but but כל האמור בפרשת מלך. Melech mutar bo, so he has a right to what do they call it in American law eminent domain or something that the government can take over land. So that's one of the things, so amur b'parshas melech that the melech has a right to do that. So Tosafos assumes that Achav has a din melech and that melech is and and that he's and and because of that they don't understand why he's ne'enash if melech mutar bo. The last answer in Tosafos is inami

דפרשת מלך לא נאמר רק על המלך שנמלך על כל ישראל ויהודה ומאת המקום ואחאב לא מלך על יהודה וגם לא מלך מאת המקום.

So the last answer in Tosafos is like like our Ramban that it was only it was only al pi Hashem again this split in the malchus temporarily was al pi adibbur but not not to be perpetuated. The Ran here talks about it also. V'ze haya says the Ramban onesh hachashmonaim shemalchu b'bayis sheni כי היו חסידי עליון וחשמונאים היו חסידי עליון says the Ramban ואלמלא הם נשתכחו התורה והמצוות מישראל. They were the ones who stemmed and reversed the tide of assimilation.

אלמלא הם נשתכחו התורה והמצוות מישראל ואף על פי כן

says the Ramban ne'enashu onesh gadol כי ארבע בני חשמונאי הזקן in succession

החסידים המולכים זה אחר זה עם כל גבורתם והצלחתם נפלו ביד אויביהם בחרב והגיע העונש בסוף למה שאמרו רבותינו ז"ל

that Hordus destroyed the entire family and therefore כל מאן דאמר מבית חשמונאי קאתינא עבדא הוא. The only thing that was left was an eved from the chashmonai and and the entire family was destroyed and the Ramban says

שנכרתו כולם בעוון הזה כל זרע מתתיהו חשמונאי הצדיק לא עברו אלא בעבור זה שמלכו ולא היו מזרע יהודה מבית דוד והסירו השבט והמחוקק לגמרי

meaning they ruled over the entire people. לא יסור שבט מיהודה so the Ramban said initially even when there was malchus Yisrael but the malchus Yisrael didn't rule over Yehuda. The chashmonaim ruled even over Yehuda and because they were such chasidai elyon the middas hadin dictated that that be they receive this very very harsh punishment. Wow.

והיה עונש מידה כנגד מידה שהמשיל הקדוש ברוך הוא עליהם את עבדיהם והם הכריתום.

Then says the Ramban ואפשר גם כן שהיה עליהם חטא במלכותם maybe their cheit was compounded. It's not not only because they were not Yehuda but mipnei she'hayu kohanim and and maybe the cheit when kohanim assume melucha is is even worse than any other non-shevet Yehuda because

ונצטויתם תשמרו את כהונתכם לכל דבר המזבח ומבית לפרכת ועבדתם עבודת מתנה אתן את כהונתכם.

They should have been focused on avodas kehuna ולא היה להם למלוך רק לעבוד את עבודת השם. The Rambam has in the beginning of hilchos Chanukah when he gives the historical background to Chanukah. So the Rambam writes

שבבית שני כשמלכו יוון גזרו גזירות על ישראל וביטלו דתם ולא הניחו אותם לעסוק בתורה ובמצוות ופשטו ידם בממונם ובבנותיהם ונכנסו להיכל ופרצו בו פרצות וטימאו הטהרות וצר לישראל מאוד מפניהם ולחצום לחץ גדול עד שריחם עליהם אלוהי אבותינו והושיעם מידם. והצילם וגברו בני חשמונאי הכהנים הגדולים והרגום והושיעו ישראל מידם והעמידו מלך מן הכהנים וחזרה מלכות לישראל יתר על מאתיים שנה עד חורבן בית שני.

So the Rambam sketches the historical background of Chanukah. And part of what the Rambam describes is that העמידו מלך מן הכהנים. So and the Rambam describes it in the same breath with וגברו בני חשמונאי הכהנים הגדולים והרגום והושיעו ישראל מידם, and he clearly describes this as a very positive development that chazra malchus leyisrael, that they restored malchus leyisrael. So the Rav zecher tzadik livracha used to comment that the Ramban, that the Rambam clearly disagrees with this Ramban. Why the chashmonaim suffered such a fate according to the Rambam we don't know, but it wasn't because they assumed the melucha. Because the Rambam describes that as a very, very positive development as part of the nes of Chanukah. Part of the nes of Chanukah is that they were able to re-establish malchus yisrael. But how is the Rambam able to view it so positively? Why isn't it a, why didn't it violate לא יסור שבט מיהודה? So lichora is as follows: Tosafot in Gittin in the sugya of pruzbul highlights a Gemara in maseches nazir that says that chazal knew that the Second Beis Hamikdash was going to be destroyed. Tosafot there, the context of Tosafot is that Tosafot assumes that shmita and yovel were noheg bimei bayis sheini and that Hillel, who lived bimei bayis sheini, was mesakein pruzbul for a time le'achar churban when you wouldn't have shmita and yovel. So why was he such a pessimist? So Tosafot quotes the Gemara in Nazir that chazal knew that bayis sheini was going to be chorev. Now that's what Tosafot highlights in Gittin. So that means that when the chashmonaim re-established melucha, they knew that this wasn't going to be something permanent. They knew that it was something temporary because they knew that the melucha wasn't going to endure beyond the binyan bayis sheini. So again the Rambam said, we read it before in

פרק א הלכה ט: מלכי בית דוד הם העומדים לעולם שנאמר כסאך יהיה נכון עד עולם אבל אם יעמוד מלך משאר ישראל תפסוק המלכות מביתו שהרי לירבעם נאמר אך לא כל הימים.

According to the Rambam one only violates לא יסור שבט מיהודה if one is looking to establish a dynastic monarchy that should continue kol hayamim. But if it's understood merosh, if it's understood from the get-go that the melucha is only temporary, so then that doesn't violate לא יסור שבט מיהודה. Again לא יסור שבט מיהודה is that there can't be any, any dynasty which claims, which presumes that it will be omed kol hayamim. But chazal knew, the chashmonaim knew, everyone knew that whatever malchus was being established bimei bayis sheini was a temporary malchus because as Tosafot quotes from the Gemara in Nazir, they knew that bayis sheini was going to be chorev. So kumt ois that for the Rambam, again the issur of לא יסור שבט מיהודה is to try to establish malchus other than malchus beis dovid which will be omedes le'olam. But as a temporary measure, so then that's not assur, that doesn't contradict the havtacha to dovid hamelech. So mimeila for the Rambam, what the chashmonaim did, the chashmonaim knew that they would command the respect that malchus needed, and because of that, so they stepped forward and they assumed the position, and that was entirely kedin because they didn't, they didn't presume to be establishing a malchus that would, that would be omedes le'olam. They knew that it would last maximum as long as bayis sheini. The Ramban leshitaso, but the Ramban said earlier that לא יסור שבט מיהודה means that from the time Yehuda receives malchus, Yehuda will never be ruled over by another shevet. So for the Ramban, even to do it lesha'ah, if it's not... even to do it lesha'ah violates the azharas hazaken. So for the Ramban, what the Chashmonaim did was shelo kedin. But for the Rambam, what the Chashmonaim did in being מעמידין מלך מן הכהנים was kedin. Why the Chashmonaim suffered the fate they did, we don't know according to the Rambam. It's a mystery. I mean the Ramban also doesn't mean that it's a raya to what he's saying. He's saying, in light of what I'm saying, so we can understand it. And for the Rambam, we don't know why it happened. It's interesting that the lashon, as I think the Maggid Mishneh is metzayen here, the lashon of Megillas Taanis, when it gives the background to Chanukah, Mai Chanukah? The tanu rabanan: On Chaf-Heh b'Kislev

יומי דחנוכה תמניא אינון דלא למספד בהון ודלא להתענות בהון שכשנכנסו יוונים להיכל טמאו כל השמנים שבהיכל וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום.

So again, the Megillas Taanis is clearly talking about the positive in the story, right? It's explaining to us על איזה נס קבעוה, and it refers to the Chashmonaim as malchus Beis Chashmonai. So the mashma'us in the Megillas Taanis l'chora is also like the Rambam. And tzarich iyun how the Ramban... and tzarich iyun according to the Rambam... in the context of על איזה נס קבעוה, we shouldn't be referring to malchus Beis Chashmonai according to the Ramban, because that was... that was a very negative development. Okay, we'll stop here.