Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת סנהדרין דף כ. We will start from the beginning of the משנה closer to the top of the עמוד. The משנה says מת לו מת, we're talking here about the דינים of a מלך, of a king. So if a death occurs in the king's family, אינו יוצא מפתח פלטרין שלו, so he is not allowed to go out of the door of his palace. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, אם רוצה לצאת אחר המטה, if he wants to go out after the bed, יוצא, he could go out. שכן מצינו בדוד, as we find by דוד, שיצא אחר מטתו של אבנר, that he went out after the bed of אבנר, שנאמר, as the פסוק says, והמלך דוד הולך אחר המטה, that the king דוד went after the bed. So we see that a king is allowed to go out after the bed by a funeral. אמרו לו, they said to him, the חכמים said to רבי יהודה, you have no proof from this story of דוד, because לא היה הדבר אלא לפייס את העם. This thing was only to pacify the people, since the people thought that דוד caused the death of אבנר, so therefore he went out after the bed by the funeral to show them that he did not do that. Then the משנה continues:

וכשמברין אותו, when they give him the סעודת הבראה, the דין is that an אבל, right after the funeral, his first meal is not allowed to be taken from his own. It is supposed to be brought into him from the outside, and that is called the סעודת הבראה. So when they feed the king, when they bring in the first meal to the king, כל העם מסובין על הארץ, all the people, they sit on the ground, והוא מיסב על הדרגש, and he sits on the דרגש. He doesn't sit on the ground, even though he is the אבל, but because of the כבוד of the king, he sits on the דרגש, and the גמרא will explain what a דרגש is, and all the other people, they sit on the floor to show that they are in sorrow, they feel bad, they have the צער. The גמרא continues: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, מקום שנהגו נשים לצאת אחר המטה, in that place where the custom is that the women go after the bed, יוצאות, they could go. In other words, if that's their custom, they could do that. If the custom is לפני המטה, that the women go in front of the bed, יוצאות, they could go in front of the bed. And the reason for these two customs, why should there be a specific custom of them going specifically behind the bed, or a custom for them going specifically in front of the bed? So תוספות says that really in ירושלמי we find that this is not dependent on customs, but there is a מחלוקת in ירושלמי what is supposed to be done. And there we find the reasons for each one of the two opinions. There is one מאן דאמר that says that they should go בדוקא in front of the bed, because the women were the ones that caused the מיתה in the world. Because the whole idea of death in the world comes from the חטא עץ הדעת, from the first sin, that אדם וחוה sinned when they ate from the tree of דעת טוב ורע, and the one that started it, that caused it, was חוה, and therefore the women are the ones that caused the ענין of מיתה in the world, so they go in front of the bed. And the other opinion says that they should go behind the bed, because it is not proper for Jewish women to go ahead when the men will be behind them and they will be looking at the women. And the other opinion that says that the women should go ahead in front of the bed, they say that at the time of a funeral, we are not afraid of bad thoughts that will enter into the minds of the men, and therefore, even though normally it is not proper for women to walk in front of men, but in the case of a funeral, it doesn't matter. And so too would be the פשט in our גמרא here. And even though we don't find a מחלוקת in our גמרא, but still the reason for these two customs would be as it is explained in the ירושלמי. And the גמרא continues:

רבי יהודה אומר, but רבי יהודה says, לעולם נשים לפני המטה יוצאות, that always the women should go in front of the bed, that it doesn't depend on the custom, but the דין is that the women always have to go in front of the bed. שכן מצינו בדוד, as we find by דוד, שיצא אחר מטתו של אבנר, that דוד went behind the bed of אבנר, שנאמר, as the פסוק says, והמלך דוד הולך אחר המטה, that the king דוד went after the bed, behind the bed. Now, if that's the place for the women, then דוד wouldn't be there. It wouldn't be nice for דוד to go in the place where the women are supposed to be going, so that proves that the women usually go in front of the bed, and that's why דוד, when he went behind the bed, he was amongst the men. אמרו לו, but they said to him, לא היה הדבר אלא לפייס את העם. You have no proof from there, from the fact that דוד went behind the bed, that's a ראיה that the women usually go in front of the bed, because the whole reason why דוד went to that לויה was only to pacify the people, ונתפייסו, and they were pacified. So what did דוד do, how did he pacify pacify them, שהיה דוד יוצא מבין האנשים ונכנס לבין הנשים, he would go from between the men and would enter between the women, ויוצא מבין הנשים ונכנס לבין האנשים, and he went away from between the women and entered between the men. In other words, he went back and forth, back and forth, so as to make sure that everyone will see that he's attending the funeral, so that would show everybody that he is not the one that caused the death of אבנר. שנאמר, as the פסוק says, וידעו כל העם וכל ישראל, that the whole nation and all the אידן knew כי לא היתה מהמלך, that it wasn't from the king, להמית את אבנר, to kill אבנר. So therefore, from the fact that דוד went behind the מיטה is no ראיה that normally the women are supposed to go in front, because otherwise how did דוד go between the women? Because the truth is דוד did go between the women. He went between the women and between the men and back and forth in order to show the people that he did not cause the death of אבנר. And the גמרא continues, דרש רבא,

רבא דרשנט, מאי דכתיב, what is the meaning in the פסוק that says, ויבא כל העם להברות את דוד, that the whole nation came to feed דוד, to give דוד the סעודת הבראה, so he says כתיב להכרות וקרינן להברות. The כתיב, the way the word is written, it's להכרות, the way we read it is להברות. A lot of times we find in the תורה a concept of קרי וכתיב. The words are written with certain letters and in a certain way, but when you read it, you're supposed to read it differently. And here too, it is written להכרות with a כ, but we read it להברות with a ב. And even though as it says on the side of the גמרא that in our ספרים, in our תנ״ך, we don't find a קרי וכתיב in this word, but still we do find sometimes that the גמרא quotes certain פסוקים with certain details that we do not find in our תנ״ך. And so too here, we don't have in our תנ״ך the קרי וכתיב, but the גמרא had the גירסא of this קרי וכתיב, that written was להכרות and read was להברות with a ב. So what does it mean? And usually when we have a קרי and כתיב, it means that we have to דרשן both. The meaning of the word is according to the way it is written and according to the way it is pronounced. So what does that mean here? בתחילה להכרותו ולבסוף להברותו. לכתחילה when they came, they came להכרותו, to cut him off. Since they thought that he caused the death of אבנר, they were angry at him, so they came להכרותו, to cut him. But when they realized that he didn't do it, so then they came להברותו, to feed him the סעודת הבראה. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, רב יהודה said in the name of רב, מפני מה נענש אבנר, why was אבנר punished? Why was אבנר killed? What עבירה did אבנר do that because of that he was killed? The answer is מפני שהיה לו למחות בשאול ולא מיחה, because he should have protested against שאול when שאול killed the כהנים from the city עיר נוב הכהנים. So he should have protested, since he was an important person in שאול's government. So he should have protested, ולא מיחה, and he didn't protest. Because of that, he was punished and he got killed. ורבי יצחק אמר, but רבי יצחק said, מיחה, he did protest, ולא נענה, and he wasn't answered. That means he protested as much as he could, but it didn't help him. ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו, and both of them learn it out from the same פסוק. The one that says that he didn't protest, and the one that says that he did protest, they both learn it out from the same פסוק. Because the פסוק says, here in שמואל ב קפיטל ג, פסוק ל״ג, it says ויקונן המלך אל אבנר, that the king cried for אבנר, ויאמר, and he said, הכמות נבל ימות אבנר, should אבנר have died the death of a רשע? ידיך לא אסורות, your hands were not tied, ורגליך לא לנחשתים הגשו, and your feet were not chained in copper chains. What does that mean? מאן דאמר לא מיחה, the one that says that he did not protest against שאול, הכי קאמר, so this is what דוד meant: ידיך לא אסורות, your hands were not tied, ורגליך לא לנחשתים הגשו, and your feet were not tied in chains. Therefore, the question he asked, מאי טעמא לא מחית? So why didn't you protest against שאול? Since your hands were not tied, you could have protested. You were an important person in the government. So why didn't you protest? If you would have protested, maybe he wouldn't have done it. And therefore, he continues in the פסוק, כנפול לפני בני עולה נפלת, that therefore you fell like a person falls in front of בני עולה, of bad people. ומאן דאמר מיחה, the one that says that he did protest, ולא נענה, but he wasn't answered, so then the פשט in the פסוק is איתמוהי קמתמה. דוד said it in the form of a wonder: הכמות נבל ימות Why did you die like the death of a רשע? ידיך לא אסורות, your hands weren't tied, ורגליך לא לנחשתים הוגשו, and your feet weren't tied, which means מכדי מחויי מחית, your hands weren't tied and you did protest. You didn't act like a great man that you didn't want to say anything. You didn't tie your hands not to say, but you did protest. So therefore, דוד is asking: מאי טעמא כנפול לפני בני עולה נפלת? So why did you fall like someone who falls in front of בני עולה, since you did protest? But the גמרא asks: ולמאן דאמר מיחה, according to the one that says that he did protest, so מאי טעמא איענש? So why was he punished?

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, so רב נחמן בר יצחק said, ששהו מלכות בית דוד שתי שנים ומחצה, because he held back מלכות בית דוד for two and a half years. And as רש״י explains, that אבנר had appointed איש בושת as king after the death of שאול. Now if he wouldn't have appointed איש בושת as king, then דוד would have become king. Now from when איש בושת became king till דוד became king on all the יידן, took two and a half years. Two years that איש בושת was king, and a half a year between the death of איש בושת till דוד actually became king. So these are the two and a half years that the מלכות of דוד was pushed off because of אבנר, and therefore, אבנר was punished for doing this. And רש״י makes the חשבון, because from when שאול died, it says that דוד was king in חברון for seven and a half years, seven years and six months. Now, five years were between the death of שאול and the kingdom of איש בושת. Till איש בושת became king, it took five years. And as רש״י quotes from the סדר עולם, where it says on the פסוק: והימים אשר מלך דוד וגו׳, it says that מלכות ישראל was בטל, there was no king, for five years. So those five years don't count. Now, there are left two and a half years from after איש בושת became king till it says that דוד became king in ירושלים. And since it's two and a half years, so it comes out that these two and a half years דוד could have been king instead of איש בושת. So for that, אבנר was punished. This is the חשבון that רש״י makes. But תוספות asks a קשיא: First of all, why was he punished for that half a year that was between the death of איש בושת till דוד became king? Because after all, even before he died, אבנר tried very hard to make דוד as king, as it says in the פסוק: וישלח אבנר מלאכים אל דוד וגו׳. So certainly, after איש בושת died, it wasn't אבנר's fault that דוד wasn't king. So for that half a year, certainly אבנר shouldn't have been punished. Another קשיא תוספות asks: Since it took five years between the death of שאול till איש בושת became king, so why should אבנר be punished for trying to make איש בושת king? It seems as if that he wouldn't have tried that, still דוד wouldn't have been king, as we see in the previous five years, דוד wasn't king anyway. So why was it an עולה on the part of אבנר for appointing איש בושת as king? Therefore, תוספות learns different, that that half a year that we're saying here in addition to the two years that איש בושת was king, was between the death of שאול till איש בושת became king. During that half a year, אבנר tried hard and spoke to all the יידן to appoint איש בושת as king, till at the end, at the end of the half a year, he became king. After איש בושת died, that's when מלכות ישראל was בטל for five years till דוד became king. And that's where we have the חשבון of seven and a half years that דוד was in חברון, that he wasn't the king over all the יידן. And according to this פשט, both questions are answered. The reason we count two and a half years, even though איש בושת was only king for two years, because even that first half a year, it was because of אבנר that דוד wasn't king, because during that half a year, he tried that איש בושת should become king. So that half a year was אבנר's fault that דוד wasn't king. And then the two years that איש בושת was king again was אבנר's fault. So therefore, he was punished for these two and a half years. The five years that came afterwards, that wasn't his fault, and therefore, for that, he is not punished. And this is where we get the חשבון of two and a half years. Then the גמרא continues, it said in the משנה: וכשמברין אותו, when they feed the מלך the סעודת הבראה, all the people sit on the floor and he sits on the דרגש. But the גמרא asks:

מאי דרגש, what is a דרגש? אמר עולא, so עולא said: ערסא דגדא, a bed of good luck. And as רש״י explains, in those days they used to have a bed in the house that was not used at all. It was a regular bed, but it stood in a specific place for good luck. And this is the bed that the משנה means that the מלך would sit on when he is an אבל and they feed him the סעודת הבראה. אמרו ליה רבנן לעולא, so the רבנן said to עולא, according to you that you say that this דרגש is that bed that is there for good luck, מי איכא מידי, is there such a thing, דעד האידנא לא אותביניה, that till now he didn't sit on it, והשתא מותבינן ליה, and now they make him sit on it? Till then, he never sat on this bed because this bed was not used to sit. It was just standing there for good luck. Now, because he's an אבל he should bedafka now sit on it? Why should we do that? מתקיף לה רבא, so רבא asked back, מאי קושיא, what kind of question is this? דילמא maybe, that is what we do. Even though till now he wouldn't sit on it, but now that he's an אבל, he does sit on it. And we find an example to that. מידי דהוה אאכילה ושתיה, just like the food and the drink, דעד האידנא, till now, לא יאכילניה ולא אשקיניה. Normally we never would give the king to eat or give him to drink. השתא, now that he's an אבל, קא מאכילנא ליה וקא משקינא ליה. Now, we give him to eat and we give him to drink. This is the דין of a סעודת הבראה, as we said before, that we have to bring into him the food and the drink. So here we see that this is something that normally is not done, and because he is an אבל coming back from the funeral, we do it to him. So maybe in this, too, that normally this bed he doesn't sit on, but now he does sit on it. So what's the question? אלא אי קשיא, but if you do have a קשיא on עולא's פשט that this דרגש is that bed of good luck, הא קשיא, this is the קשיא you could ask. We learned דרגש אינו צריך לכפותו אלא זוקפו. Because there is a דין which is called כפיית המיטה by an אבל, that by an אבל, you must lower all the beds and all the stools that are there in his house. So it says in the ברייתא that the דרגש of the house you don't have to lower, but you stand it up. So there it uses the לשון דרגש. Now, ואי סלקא דעתך, if you're going to think, as he said, that ערסא דגדא, that the דרגש is that bed of good luck, אמאי אינו צריך לכפותו, why shouldn't he have to lower it? והתניא, didn't we learn, הכופה את מטתו, that when he lowers his bed, when the אבל has to lower his bed, לא מטתו בלבד הוא כופה, not only his own bed that he uses to sleep on he has to lower, אלא כל המטות שיש לו בתוך ביתו הוא כופה, but all the beds that are in his house, he has to be כופה. So then, why shouldn't he כופה the דרגש? If דרגש is a regular bed, just that it's not used, but it just stands there for good luck, so when he lowers all the beds, he should lower that, too. And since it says he doesn't have to lower the דרגש, obviously דרגש means something else, not like עולא said that דרגש is this bed of good luck. And the גמרא says, מאי קושיא, what kind of קשיא is this? דילמא, maybe מידי דהוה אמטה המיוחדת לכלים, maybe the דין of the דרגש, since it's not used, it has the same דין as a bed that is there specially for כלים, for vessels. דתנן, as we learned in a ברייתא, אם היתה מיוחדת לכלים, if the bed was special there for כלים, אינו צריך לכפותה, you don't have to lower it. So maybe this דרגש, too, it could take a mean it's a regular bed, but since it is not used, that's why you don't have to lower it, because it has the same דין as a bed which is מיוחד for כלים. So that קשיא is also no קשיא against עולא. אלא אי קשיא, but if you do have a קשיא against עולא, הא קשיא, this is the קשיא you could ask. Because in that same ברייתא that we mentioned before, where it says that a דרגש you don't have to lower, all you do is you pick it up, so the end of that ברייתא it says that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, that רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, דרגש מתיר קרביטין והוא נופל מאיליו. By a דרגש, all you have to do is undo the loops, and it falls by itself. Now, ואי סלקא דעתך ערסא דגדא, if you're going to say that a דרגש means this ערסא דגדא, this regular bed, but it's just standing there for good luck, קרביטין מי אית ליה, does it have any loops? Why is this different than any other bed? Just like a regular bed doesn't have any loops, this is also a regular bed, so it also doesn't have any loops. So what does רבן שמעון בן גמליאל mean that by a דרגש, all you do is loosen the loops, and it falls by itself? אלא כי אתא רבין, but when רבין came, אמר, he said, אמר לי ההוא מדרבנן, that this one of the חכמים said to me, ורב תחליפא שמי, his name is רב תחליפא, דהוה שכיח בשוקא דגילדאי, and he used to go very often to the market of the leather workers, אמר לי, and he said to him, מאי דרגש, what is דרגש? ערסא דצלא, this is the bed of leather. And as רש''י explains, that this bed was made of leather, and it had very short legs. And the way they used to tie this bed to the legs was not like by a regular bed that they used to do it with rope, but they did it with leather straps, and the leather strap used to be tied around the poles of the bed, and that's how it used to be. Now, all you have to do is untie, loosen those leather straps, and then the bed would fall to the ground. And this is the argument between the תנא קמא and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. Since it is leather, and when you untie it, and since the feet are very short, automatically, it would fall to the ground all the way, and since the ground is damp, the leather would get spoiled from the ground. So therefore the תנא קמא says that a person doesn't have to lower it because then it will get spoiled, all you have to do is you pick it up, you stand it up, that the long poles that are on the bed would be standing upwards. And that's what he said, that in this case you don't have to לכפותו אלא זוקפו. But רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says that he doesn't care, all you have to do is loosen the loops and then it would fall down, and he doesn't mind that it will get spoiled from the ground, you still have to lower it. And that's what רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said, that all you do is you loosen the loops, because this special kind of bed had loops, not like a regular bed that didn't have loops. So here all you do is you loosen the loops, and then this falls to the ground by itself. אמר רבי ירמיה אמר רבי יוחנן, רבי ירמיה said in the

name of רבי יוחנן, דרגש, and this bed דרגש, סירוגו מתוכו, the strap-work is inside. מטה, by a regular bed, סירוגו, the strap-work, not really of the straps, but of the ropes, is מעל גביו, from over it. And רש״י explains that this means that in the case of the דרגש, that in the poles of the bed they used to have little holes, and that's where they would stick in the edges of the straps that would hold the bed to the pole. And that's where you would tie it. In other words, you wouldn't take the straps and surround it around the poles that would cover the poles, but in the poles themselves, on the inside, there was a hole and you would stick the straps through that hole, and that's you would tie where you would tie it. While by a regular bed that you tie with rope, you would actually take the rope and go around the poles with the rope, and that's how you would tie it. Then the גמרא says, מיתיבי, I will ask you a קשיא, we learned: כלי עץ מאימתי מקבלין טומאה? From when can a wooden כלי start being מקבל טומאה? Because the דין is that when can a כלי be ready to accept טומאה if it is touched by טומאה, only when it is finished. When you complete the כלי, then if something טמא will touch it, it'll become טמא. So the question is: when is a wooden כלי considered finished in order for it to be ראוי to be מקבל טומאה? So it says: המטה, the bed, והעריסה, and the crib, משישופם בעור הדג, after you rub it with the skin of a fish. It was a kind of polish that after they finish the bed, so then they would polish with the skin of fish the poles of the bed in order to make it look nice. The question of the גמרא is: ואי מטה מסורגת מעל גבה, if you're going to say that by a regular bed the strap-work is on the outside, that means that you take the rope and you surround the poles with the rope, so then למה לי שיפת עור הדג? So why would you have to polish it with the skin of a fish since it is anyway covered with the rope, because the rope is surrounded all around the pole? So no one sees it anyway. So why would you have to polish it? And since it says that a bed would be polished with this עור הדג, obviously the rope does not surround the poles that much. אלא, therefore, the גמרא says the פשט is not like we said before. הא והא מתוכה, that really in both cases, in the case of the bed and in the case of the דרגש, the rope or the strap is from the inside. The difference is: מטה, by a bed, עולובי ואפוקי בביזיוני, that the rope that would tie the bed to the poles would go in and out through the slits. There were slits in the poles themselves, and that's where they would put in the edges of the rope and take it through the slits themselves. But דרגש, עולובי ואפוקי באבקתא, there the straps would go in and out through the loops, that at the edge of the pole there were certain loops and that's where they would put in the straps. And that is the difference between the bed and the דרגש. אמר רבי יעקב, רבי יעקב said, אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, רבי יהושע בן לוי said, הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, that in this case the הלכה is רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. We had a מחלוקת before that the תנא קמא holds that the דרגש do not have to lower, you just pick it up, and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said by the דרגש you undo the loops and let it fall to the ground. The הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. אמר רבי יעקב בר אמי, רבי יעקב בר אמי said: מטה שנקליטיה יוצאין, זוקפה ודיו. And as רש״י explains, this means they used to have a certain kind of bed that on both sides of the bed, meaning in the side at the wall where the person's head lays, and at the side of the wall where the person's feet are, on both of these sides, they used to have in middle of the wall on either side, they would have a long pole from the floor till the top. And on top of each of this pole, there was a slit, and they would put on top of the slit a long piece of wood. And on that piece of wood, they would put the canopy which would cover the bed. And these were called נקליטין. Now what the גמרא is saying here that if you have a bed that the נקליטין go out, that means that some of the people used to connect the נקליטין on the bottom, too. So now, if you're going to try to lower the bed, it won't help you, you won't be able to. Since these נקליטין are connected on the bottom, so you can't lower the bed lower than that. So therefore, what do you do? So the גמרא says that all you do is you stand it up and that is enough. You would take the bed and you would pick it up, or having the place where the head of the person is laying on the floor and to be standing up that way, or or you would stand it up in the opposite direction: the side of the bed where the person's feet are, you would put that on the floor and you would have it stand up that way. Since there is no other way you could have the כפיית המטה in this bed, therefore it is enough if you just stand it up. Now we will continue with the משנה. It says in the משנה, ומוציא למלחמת הרשות על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד, that a king is allowed to wage war. A מלחמת הרשות is a war that is not a מצוה to fight. It is a voluntary war. If the king decides that he wants to broaden the borders of his country, that is called a מלחמת הרשות, not like the war against the seven nations of ארץ ישראל, or the war against עמלק, or a war in a case when the גוים attack the יידן in ארץ ישראל. So all that is מלחמת מצוה. A מלחמת הרשות is a voluntary war that the king decides to do. So he is allowed to wage war according, based on the permission of the בית דין of 71. And also, ופורץ לעשות לו דרך ואין ממחין בידו, he's able to break through and have a way made for him, a road made for him, and no one could stop him. That if he needs a road, and it happens to be through someone's field or through someone's vines, so he is allowed to have a road made there and no one is allowed to stop him. דרך המלך אין לה שיעור, the דרך, the road of the king has no limits. Like this we find different limits, different שיעורים of what is considered a road: a דרך היחיד or דרך הרבים, a private road, a public road, but the דרך המלך has no שיעור. Whatever the מלך feels should be the size of his road, he is allowed to make it. וכל העם בוזזין ונותנין לו, and the people, when they get the loot at the time of war, they give it to him, והוא נוטל חלק בראש, and he takes first choice because he gets half of the ביזה. So he gets the first choice to get which half he wants, and the rest he gives them back. גמרא says, תנינא חדא זימנא, the משנה where it says that he goes to war with the permission of the בית דין of 71, didn't we learn it already once? It says in the earlier משנה, אין מוציאין למלחמת הרשות אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד. The first משנה of the מסכתא it said that you can't wage a מלחמת הרשות unless you have the permission of the בית דין of 71. So we already know that when you go to war, you must have the permission of בית דין of 71. Why does the משנה here again say that he goes to war על פי בית דין של שבעים ואחד? And the גמרא answers, איידי דתני כל מילי דמלך, since here he is telling us all the דינים of a מלך, תני נמי, so therefore he also says this דין that מוציאין למלחמת הרשות, that he's allowed to go out to מלחמת הרשות, but he needs the permission of the בית דין of 71. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, כל האמור בפרשת מלך, מלך מותר בו, that whatever it says in the פרשה of the king, the king is allowed to do it. And this refers to the פרשה concerning the king in תנ״ך, in שמואל א׳, קפיטל ח׳. There, when שמואל agreed that the יידן will get a king, so it says, starting from פסוק י״א, it says, ויאמר זה יהיה משפט המלך אשר ימלוך עליכם. This will be the דין of the king that will be the king upon you. And he continues, everything that the king could do: את בניכם יקח, your children he would take, ושם לו במרכבתו ובפרשיו, he's allowed to put them into his chariot, ורצו לפני מרכבתו, they could run in front of his chariot. And he continues, ולשום לו שרי אלפים ושרי חמשים, he could use the people for other things. And he continues that את בנותיכם יקח, he could take your daughters. And he continues, ואת שדותיכם ואת כרמיכם וזיתיכם הטובים יקח, he could take your fields, your vineyards, your oils, and he continues more and more what the king could do. So רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל that all this is actually so, that these things that are mentioned in this פרשה that a king is allowed to do, the king is actually allowed to do that. And רב, אמר רב says, לא נאמרה פרשה זו אלא לאיים עליהם. This פרשה was only said in order to put fear upon them, to scare them, שנאמר, as that פסוק says in חומש דברים, שום תשים עליך מלך, you should put a מלך upon you. Now what does it mean to put a מלך upon you? It means שתהא אימתו עליך, that his fear should be upon you. So in order to frighten them and to tell them what the king will be, he told them that these are all the things that a king could do, but actually, the king is really not allowed to do this. So רב holds this was only said in order to frighten them, but not that really the king is allowed to do this. And the גמרא says כתנאי, that this מחלוקת between שמואל and רב is really a מחלוקת between תנאי. Because we learned, רבי יוסי אומר, רבי יוסי says, כל האמור בפרשת מלך, whatever was said in the פרשה of the מלך, מלך מותר בו, the מלך is allowed to do it. רבי יהודה אומר, רבי יהודה says, לא נאמרה פרשה זו אלא כדי לאיים עליהם, this פרשה was only said in order to scare them, שנאמר, שום תשים עליך מלך, you should put a מלך upon you, that means שתהא אימתו עליך, that his fear should be upon you. And therefore שמואל said to them all these different things in order to frighten them. וכן היה רבי יהודה אומר, we also find another מחלוקת, רבי יהודה says, ג' מצות נצטוו ישראל בכניסתן לארץ, three מצות were the אידן commanded upon entering their ארץ ישראל. And the reason we pick these three, even though there are many, many מצות that the אידן were commanded when they entered ארץ ישראל, but these are the three מצות that have to follow this order. One is להעמיד להם מלך, to appoint a king, ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק, and then to destroy the children of עמלק, ולבנות להם בית הבחירה, and then to build the בית המקדש. And these three מצות depended on their entering of ארץ ישראל because in every one of these three it says in the תורה ירושה וישיבה, that first they have to inherit ארץ ישראל and they have to settle in ארץ ישראל, then they should fulfill these מצות. Because concerning a מלך it says in the תורה that when you will enter ארץ ישראל וירשתה וישבת בה, and you will inherit it and settle in it, then it says ואמרת אשימה עלי מלך, and you will say, "Let's appoint upon me a king." So we see that concerning the מצוה of a מלך the תורה gives the הקדמה, the introduction, that first has to be וירשתה וישבת בה. Concerning killing עמלק it says, והיה בהניח ה' וגו', that when ה' will let you, will leave you free after you will finish with your enemy, then you should get to עמלק. So we see that this depends after conquering ארץ ישראל. And concerning the building of the בית המקדש it says, ועברתם את הירדן וישבתם בארץ, when you will cross the ירדן you will settle in the land, then it says והיה המקום, that the place ה' will choose that should be your place. So we see that when should you have this place that ה' will choose, which is the בית המקדש? After you will cross the ירדן and settle in ארץ ישראל. גמרא continues, רבי נהוראי אומר, but רבי נהוראי says, לא נאמרה פרשה זו אלא כנגד תרעומתן, that this פרשה of מלך was only said because of their complaint. Really ה' didn't want this ענין of appointing a king, but ה' knew that the time will come that they will complain that they want a king, that's why ה' said לכתחלה that they should appoint a king, שנאמר as the פסוק says, ואמרת אשימה עלי מלך, that ה' said, "You will say, 'Let appoint upon me a king.'" So ה' לכתחלה told them that why is he telling them the דינים of a מלך? Because He knew that they will say that they want a king. תניא, we learned in a ברייתא, רבי אלעזר אומר, רבי אלעזר said, זקנים שבדור כהוגן שאלו, the זקנים in the generation of שמואל that asked for a king, they asked properly. שנאמר as it says, that they said, תנה לנו מלך לשפטנו, "Give us a king to judge us." So the reason they wanted a king, so that the bad people amongst them should be judged and be forced to be good. אבל עמי הארץ שבהן, but the עמי הארץ amongst them, קלקלו, they spoiled it, שנאמר as it says, והיינו גם אנחנו, that they said, "Why do we want a king? So we too should be ככל הגוים, like all the nations, ושפטנו מלכנו, and our king should judge us, ויצא לפנינו, he should go out in front of us." So really why they wanted a king was because of the wars; they wanted somebody to lead them to war, as they said, ויצא לפנינו ונלחם את מלחמתנו, he should go in front of us, in the head of us, and he should fight the war for us. And that was not a good reason for them to want a king, so they are the ones that spoiled it. גמרא continues, תניא, we learned in a ברייתא, רבי יוסי אומר, רבי יוסי says, שלש מצות נצטוו ישראל בכניסתן לארץ, three מצות the אידן were commanded when they entered ארץ ישראל, להעמיד להם מלך, to appoint a king, ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק, and to destroy the children of עמלק, ולבנות להם בית הבחירה, and to build for them the בית המקדש. ואין יודע איזה מהם תחלה, and we don't know which one comes first, כשהוא אומר, but when the פסוק says, כי יד על כס יה מלחמה לה' בעמלק, that there is a hand on the chair of ה', that there is a war to ה' בעמלק, which means ה' swore that He will always have a war with עמלק till He will destroy עמלק, and the expression in the פסוק is that there is the hand on the chair of ה', הוי אומר, so that tells us, להעמיד להם מלך תחלה, that first they have to appoint a king. Why? Because ואין כסא אלא מלך, because a chair always represents a king, שנאמר as it says, וישב שלמה על כסא ה' למלך, that שלמה sat on the chair of ה' as king. And since here it says, כי יד על כס יה, that the hand is on the chair, and then it says says there is a מלחמה to השם in עמלק, so we see that first comes the chair, which means making of a king, and then there is the war with עמלק. ועדיין איני יודע, and I still don't know, אם לבנות להם בית הבחירה תחילה, if first comes to build the בית המקדש, או להכרית זרעו של עמלק תחילה, or first to destroy the children of עמלק. כשהוא אומר, when the פסוק says concerning עמלק, והניח לכם מכל אויביכם, that when השם will let you free, will give you peace from all your enemies, and then the פסוק says, והיה המקום אשר יבחר השם וגו׳, that the place השם will choose that should be the בית המקדש, so first the פסוק says that you have to finish with all your enemies and then there will be the place השם chose, הא אומר, so that tells us, להכרית זרעו של עמלק תחילה, that first you destroy the children of עמלק. That first you have to get rid of all the enemies, which includes עמלק, and then comes the building of the בית המקדש. וכן בדוד הוא אומר, and that's actually how we see by דוד, because it says, ויהי כי ישב המלך דוד בביתו, that it was when the king דוד sat in his house, והשם הניח לו מסביב, and השם gave him peace from everything around him, means he finished with the wars with everything around him, so then כתיב, it says in another פסוק, ויאמר המלך אל נתן הנביא, the king said to נתן הנביא, ראה נא, see please, אנכי יושב בבית ארזים, I am sitting in the house of ארזים, and there is no house for השם. So we see that when did דוד המלך start working on building the בית המקדש? After השם gave him rest from all his enemies. Because first comes the destroying of עמלק, and then comes the building of the בית המקדש. אמר ריש לקיש, ריש לקיש said, we mentioned before שלמה המלך, that שלמה sat on the כסא of השם, so בתחלה מלך שלמה על העליונים, first שלמה was the king even on all the higher beings, שנאמר, as it says, וישב שלמה על כסא השם, שלמה sat on the chair of השם, that means that he was the king even on the higher beings. ולבסוף, and later on, when he sinned, מלך על התחתונים, then he was only the king over the lower beings, שנאמר, as it says, כי הוא רודה, he was in control בכל עבר הנהר, on all of the other side of the נהר מתפסח ועד עזה, from תפסח till עזה. And that shows that he wasn't in control over the whole world, but only over the lower beings of this world, but not over the higher beings. Now here we have רב ושמואל, a מחלוקת between רב and שמואל. חד אמר, one says, תפסח בסוף העולם ועזה בסוף העולם, that תפסח was one end of the world and עזה was the other end of the world, and that's what the פסוק means, that he was in control from one end of the world to the other end of the world. וחד אמר, and one says, תפסח ועזה בהדי הדדי הוו יתבי, that תפסח and עזה were very close to each other. And what does the פסוק mean? וככשם שמלך על תפסח ועל עזה כך מלך על כל העולם כולו, that when the פסוק says that he controlled, he was the king over from תפסח to עזה, it means that just like he was the king from תפסח to עזה which is very close, the same way he was in control over the whole world, he was a king over the whole world. ולבסוף, and later on, לא מלך אלא על ישראל, then he became king only over the אידן, not even over the whole world, שנאמר, as it says, אני קהלת, I קהלת which was שלמה, הייתי מלך על ישראל וגו׳, I was king on the אידן, so he was only on the אידן. ולבסוף, and later on, לא מלך אלא על ירושלים, he was the king only over ירושלים, שנאמר, as another פסוק says, דברי קהלת בן דוד, the words of קהלת the son of דוד, מלך בירושלים, the king in ירושלים. ולבסוף, and later on, לא מלך אלא על מטתו, he was only the king on his bed, שנאמר, as it says, הנה מטתו שלשלמה וגו׳, that here is the bed of שלמה. So the bed is of שלמה, but nothing else is of שלמה, that means that he was the king only of his bed. ולבסוף, and later on, לא מלך אלא על מקלו, he was the king only on his stick, שנאמר, it says, זה היה חלקי מכל עמלי, that this was my part from all my hard labor, which means that this, only this, only his stick he has left from all his hard work. רב ושמואל, there's a מחלוקת between רב and שמואל here. חד אמר מקלו, one says it was his stick, וחד אמר גונדו, one said that it was his garment. And this is as רש״י says, that when אשמדאי, the king of the שדים, threw him away from his chair, took him away from being king, so that's when he was a king only on his own stick, but not more, as the גמרא tells the story in מסכת גיטין דף ס״ח עמוד ב׳. Then the גמרא asks, הדר או לא הדר, did he regain his power back or not? So רב ושמואל, there's a מחלוקת between רב and שמואל. חד אמר הדר, he did get it back, וחד אמר לא הדר, he didn't get it back. And the גמרא explains: מאן דאמר לא הדר, the one that says that he didn't get it back, מלך והדיוט, so that agrees with the opinion in the גמרא that says that he was first a king king, and then he was an ordinary person. מאן דאמר הדר, the one that says that he did get it back, מלך והדיוט ומלך. So first he was king, and then at one time, at one point he was an הדיוט, an ordinary person, and then again he was king. But even according to the opinion that he didn't regain his power again, so as it says down here printed in the bottom of the גמרא, it quotes from the גליון printed in מסכת גיטין next to רש״י, so there it says that even according to the opinion that he didn't regain his power, what it means is that he didn't regain his power as it was before to be the king even over the higher beings. But concerning the lower beings, he did regain his power even according to this opinion. Now, the גמרא continues to quote from the משנה. It said in the משנה, פורץ לעשות לו דרך, that the king is allowed to break through to make himself a way. And the משנה continued that when it comes to war, the people who get the loot has to give it to him, and he takes first choice of half and then the rest he gives back. The גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, אוצרות מלכים למלך, that when you collect loot, so if you get the treasury of a king, if that's captured, that goes to the king. ושאר ביזה שבוזזין, and the rest of the loot that they take, מחצה למלך ומחצה לעם, half goes to the king and half goes to the

people. אמר ליה אביי לרב דימי, אביי said to רב דימי, ואמרי לה, some say, לרב אחא, to רב אחא: בשלמא אוצרות מלכים למלך, מילא we understand why the דין is that the treasury of kings go to the king, אורחא דמילתא, that is the normal דרך to do it. Since this was the treasury of a king, so now it belongs to the king. אלא שאר ביזה שבוזזין, מחצה למלך ומחצה לעם, מנלן? But the other דין, that the rest of the loot that is taken, that we said half goes to the king and half goes to the people, where do we know this from? And it says: דכתיב, because the פסוק says: וימשחו לה׳ לנגיד ולצדוק לכהן. This is a פסוק in דברי הימים א, קפיטל כ״ט, פסוק כ״ב, where it says that when they anointed שלמה as king, so the פסוק says וימשחו לה׳ לנגיד, they anointed him for ה׳, לנגיד as a leader, and then they also anointed צדוק to be the כהן גדול. So מקיש נגיד לצדוק, so they compare the נגיד which was the king to צדוק who was the כהן גדול. מה צדוק, just like צדוק who was the כהן גדול, מחצה לו ומחצה לאחיו, that half he gets, and half his brothers the other כהנים get, אף נגיד, so too the king, מחצה לו ומחצה לאחיו, half goes to him, and half goes to his brothers. So from here we know that the king gets half of the ביזה, and the other half goes to the other people. The גמרא asks: וצדוק גופיה מנלן? Concerning צדוק which is the כהן גדול himself, how do we know that the כהן גדול gets half and the other כהנים get the other half? דתניא, because we learned a ברייתא, רבי אומר, רבי says, it says concerning the לחם הפנים, והיתה לאהרן ולבניו, that the לחם הפנים should be to אהרן and his children. So we see that אהרן is equal to his children. So it means מחצה לאהרן, half goes to אהרן, ומחצה לבניו, half goes to his children. Which means that half of the לחם הפנים goes to the כהן גדול, and half goes to the other כהנים. So here we see that the כהן גדול gets exactly half, so since the פסוק compares the king to the כהן גדול, so the king too gets half of the ביזה, and the other half goes to the people.

Concerning what the גמרא said before, that שלש מצות נצטוו ישראל בכניסתן לארץ, three מצות were the אידן commanded when they were supposed to enter ארץ ישראל, and the three מצות were: להעמיד להם מלך, to appoint a king, ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק, and to destroy the children of עמלק, ולבנות להם בית הבחירה, and to build for them the בית המקדש. So the ליובאוויטשער רבי in his ספר חידושים וביאורים על הלכות בית הבחירה להרמב״ם, סימן ב׳, asks the question: Why does the גמרא have to give the הקדמה of the words שלש מצות נצטוו ישראל? And as the גמרא asks in many places, for instance in שבת דף ס״ט etc., מניינא למה לי? Why do we have to give the number? Since he mentions all three, so he should have started by saying that כשנכנסו ישראל לארץ, נצטוו להעמיד להם מלך, ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק, ולבנות להם בית הבחירה. Why does he have to start off by saying that there are three מצות? And even though רש״י here in this גמרא says, להכי נקט שלש הללו, this is the reason רש״י says why they mentioned these three, שהן תלויות זו בזו, because they are dependent one upon another, לעשות כסדרן, you have to make it in this order: first מלך, then עמלק, and then בית הבחירה. But רש״י just comes to answer why we mentioned דווקא these three. There are many מצות that the אידן were commanded that they had to do in ארץ ישראל. So the reason they mentioned these three is because these three have to go in this order: first מלך, then עמלק, then בית הבחירה. But this still doesn't answer why the גמרא has to first start off by saying ג׳ מצות נצטוו, that three מצות the אידן were commanded. If we count them we see ourselves that they are three. And he says באמת there's another קשיא: the רמב״ם, in the beginning of הלכות מלכים, when he writes about the מצוה of appointing a king, he says that שלש מצות נצטוו ישראל בשעת כניסתן לארץ. He brings this גמרא, or also the מקור of the רמב״ם could be in the ספרי, and he quotes that there are three מצוות that the יידן were commanded when they entered ארץ ישראל, and he brings all three מצוות. And the question that he asks is: Why is it important in הלכות מלכים to mention that there are three מצוות? In הלכות מלכים, he talks about the מצוה of appointing a king. So there he should have said that the יידן were commanded upon entering ארץ ישראל to appoint a king. Why is it important to mention in הלכות מלכים that this is one of three מצוות that they were commanded? And we also see in ספר המצות, when he speaks about the מצוה of בית המקדש, this is in מצות עשה כ׳, he writes: We have to make a בית עבודה, a בית that should be a place where we would do the עבודה for השם, and the רמב״ם adds: בלשון ספרי, and in the ספרי it says, שלש מצות נצטוו ישראל בעת כניסתן לארץ: למנות להם מלך, ולבנות בית הבחירה, ולהכרית זרעו של עמלק. And the question is: Why is it important, when we talk about the מצוה of בית המקדש, to mention that there are three מצוות together, that you have a מצוה of a מלך, and you have a מצוה להכרית זרעו של עמלק? And therefore, the ליובאוויטשער רבי says that we must say that when רש״י uses the לשון in our גמרא that the three מצוות are תלויות זו בזו, that you have to do them in the proper order, and they are dependent one on another, רש״י doesn't only mean as far as the order is concerned, that means that they depend one after another, that after you do the first one, you have to do the second, this is the right order, but רש״י means to say that they are one dependent on the other, meaning that each one of these three מצוות is not בשלימות, is not complete, unless you also have the other מצוה. In other words, when you appoint a king, when is this מצוה of מינוי מלך בתכלית השלימות? Only if afterwards you were זוכה to להכרית זרעו של עמלק, and then you also built the בית המקדש. And the same would be concerning the second מצוה: that when is the מצוה of destroying עמלק complete? If it came after מינוי מלך and before building the בית המקדש. And the same is concerning the בית המקדש: When is the מצוה of building the בית המקדש בתכלית השלימות? Only if it came after מינוי מלך and להכרית זרעו של עמלק. And באמת we find an example to this, that we have two separate מצוות, and nevertheless, the שלימות of one מצוה depends on the other. For instance, the מצוה of תפילין: we have two מצוות, the מצוה of תפילין של יד and the מצוה of תפילין של ראש. And the דין is that first comes the של יד and then comes the של ראש. And the פסוק says: והיה לאות על ידך ולטוטפת בין עיניך. And the

גמרא says that כל זמן שבין עיניך יהיו שנים, that when you have the של ראש on, by that time you must have two, which means first comes the של יד and then comes the של ראש. And as אחרונים explain, that that means that the שלימות of the תפילין של ראש is only if it comes after the תפילין של יד. Even though it's a מצוה בפני עצמה, it's a separate מצוה, and therefore if a person doesn't have a של יד, he still puts on the של ראש by itself, but nevertheless, when is the שלימות of של ראש? If it comes after the של יד. And the same is with these three מצוות, that even though each מצוה is a separate מצוה, but nevertheless, the שלימות of each מצוה depends on the other two מצוות. And we טאקע see a רמז for this, because here in the גמרא we find that the גמרא asks: Which one comes first? So the גמרא says first comes to appoint a king, then comes מלחמה בעמלק. And the גמרא quotes the פסוק where it says: כי יד על כס יה מלחמה לה׳ בעמלק. And since כס is a מלך, because אין כסא אלא מלך, as the פסוק says: וישב שלמה על כסא ה׳ למלך, so we know that first comes the כסא, and then comes מלחמה לה׳ בעמלק. Now the חז״ל דרשנ׳ן in תנחומא and in פסיקתא and in מדרש תהלים, and רש״י on the פסוק, on this פסוק, כי יד על כס יה, they דרשנ׳ן that אין הכסא שלם עד שימחה זרעו של עמלק, that the כסא is not complete until you destroy the children of עמלק. So here we see that even though we're saying that this כס, which is the כסא, refers to מלך, in this כסא itself it is not שלם until you destroy the זרעו של עמלק. So this is a רמז that the פסוק that we use for a מלך is not שלם until you destroy the זרעו של עמלק. So that itself shows that when is this מצוה of מינוי מלך בתכלית השלימות? Only after you did the second מצוה afterwards, which is to destroy the זרעו של עמלק. Another רמז we find: The גמרא says in שבועות דף י״ד that אין מוסיפין על העיר ועל העזרות אלא במלך. You cannot add to the city of ירושלים and to the עזרות only if you have a מלך, etcetera, as we said in our גמרא here. So here we see also that the ענין of building the בית המקדש, which is the third מצוה, when we make the עזרה bigger, this is part of the מצוה of building the בית המקדש, this depends on the מלך. So we see the connection between the מצוה of בנין בית הבחירה and the מצוה of מינוי מלך. And even though there's a דעה in גמרא there in שבועות דף ט"ז עמוד א', that באחת מכל אלו, that you don't have to have all the things, but one of the things, so it shows that it's not really dependent on a מלך, nevertheless, the ריטב"א writes there that למצוה בעי כולם. In order to have it בתכלית השלימות, to do it בהידור, you have to have everything, so you have to have a מלך, too. So we see the connection between the מצוה of בנין בית המקדש and the מצוה of מינוי מלך. עד כדי כך, we see it in the עין יעקב, here on עין יעקב, this גמרא סנהדרין, he says that from the גמרא is משמע that when the גמרא has a ספק which one comes first, there was no ספק whether בנין בית המקדש comes before מינוי מלך or not. The whole ספק was, what comes first: מינוי מלך before זרעו של עמלק, and זרעו של עמלק before בנין בית המקדש. But whether בנין בית המקדש comes before מלך, there was no such ספק. And the reason is because a מלך must be before you make the בית המקדש. So this shows even stronger the connection between the מצוה of בנין בית המקדש and מינוי מלך. And that's what it says also in the שאלות ותשובות בית הלוי חלק ב' סעיף א' סעיף קטן ח' in the הגהה. Even though the רי"ף on the עין יעקב says that this is also a ספק, but still we do see the connection between the two, that the מצוה of בנין בית המקדש is dependent on the מצוה of מינוי מלך. And this explains another thing. By us in the גמרא here, when the גמרא asks what comes first, to להכרית זרעו של עמלק or בנין בית הבחירה, and the גמרא says that first comes להכרית זרעו של עמלק. And the גמרא brings the פסוק where it says והניח לכם מכל אויביכם והיה המקום אשר יבחר השם. So this shows that להכרית זרעו של עמלק comes first. And then the גמרא says, וכן בדוד הוא אומר. They bring also the פסוק by דוד, where it says, ויהי כי ישב המלך דוד בביתו והשם הניח לו מסביב, and then the פסוק says, ויאמר המלך אל נתן הנביא ראה נא אנכי יושב בבית ארזים וגו'. So there we see that when did דוד start thinking about building the בית המקדש? Only after השם הניח לו מסביב from all his enemies. ולכאורה, why did the גמרא have to bring this second ראיה? The first ראיה is a very strong ראיה. It says in חומש that after הניח לכם מכל אויביכם, then והיה המקום אשר יבחר השם. Why do we need another ראיה from דוד that after he was השם הניח לו מסביב, so then he said to נתן הנביא ראה נא אנכי יושב בבית ארזים וגו'? And the ליובאוויטשער רבי explains that this is all based on what we said before. Because from the פסוק in חומש we only see that first comes מחיית עמלק, and then comes בנין בית הבחירה. Because the פסוק says first והניח לכם מכל אויביכם, and then it says והיה המקום אשר יבחר השם. But the גמרא wants to show more than that. The גמרא wants to show that the מצוה of בנין בית הבחירה is also dependent on the מצוה of מינוי מלך, as we said before that all three מצות are תלוי זה בזה, that the שלימות of each מצוה is dependent on the other. And that's why the גמרא also brings the פסוקים by דוד, where it says, ויהי כי ישב המלך בביתו. That the מלך sat in his house. He was complete מלך. והשם הניח לו מסביב. השם made him rest, meaning the king, rest from his enemies. So ממילא the king was בתכלית השלימות. So then ויאמר המלך, the מלך said, since he was appointed as king already, and he already had the הניח מכל אויביו, which means that his kingship became stronger, so now the מלך says it's time to build the בית הבחירה. So that shows that when is the שלימות of בנין בית הבחירה? If it comes after the מצוה of מינוי מלך. Another thing interesting to mention here in the גמרא is, because we find in the גמרא two opinions whether this מצוה of מינוי מלך was said לכתחילה because השם wanted to give them this מצוה, or as the גמרא says, that this פרשה was only said כנגד תרעומתן, שנאמר ואמרת אשימה עלי מלך. Which means that since the אייבערשטער knew that eventually the אידן are going to ask for a king, that's why He gave the מצוה of שום תשים עליך מלך. But according to the other opinion, השם gave the מצוה on His own. Now,

according to the opinion that השם gave them the מצוה because He knew that later on they're going to ask for a king, so then we understand why when the אידן asked שמואל for a king, שמואל was unhappy. And the אייבערשטער also said כי אותי מאסו. But according to the opinion that השם commanded them the מצוה of מינוי מלך by itself, so the question is, why were שמואל הנביא upset and השם upset when the אידן asked for a king? After all, when they asked for a king, they were only asking to fulfill the מצוה that they were already given by השם. So there are a lot of answers given in ספרים. But one answer given in חסידישע ספרים, mainly in דרך מצותיך by the צמח צדק, in the מצוה of מינוי מלך, first and third פרק there he explains that there are two reasons for the מצוה of מינוי מלך. Just like בגשמיות there are two reasons why a country must have a king. One reason is as the משנה says, אלמלא מוראה של מלכות איש את רעהו חיים בלעו, if there wouldn't be fear of the kingdom, people would swallow each other alive. So you need a king that should restore and make order in the country that people should live without killing each other. And even though people have שכל and people understand that you shouldn't kill each other, but nevertheless we know that it's not always easy to overcome the desires, for עין רואה ולב חומד, etc. And therefore you have to have a king and the יראה of the king, that'll cause that people should go in the דרך הישרה, in the right way. Then you have a higher level of why you need a king. That even when the people are in a level that מוח שליט על הלב, they were over- overcome their desires, and people will live in peace, but nevertheless there are certain things that people would not understand themselves unless the king tells them. A king is supposed to be a person who's very smart and understands things better than other people understand, as it says concerning שאול, that he was משכמו ומעלה גבוה מכל העם, that means that he was so great that what by other people was considered a head, by him it was just the shoulder, meaning his head was even higher. So therefore you have to have a king to tell the people to do things that they don't understand, but they follow the king because the king said so. And the king understands that which is למעלה beyond their understanding. And the same is when we speak of a king on כלל ישראל. On one hand, we need a king if the people are not in the level of having the proper יראת שמים, so then you have to have the king that he should bring them to יראת שמים. Since he's such a great צדיק, such a great man, and he is completely בטל to השם and has the real יראת שמים בתכלית השלימות, so he, by them being בטל to him and having the ירא- יראה of the מלך, he is able to bring into them the יראת שמים. But that is the lower level for appointing a king. You have a lie- higher level of appointing a king, just like we said before, בגשמיות, there's the second concept in appointing a king, that he should give the people ענינים that they cannot understand, and he will tell them to do it because he understands more than they do. So too, even when the אידן are in a מדרגה that they do have the proper יראת שמים, but still the king is able to give them a level of יראת שמים that they with their own שכל would not be able to reach. Using the term of קבלה and חסידות, where it says there are two levels of יראת שמים, there is יראה תתאה, the lower level of יראה, and then you have יראה עילאה. So the lower level, the lower reason for the מצוה of appointing a king is that he should bring them to יראה תתאה, to the lower level of יראת שמים. But then there is the higher reason for appointing a king, that even if the אידן themselves have this יראה תתאה, through this great צדיק, this great king who is completely בטל to השם, he is able to give them a level of יראת שמים which is beyond their own understanding, which is the level of יראה עילאה. And this is what happened. When השם said that they should appoint a king, השם wanted that the reason for appointing the king should be for the higher level, that the אידן should have their own יראת שמים, and the king will give them the יראה עילאה, the higher level of יראת שמים. But when they came to שמואל הנביא and they said, we want a מלך לשופטנו ככל הגוים, so they wanted a king for the lower level, that they should have the lower level of יראה. They shouldn't be this ענין of איש את רעהו חיים בלעו, or or in other terms, they should have the ענין of יראה תתאה, שמואל was upset and השם was upset, because He hoped that they would be in a higher level that they should want the king as השם had in mind, for the ענין of יראה עילאה. But nevertheless, since they weren't that level, so they had to have a king for that too. And this answers the other question, that if it was bad of them to ask for a king, why did He give in to them? Because was bad not because essentially it's bad, it's bad for the reason they had. But if this was their level and there was no choice, and they had to get the king for that level. And He hoped that after they would reach that level, then the king would also bring them to the higher level, to יראה עילאה.