Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

This refers to either a head tax or an income tax.

Provisions for his court and household expenses. As mentioned in Halachah 3:4, the king may not amass personal wealth through taxation.

This is also considered a need of the nation as a whole.

This includes both sales tax and customs duty.

Bava Kama 113a explains that these refer to duties that were enacted directly by the king. In contrast, the Greek and Roman rulers of Eretz Yisrael would frequently appoint tax collectors and sell them the right to collect taxes from the people as they saw fit. There is no obligation to pay taxes of this nature.

Halachah 3:8 stated that the king has no right to confiscate property. However, it is possible that his power is only limited in regard to punishments meted out for affronts to his honor. In contrast, tax evasion and other monetary infractions can be punished by seizure of property.

As one who rebels against the king’s authority, as described in Halachah 3:8.

This verse is part of the Biblical passage describing the rights of a king that will be explained.

In the same passage, Samuel had already told the people: “He will take your sons... your daughters... your servants... and your finest young men.”
Thus, in telling the people they will be servants, he obviously had another implication. Hence, the meaning of that term in this context can be derived by comparison to the verse in Deuteronomy. Previously, [Deuteronomy 20:11] states: “they shall be subject to your levy and they shall serve you.”

One of the thirteen principles of Biblical exegesis is gezerah shevah, an association between two verses on the basis of the use of a common word or phrase. In this case, the words “serve” and “servants” establish the analogy between the two verses. Just as the servitude in Deuteronomy is expressed through the payment of taxes, similarly, the servitude mentioned by Samuel can be interpreted in this fashion.

Mishpat Kohen (Hilchot Melachim 144:15) explains that all the privileges which are granted a king for the nation’s welfare (as opposed to those granted him to protect his honor), also apply to any government aside from a monarchy. Accordingly, such governments are also empowered to levy taxes. See also Drashot HaRan 11.

The Talmud and Rabbis frequently use the expression: “The laws of the ruling kingdom are law.”

When the people asked Samuel to appoint a king (1 Samuel, Chapter 8), God told him: “Obey their request. However, warn them solemnly and relate to them the rights of the king who will reign over them.” Samuel described to them in blunt terms how harshly the king could rule over the people.
Sanhedrin 20b records a debate between two Amoraim: Rav and Shmuel. Rav maintains that Samuel’s address was intended to frighten the people and, in fact, the king is not entitled to the privileges described in that passage.
Shmuel disagrees and maintains that though Samuel obviously intended to chastise the people, nevertheless, he also conveyed a true picture the rights and privileges to which the king is entitled.
In Hilchot Gezeilah, Chapter 5, the Kiryar Sefer explains that a tax collector appointed by any king, even a gentile, is “entitled to collect taxes because ‘the statutes of the kingdom are law’ as derived from the Biblical passage concerning the king as explained in Hilchot Melachim.” Tosafot, Sanhedrin 20b does not accept this view, maintaining that the privileges Samuel granted a king are reserved only for kings who rule over all Israel by Divine decree. Similarly, other commentaries (Rashbah, Yevamot 46a, Ritbah, Bava Metzia 73) explain that the application of the principle “the statutes of the kingdom are law” to gentile authorities stems from the king’s “conquest” of the land. Just as a king takes possession of a subject from another country when he subjugates them in a war, based on a similar rationale, he is given authority over the subjects of his own kingdom.
The latter viewpoint allows us to understand the statements of the Ran (Nedarim 28a), that in Eretz Yisrael, it is impossible for anyone to rule according to the principle of “the statutes of the kingdom are law.” By dwelling in any other country, a person willingly subjects himself to the rule of its king. He has the choice to accept that rule or find another homeland. In contrast, Eretz Yisrael is every Jew’s native home. No ruler has the right to force one to leave. Accordingly, dwelling there does not necessarily constitute acceptance of the local government.
In contrast, the perspective of the Kiryar Sefer which recognizes the authority of even gentile nations as stemming from the mandate granted by the Bible, would also recognize the rule of other Jews in Eretz Yisrael aside from the Torah appointed kings.
It is difficult to define which viewpoint the Rambam follows. In Hilchot Gezeilah 5:11, he writes “The statutes of the king are law... whether the king is Jewish or not.” He further clarifies the matter (ibid. 5:18): “In which case does this apply? When the king... is accepted by the inhabitants of that land who have placed their trust in him as their lord and [consented] to be his servants.” The terminology used appears to be closer to the view of the Tosafot and Ran.
This argument is not just a matter of theory, but is reflected in the different attitudes with which the Torah community views the secular government that presently exists in Eretz Yisrael. There are some who recognize the government’s laws according to the principle “the statutes of the kingdom are law,” while others do not accept its authority.

This and the following halachot continue to describe the privileges granted the king in the passage from I Samuel cited in the previous halachah.

It is curious why neither the Rambam nor the passage in Samuel mention the infantry. Throughout the centuries, armies were always primarily made up of these soldiers.

It is interesting to note that though a king could not own an extra horse to run before him (Halachah 3:3), he could employ humans for that purpose.

II Samuel 15:1 and I Kings 1:5 relate that when both Avshalom and Adoniyahu attempted to take control of the monarchy, they set up “horsemen and chariots and fifty men to run before them.”

Commenting on that verse, the Metzudot Tziyon interprets “finest” as “most attractive.”

By contrasting the wording used by the Rambam in this and the above halachah, the Rambam LeAm derives that the king’s soldiers were not paid wages. Instead, they were given room and board at the king’s expense.

If instead of purchasing them, he rents them temporarily.

If he purchases them.

The Targum renders this verse: “He will take farmers to plow... and craftsmen to make instruments.”

The “servants and maids” refer to Canaanite servants who are considered the property of their master. A king may requisition them for his own use.

I Kings 1:3 descries how “they sought for a fair maiden throughout the entire territory of Israel” to serve as an attendant to King David.

According to Torah law, marriage is a two staged process. In the first stage, referred to as kiddushin, a man consecrates a woman as his wife. From this time onward, she may not marry another man without divorce. Sexual relations with other men are considered adultery and are punishable by death. Nevertheless, the bride and groom are not permitted to live as man and wife.
The second stage of marriage, nissuin, involves the consummation of the marriage and the beginning of the couple’s life together. To allow for a harmonious home environment, the Sages developed basic guidelines outlining the obligations of a husband to his wife and vice versa. These responsibilities are recorded in the ketubah, marriage contract. Some of the ketubah’s obligations govern the married life of a couple. Others are instituted in the event the couple divorces or the bride is widowed. The ketubah takes effect only after the couple complete the second stage of marriage, nissuin. The details of the ketubah are outlined in Hilchot Ishut, Chapter 12.

This definition is a point of controversy in Jewish law. Rashi in his commentary on Genesis 25:6, interprets concubines as having been consecrated to their men (kiddushin), but having agreed to live without a ketubah. Accordingly, a marriage bond has been established and relations with other men would be considered adultery.
The Rambam does not accept this view and designates a king’s concubine with a unique status in Jewish law. On one hand, she is not married. On the other hand, a relationship between her and the king has been established to the point where she can no longer engage in relations with other men.
The Rambam’s opinion allows us to comprehend an otherwise difficult Biblical narrative. II Samuel, Chapter 16 relates that when King David fled Jerusalem because of the rebellion of his son Avshalom, he left his ten concubines to care for the palace. When Avshalom occupied the palace, Achitofel, his counselor advised him to engage in relations with those concubines as a public act of defiance.
Avshalom followed his advice and his act strengthened his support among the people. Were the concubines to have enjoyed the status of wives, the Jewish people would never have approved of such open immorality. However, since the concubines were not considered as wives proper, though relations with them constituted a sin, it did not have the severity of adultery and hence, was not regarded as a moral affront (Radbaz).

Literally, yichud means to single out or designate. The Rambam LeAm maintains that the king establishes his bond with one of his concubines by designating her as his. Halachically, the term, yichud, means entering a private room where sexual relations could be carried out. Other commentaries maintain that the king must follow this practice in order to acquire his concubine.

Generally, sexual relations are not permitted without kiddushin. In Hilchot Ishut 1:4, the Rambam writes: “Anyone who has relations with a women with an immoral intent, without kiddushin, should be lashed according to Torah law.” An exception is made for a king. He may have relations with his concubines though he has not consecrated them as wives.

This statement is disputed by many authorities including the Ra’avad (Hilchot Ishut, ibid.) and the Ramban (Responsa). The Ramban cites a number of examples of righteous men, Caleb (I Chronicles 2:46) and Gideon (Judges 8:31), who possessed concubines though they did not serve as kings. (The Kessef Mishneh, Hilchot Ishut resolves these incidents with the Rambam’s opinion explaining that these women may have been female maid-servants.)

Exodus 21:8-9 states: "If she is not pleasing to her master and he does not designate her as his wife..." Implicit in the sale of the girl as a maid-servant, was the provision that her master could later designate her as a wife for himself or his son. Nothing further had to be given the girl or her father. All that is necessary is that the master declare: "You are my designated bride" (Hilchot Avadim 4:7).
There is a difficulty with the Rambam’s statements. The manner in which a king takes a concubine resembles the consecration of a Hebrew maid-servant for in both cases, there is no necessity to give the woman kiddushin. However, the status of the two women is totally different. Once the Hebrew maid-servant is designated as a wife, she is considered having kiddushin and a ketubah. Indeed, the Torah’s description of a husband’s obligations to his wife (Exodus 21:10) are taken from the passage describing the relationship with a Hebrew maid-servant.

Similarly, the narrative from 11 Samuel cited above relates how David charged his concubines with supervision of the palace in his absence.

Two concepts can be derived from the wording used by the Rambam: a) A king may appoint an officer to his service against the latter’s will; b) By nature, a Jew should not desire authority and position. He must be forced to accept it.

Exodus 18:21 mentions a further division of authority “Leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties, leaders of tens.”

Fields refer to fields of grain. Thus these represent the three primary agricultural necessities. Similarly, we find the Torah frequently grouping these three together as in Deuteronomy (11:14): “You will have ample harvest of grain, oil, and wine.”

Tosafot, Sanhderin 20b, questions this law based on the narrative of King Achav and Navot of Yizrael.
Achav desired Navot’s vineyard and the latter refused to sell it to him. To satisfy Achav’s desires, Izevel, his wife hired two false witnesses to testify that Navot cursed both God and the king. Navot was executed because of this testimony and Achav acquired his vineyard on the basis of the principle (Halachah 9) “The property of all those executed by the king, [belongs] to the king.” Why didn’t Achav take possession of the vineyard by exercising the regal privileges granted him in this halachah?
Among the resolutions offered are: a) the king may only take possession of a field or vineyard to provide food for his servants while Achav desired to take Navot’s vineyard as his personal property. b) the king is only entitled to commandeer the produce of a field or vineyard. He may not take possession of the property itself, as Achav desired (Radak).
Kin’at Eliyahu offers a resolution based on the Rambam’s words. The Rambam continues: “if they have no source of nurture other than them,” and in Achav’s era, there was no lack of vineyards.

The Rambam’s wording implies that the king is only allowed this right in extreme circumstances.

Bava Kama 60b mentions that David’s troops paid for produce taken to feed their animals. See also the Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhderin 2:5.

Commenting on the verse in Samuel, the Radak explains that the king can keep this tenth as his personal property.

The king’s tenth comes in addition to the first tithe which must be given to the Levites (Numbers 18:21-24) and the second tithe (Deuteronomy 14:22-29) which in certain. years must be eaten in Jerusalem and in other years, given to the poor.

Aside from this obligation, we are required to offer a tenth of the beasts born to our herds and flocks as sacrifices in the Temple (Leviticus 27:32).

The Radbaz cites Ezekiel 48:21 “And the remaining portion shall be for the Nasi” as the source for the Rambam’s statements.
Other commentaries cite the Rambam’s source as Bava Batra 122a which states that in the Messianic age, Eretz Yisrael will be divided up into thirteen portions. One portion will be given to each of the tribes and the thirteenth to the Nasi, i.e. the Mashiach.
That Talmudic passage speaks about Eretz Yisrael proper while the Rambam speaks about the lands to be conquered. Nevertheless, a correlation between the two statements can be made for Pesikta Rabesi teaches that, in the Messianic age, Eretz Yisrael will spread out over the entire world.

Becoming their personal property.

Therefore, in the narrative of Achav and Navot cited above, Izevel’s hired witnesses testified that Navot had cursed the king. Accordingly, as explained in Halachah 3:8, he could be executed as one who rebelled against the king and his property could be taken by the king.
This law applies only to those executed for rebelling against the king. The property of a person executed for violation of one of the sins that carries the death penalty is granted to his heirs (Hilchot Evel 1:9).
The Radbaz (Responsa 533) writes that even a non-Jewish king is entitled to the property of those executed for rebelling against him.

Sanhderin 20b considers it as a logically accepted principle that the personal property of one king should only be acquired by another king.

A Jewish soldier was not allowed to loot for his own personal benefit. Rather, the spoils of war were considered the property of the army as a whole and divided among them as described.

Sanhderin 20b, 21a derives this principle as follows: I Chronicles 29:22 states: “And they anointed Solomon as governor and Tzadok as [High] Priest” establishes an equation between a king and a High Priest. Accordingly, just as a High Priest is given half of the showbread, similarly, a king is given half of the spoils of war.

Rashi (Sanhderin 20b) explains that the king is entitled to select the first and better half as a token of respect and honor.

I Samuel, Chapter 30 relates that, in David’s absence, Amalekites plundered Ziklag, the city in which he had been encamped. When he returned, David and his troops set out after the raiding party. A third of his men, faint from their journey, were unable to keep up with the pace set by David and abandoned the chase. David left any unnecessary baggage with them and resumed his pursuit.
He was able to overtake the Amalekites and rout their camp. All the spoil that the Amalekites had previously taken became David’s. When he returned to the troops who had remained to guard the baggage, “the bad and worthless of those who accompanied David protested: ‘Since they did come with us, we will not give them of the spoil.’”
David answered them as quoted by the Rambam. The passage concludes: “He made it a statute and ordinance for Israel to this day.”
Bereishit Rabbah 43:9 explains that David continued an existing precedent. When Abraham defeated the four kings and returned with their spoil (Genesis, Chapter 14), he granted a share of the spoil to his companions, Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre, even though they did not take part in the actual battle.

As his personal property. This halachah refers to other kings besides the Messiah. Hence, there is a difference between this halachah and Halachah 8. Alternatively, Halachah 8 speaks about lands that Israel (i.e., the people as a whole) will conquer, while this halachah speaks about lands conquered by the king himself.

Since these lands become the king’s personal property, he may divide them as he sees fit.
The Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 497) questions the source for this halachah. The Mishpat HaMeluchah suggests that the Rambam’s source is Gittin 8b which describes Syria as “territory conquered by a single individual,” David. On that passage, Rashi comments that David did not conquer Syria for the sake of the entire people, but for his own needs.

I Kings 3:9 relates that when God granted Solomon a wish, the latter asked for “an understanding heart to judge our people.” Similarly, Kalah Rabesi, Chapter 8 relates how royalty is acquired with 30 distinctions, among them “justice and righteousness, as (Proverbs 16:12) states: ‘His throne shall be established through righteousness. “‘

It is interesting to note that, according to Sanhderin 20b, this quote is taken from the words of the common people who “spoiled the tone” to the nation’s request from Samuel.
The Rambam’s words have the tone of a summation because this halachah concludes the laws which are directly related to the king as an individual. The following chapters discuss other issues: among them; wars, relations to gentiles, and the Messianic age.