Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

According to most commentaries, the source of this halachah is Sanhedrin 20b and Sifri, Re’eh. However, those sources do not quote verses from the Torah to show the connection between these mitzvot and the settlement of Eretz Yisrael. Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tetzei, sec. 15, does cite Biblical sources, however, as does the Rambam.
Many other mitzvot, including all the agricultural regulations, must be fulfilled upon entering Eretz Yisrael. However, those mitzvot are incumbent on every member of the nation as an individual. In contrast, the mitzvot mentioned here were commanded to the people as a collective entity. (See the conclusion of Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments).
The designation of the Jewish people as a tzibbur, collective entity, is only possible within Eretz Yisrael. Hence, the fulfillment of these mitzvot depends upon the Jews’ presence in Eretz Yisrael. (See Horiot 3a; Tzaphnat Pa’aneach, Responsum 143.)

The Torah specifies that the Jews must appoint a king when they “come to the land that God... is giving” (Deuteronomy 17:14).

Here, too, Deuteronomy 25:18 states that this mitzvah is to be fulfilled “when God gives you peace... in the land.”

In this instance as well, Deuteronomy 12:1 states “These are the rules and laws that you must carefully keep in the land that God... is giving you?’ implying that the Temple will be built in that land.
In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:1, the Rambam also mentioned the mitzvah of constructing the Temple. However, in that passage, he quoted Exodus 25:8 “And you shall make Me a sanctuary” as the Biblical source.
This apparent contradiction can be resolved as follows: The commandment in Exodus refers to the sanctuary constructed in the desert, while the present verse refers to Shilo and the Temple.
There are a number of levels in the fulfillment of the mitzvah of building “a house for God, prepared for sacrifices to be offered.” On the most basic level, the mitzvah was fulfilled when the Sanctuary was constructed in the desert. However, the ultimate fulfillment of that commandment will be when the Temple will be constructed by the king in Jerusalem, after Amalek is annihilated (see Lechem Mishneh; Even HaEzel).

In his commentary on Sanhedrin, 20b, Rashi emphasized that it was necessary to fulfill these mitzvot in this sequence. Indeed, the Talmud and the Rambam emphasize this order.

Sanhedrin 20b, which is the source for this halachah, quotes a different Biblical reference for this concept. The Rambam cites his verse because it clearly demonstrates the sequence in which these mitzvot must be fulfilled.
This also teaches us a general principle regarding the composition of the Mishneh Torah. Although the Rambam uses the Talmud and the Midrash as sources, he reserves the option of employing Biblical references that are not mentioned in those texts (Lechem Mishneh).

David wanted to build the Temple only after he had fought the wars necessary to establish Israel’s security.
[To briefly restate the historical background: After receiving Samuel’s command, Saul waged war and utterly defeated Amalek. He slew the entire nation except for their choice sheep, and their king, Agag. The sheep and the king were taken to the prophet, Samuel. Samuel severely rebuked Saul for not fulfilling the Torah’s command, and for not utterly destroying Amalek (15:23): “Because you have rejected the word of God, God has rej ected you from being king.” Afterwards, Samuel slew Agag.
Between his capture and execution, though, Agag was able to sire children. Thus, although Amalek ceased to exist as a nation, its seed was perpetuated. For example, Haman, the minister who tried to destroy the Jews in the Purim saga, was an “Agagite,” one of Agag’s descendants.]
Saul was not charged with building the Temple. This may have been because God had already rejected him, or because he was about to become embroiled in prolonged conflicts with the Philistines, which would ultimately cost him his life. When power was transferred to King David, he did establish the political security of the Jewish nation. Afterwards, he turned his attention to building the Temple, as described in the narrative cited by the Rambam.

As I Samuel 12:17 states: - “I will call to God, and He will send thunder and rain, so that you may know that your wickedness is great... in asking for a king.”

Sanhedrin 20b comments: “The elders of [that] generation made a proper request (I Samuel 8:6): ‘Appoint a king for us to judge us.’ However, the common people spoiled [the tone of the request], demanding (ibid. 19-20): ‘Let us have a king so that we will be like all the nations...’”

This refers to the Sanhedrin, Israel’s supreme court. The Rambam describes its function in Hilchot Sanhedrin 1:3. The appointment of the king by this court is also mentioned in that text, 5:1.

The mention of Joshua in this context raises a question: In Halachah 1, the Rambam stated that the appointment of a king could come only after entering Eretz Yisrael. Joshua was charged with leading the Jewish people before they came into the Land. Similarly, the Sages and the Rambam sometimes referred to Moses as a king (see the commentaries to Deuteronomy 33:5, Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:11), although he never entered Eretz Yisrael.
Accordingly, we must say that the concept of monarchy went through a number of stages. As explained above, a parallel concept may be seen regarding the mitzvah of building a Temple. The ultimate fulfillment of the mitzvah was the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem. However, before that, a Tabernacle was built to accompany the Jews through the desert, and a Sanctuary was built in Shilo. Similarly, although monarchy in its full sense was not achieved until Saul and David were anointed, Moses and Joshua may also be considered kings.

Rambam LeAm emphasizes that, as apparent from Halachah 7, the participation of the Sanhedrin and a prophet is only required in order to appoint a king when there is no heir to the position.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Command 362) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 498) include this prohibition as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

A convert is always considered a full-fledged member of the Jewish faith and is granted the same privileges and obligations as any other Jew. Nevertheless, regarding yichus, pedigree of lineage, a distinction is made; for example, a convert cannot marry a priest and may marry a mamzer (a child born from adulterous or incestuous relations). Similarly, because of this lack of yichus, a convert may not assume a position of authority within the Jewish people.

The bracketed addition was made to resolve the following difficulty: The mother of Rechavam, Solomon’s son and heir, was Na’ama, an Ammonitess. If so, how could he have succeeded his father as king?
Tosafot (Yevamot 102a) explain that if a person’s father is a native-born Israelite, he may be appointed to positions of authority, regardless of his mother’s origins. Alternatively, a king’s yichus is questioned only at the beginning of a dynasty. Once the dynasty has been established, a son may assume his father’s position, even if his mother is a convert (Noda B’Yehudah, Choshen Mishpat, Responsum 1).

King Herod was an Idumean, an offspring of the Edomites who were forcibly converted to the Jewish faith by King Yannai, a descendant of the Hasmoneans. Accordingly, neither he nor his descendants were qualified to serve as kings of Israel.
Herod was particularly sensitive on this issue. When he heard the Sages mention this verse, he slaughtered many of them (Bava Batra 3b). Sotah 41 a,b relates that Agrippas, a descendant of Herod and one of his successors, read the book of Deuteronomy to the people at the Hakhel gathering. As he recited the above verse, his eyes welled up with tears.
“Do not worry?” the Sages reassured him, “you are our brother.” The Talmud states that God decreed the Jews’ doom because of this flattery. (Though most commentaries explain that Agrippas’ mother was also a convert, Rashi maintains that she was an Israelitess. Hence, he was fit to be king.)

Nasi literally means “the uplifted one.” It refers to the Sage who led the Sanhedrin – and indeed, the Jewish nation as a whole - in the Second Temple era.

See Kiddushin 76b.
Shemaya and Avtalyon were converts. Nevertheless, they excelled in Torah knowledge to the point that they were appointed nasi and Head of the Supreme Court respectively. Their assumption of these positions, despite their lack of yichus, apparently contradicts the Rambam’s statements.
The Knesset HaGedolah explains that the nation accepted Shemaya and Avtalyon as leaders, because their capabilities surpassed those of the rest of the people. In such an instance, no prohibition is involved.
Alternatively, Shemaya and Avtalyon were appointed by the Hasmonean kings. A king is granted absolute authority over the nation’s internal affairs. He may appoint judges who are not acceptable according to Torah law, if he feels it necessary (Tumim 7:1).

In Jewish history, we find two examples of queens who ruled the country:
II Kings (Chapter 11) describes how Atalya, the mother of Achaziah, slew the heirs to the throne and ruled over the kingdom of Judah for seven years. Nevertheless, her assumption of the monarchy was never acknowledged by the Sages. She was always considered a murderous, idol-worshipping usurper. As soon as possible, the Priests and Sages installed Yoash, the rightful heir, on the throne.
Similarly, towards the end of the Hasmonean dynasty, Queen Salome assumed rule over the nation. She was a righteous woman who followed the guidance of her brother, the nasi, Shimon ben Shetach. However, neither he nor the other Sages were consulted regarding her assumption of the throne. Furthermore, there was little alternative, as the two other potential heirs to the throne were Sadducees who persecuted the Sages, and wanted to stamp out Torah practice.

As mentioned above, the Torah establishes a parallel between the monarchy and other positions of authority regarding the disqualification of a convert. The scope of that comparison is further extended to include the disqualification of women (Kiryat Sefer).
Judges (4:4) mentions that Devorah, the prophetess, served as a judge. This seems to contradict this principle. Two explanations are offered: a) She was a prophetess, and she assumed the position because of God’s decree. b) She did not actually serve as a judge. Rather, she taught the people Torah. Since the judges’ decisions were based on her teachings, it was considered as if she judged the people (Tosafot, Niddah 50a).

Recently, manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah have been discovered which omit this profession, replacing it with “bloodletters.” Similarly, Kiddushin 82a, which appears to be the source for this halachah, does not mention butchers.

Not only the monarchy, but all other positions of authority are denied these individuals (Kiryat Sefer). The Talmudic passage cited above also mentions a number of other artisans, including perfume salesmen, knitters, and jewelers, professions primarily involved with women. Hence, they are also not considered sufficiently prestigious to be appointed king.

Tashbetz mentions that the Rambam included those professions which were deemed undignified in his day. Should the social norms change and these professions become considered prestigious and others undignified, these laws must also be altered.

Kessef Mishneh explains that these individuals are only disqualified if they served professionally in these capacities. If one person cut another’s hair as a favor or as a school-boy’s prank, he may still be appointed king.

This refers to the oil of anointing made by Moses, as described in Exodus 30:25. In Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:2-3, Rambam describes in detail this oil was prepared from olive oil and a mixture of spices. In the desert, Moses used this oil to sanctify the Tabernacle’s utensils. Despite its use, miraculously, the oil remained totally intact. In the following generations, it was not employed for this purpose. Rather, it was used only to anoint kings, High Priests, and the priests who led Israel’s military campaigns (Keritot 5b). Ultimately, it was buried toward the conclusion of the First Temple era (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:1).

Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:9, the Rambam wrote: “Kings of the Davidic dynasty are anointed [by pouring the oil as] a crown on their heads.”
This verse describes the anointing of Saul as king. According to the Rambam, Samuel used the oil prepared by Moses for this purpose. See Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 17, which also mentions this opinion. This view is not, however, accepted by all commentaries. Radak states that the oil prepared by Moses was only used to anoint kings of the Davidic dynasty. In contrast, Saul was anointed with afarsimon oil, as were the kings of Israel. See Halachah 10.

The verse is both a blessing and a statement, implying that if its conditions are fulfilled, the king’s heirs will inherit his position.

After the death of Achaziah, King of Judah, Atalya, his mother, slew all his heirs and assumed the throne herself. Yoash, Achaziah’s infant son, was saved. He was hidden and raised by Yehoyada, the high priest, until he was seven. At that time, he was granted the monarchy (see II Kings, Chapter 1).

The first in line for the monarchy are the deceased king’s sons, in order of age. Should none of his sons be alive, the right is passed to his grandchildren. The children of the elder son are granted preference. If the king has no male descendents, the monarchy is given to his brothers. If they are not alive, it is granted to their sons. From them, the right to the throne passes to the deceased king’s nephews (his sister’s sons), then to his uncles, to his first cousins. See Hilchot Nachalot, Chapter 1.

This law is derived from 11 Chronicles 21:10: “And he gave the monarchy to Yehoram, for he was the first born.”
King David bestowed the monarchy on Solomon, his youngest son. This raises an apparent contradiction to this principle. However, 1 Chronicles 22:2 relates that he was charged to do so by God: “God... chose Solomon, my son, to sit on the throne.... “

See Sifri, Shoftim.
This law has been a matter of controversy throughout the years. In regard to positions of communal authority, almost all authorities accept this concept. However, controversies have frequently arisen over the inheritance of Rabbinical positions. Here, the Rambam’s decision has frequently been challenged.
Maharshdam (Yoreh De’ah, Responsa, n. 85) states that a city must seek out the most capable Rav possible without regard to inheritance. Similarly, the Terumat HaDeshen (Pesakim 128) states “Torah cannot be inherited.”
However, many prominent authorities (Rivash, Responsa 271, Ramah, Yoreh De’ah 245, Maharit Algazi, Simchat Yom Tov 6) have explained that this law applies even in regard to rabbinical positions.
The difficulties in deciding the question may be seen in the Chatam Sofer’s lack of certainty regarding it. In his Responsa (Orach Chayim, Responsum 12), he at first espouses the opinion that rabbinical positions should not be handed down from father to son. However, later (Responsum 13), he reversed himself and granted the son his father’s position by inheritance.
In practice, most Rabbis have reached the opinion that if the son is a capable Rabbi, though less qualified than another who seeks the position, his father’s position should be awarded to him. However, if the community sees the son as incapable of filling his father’s position at all, it may be given to another person.

Leviticus 16:32 describes the High Priest as one “who was anointed to fill the the place of his ancestor.” Torat Kohanim (Tzav) comments: “Should he be anointed even though he does not ‘fill the place’ [i.e., does not equal the level of his] ancestors? No, the Torah states ‘fill the place.’ If he is not equal to his father, the position should be granted to someone else.”
The same principles apply to the inheritance of the monarchy and to other positions of authority.

Ketubot 103b describes how Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi instructed that his son Gamliel be given his position, even though his knowledge was not as great as his father’s.

The fear of God is the very foundation of the spiritual heritage of the Jewish people. Anyone who lacks that quality can never be a competent leader.

Mechilta, Shmot, states: “Until David was chosen, all Israelites were fit for the monarchy. Once he was chosen, all Israel was excluded, as [II Chronicles 13:5] states: ‘God... granted the kingdom of Israel to David forever.’”

Mechilta continues: “Three gifts were granted conditionally: Eretz Yisrael, the Temple, and the Davidic dynasty. What is the source for these remarks?... [Concerning the Davidic dynasty,] it is written: ‘If your children will keep My covenant....’”

II Samuel 7:15 relates that God promised: “My grace will not depart from him, as I removed it from Saul.”

Although the Davidic dynasty suffered much during its existence, it continued to rule throughout the entire First Temple period. Furthermore, the Messiah, who will renew the kingship of Israel, will also be a scion of the House of David. See Chapter 11, Halachah 4.

Here the Rambam does not mention the participation of the Sanhedrin, as he does in Halachah 3. The Radbaz states that the appointment of the king must be "by God's word." Divrei Moshe explains that according to law, a king must be appointed by the Sanhedrin. Here, however, we are not concerned with an appointment according to law. (For after the establishment of the Davidic dynasty, there is no concept of another king according to law.) Instead, the appointment of such a king is a directive for application in the immediate time (horeat shaah). Such directives are conveyed to a prophet from time to time and supersede Scriptural Law, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 9:3. Since the appointment is only an immediate matter, ultimately the dynasty of that king will cease as stated in Halachah 9.

The Jerusalem Talmud, Horiot 3:2, states: “The King of Israel and the King of Judah are equal in status. Neither is greater than the other.”
The equal standing of the King of Israel in regard to the King of Judah may also be seen by the Rambam’s statements in Hilchot Shegagot, regarding the sacrifice brought for committing an unintentional sin:
Who is meant by the nasi mentioned in the Torah? The king, over whom no one in Israel has authority... except God, his Lord. [This applies whether the king] is of the House of David or from other tribes of Israel.
If there are many kings, and none is subservient to any other, each must bring a goat (the special sacrifice brought by the king) for unintentionally committing a sin.

Achiyah of Shilo was considered one of the greatest spiritual figures of his age, serving as the leader of the Sanhedrin. See the Rambam’s Introduction to the Mishneh Torah.

The Rambam’s citation of the verse differs slightly from the actual text.

In Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 362), the Rambam states that “Only a descendent of David and Solomon may be king over any believer in the Torah of Moses, our teacher.” Accordingly, certain commentaries explain that when Rambam later composed the Mishneh Torah, he changed his views regarding the legitimacy of the kingdom of Israel. According to the explanation of Divrei Moshe cited above, the two positions can be reconciled.
Other: commentaries also question the Rambam’s acceptance of the halachic legitimacy of the kingdom of Israel. In the commentary to Genesis 49:10, Ramban stated that the appointment of Jeroboam was only intended as a temporary measure, and that the ten tribes should later have returned to the Davidic dynasty. Ra’avad takes an intermediate view. He accepts the kings of Israel as rulers, but maintains that they should have been subservient to the kings of Judah, as the Romans possessed a Caesar and deputy Caesar.
In this context, it is appropriate to consider the Halachic legitimacy of the Hasmonean kingdom during the Second Temple period. The Rambam in Hilchot Chanukah 3:1 described how: “The Hasmoneans... delivered Israel from their hands and appointed a king from among the priests, thus returning the monarchy to Israel for more than two hundred years.”
This would seem to indicate the Rambam’s acceptance of the Hasmoneans as kings, despite the fact that: a) they were not appointed by prophets; and b) they ruled in the city of Jerusalem (see Halachah 10).
Similarly, a number of references in the Talmud (Kiddushin 66a, Sotah 41a, Sanhedrin 19a) imply that the Sages recognized the authority of the Hasmonean and Herodian kings. In contrast, Ramban (ibid.) viewed the Hasmoneans as usurpers of the monarchy. He explained that this sin alone was responsible for the tragedy and misfortune which plagued their dynasty, and cited the Jerusalem Talmud, Horiot, which explicitly states that a king should not be appointed from among the priests. From the Rambam’s statements here, it would appear that the Rambam would share that view. For they were appointed neither by a prophet, nor the Sanhedrin.

As stated in the previous and following halachot, the monarchy. was granted to David as an eternal heritage.

See commentary to Halachah 7 which explains that the Davidic dynasty continued in power even when the kings were not righteous.

The Rambam views the rule of Jeroboam and of the other kings of Israel as a temporary measure, instituted by God for a specific purpose. Accordingly, even if his descendants had all been righteous, their dynasty would not have continued forever (Kessef Mishneh). Ra’avad disagrees and maintains that had Jeroboam and his descendants remained righteous, their dynasty would have continued forever, alongside David’s, but in a secondary status as stated above.

Even HaEzel explains the difference between the kings of Israel and those of the Davidic dynasty as follows: When a king from the kingdom of Israel dies, there is no mitzvah to appoint a king, even though there is a capable and fitting descendant from the previous dynasty. In contrast, when there is no king from the Davidic dynasty, there is a mitzvah to appoint one of his descendants if he can fill the position.

This refers to the anointing oil prepared by Moses mentioned in Halachah 7.

A fragrant oil produced by mixing olive oil and spices. Alternatively, the Aruch HaShulchan describes it as “a resin which exudes from the balsam trees.”

Although other kings may legitimately rule according to halachah, as explained in Halachah 8, they may not establish their rule in Jerusalem.
This halachah raises questions about the status of the Hasmonean kings who were priests with no connection to the Davidic line. Nevertheless, they ruled in Jerusalem. See commentary to Halachah 8.

The use of anointing oil for any person except for a High Priest, a priest appointed to lead a military campaign, or a king of the Davidic dynasty, is a violation of one of the Torah’s 365 prohibitions. See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:5-7.
The last kings of the Davidic dynasty also were not anointed with this unique oil. The anointing oil prepared by Moses was hidden away by King Josiah along with the Holy Ark. No other anointing oil was ever prepared. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:1.

Horiot 12a explains that the king was anointed there as a sign that his dynasty should be perpetuated, just as a stream continues in a never-ending flow. This symbolism is only appropriate for kings of the Davidic dynasty, whose dynasty will continue forever. In contrast, the dynasties of the kings of Israel will eventually be interrupted[see Halachah 9 (Kessef Mishneh)].
Accordingly, King David ordered that Solomon be anointed at the Gichon Stream (1 Kings 1:33).

The Kessef Mishneh explains that David and Saul were anointed even though there was no controversy over their rule because they were the first of their lines. In contrast, the kings of Israel are to be anointed only if there is a controversy over their assumption of the monarchy. If there is no controversy, they are not to be anointed, even though their rule initiates a new dynasty.

Many commentaries render milchamah as war. Lechem Mishneh interprets it as “murmuring of the people,” a conflict of a lesser intensity than “dispute.”

The Rambam writes in Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:11: “If there was a debate [concerning whom to appoint king], he is to be anointed: a) to remove [all] disagreement; and b) to make known that he alone is the king.’
Hilchot Klei HaMikdash describes the preparation of this special oil and its use in anointing the kings of the Davidic dynasty. Accordingly, it adds “to make known that he alone is king,” which can only apply in regard to kings of the Davidic dynasty, for only they possess the essential quality of monarchy as explained above. In contrast, this phrase is omitted in Hilchot Melachim for that section also deals with laws of the kings of Israel.

I Kings, Chapter 1, describes Adoniyahu’s abortive attempt to declare himself as David’s successor.
Horiot 12a associates Solomon’s anointing with that of David, his father: “David and Solomon, who were anointed with a horn of oil, merited having their dynasty endure.”
The kings of the Davidic dynasty must descend from Solomon as well as David. Thus, Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 362) states “There may be no king over any believer in the Torah of Moses, our teacher except from the descendants of David and Solomon.”
Solomon’s anointing revealed “that he alone was king.” He possessed the essential quality of monarchy epitomized by David and he transferred this virtue to his children.

II Kings, Chapter 11, describes Atalyah's murder of the children of King Achazyahu, her assumption of the throne, and the revolt which established Joash as king.

Jehoach’az was younger than Jehoyakim. Nevertheless, he was given the throne, because he was more capable than his brother, and better suited to serve in his father’s position.