Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Or commission others to write for him.

Deuteronomy 31:19 states: “Now, write for yourselves this song.” Based on this verse, Sanhedrin 21 b states that it is a mitzvah for every Jew to write a Torah scroll or have one written for him. (See also Hilchot Sefer Torah 7:1).
In addition to fulfilling the above command, the king is obligated to write a second Torah which will accompany him at all times. Writing this scroll is considered one of the Torah’s 613 Mitzvot (Sefer HaMitvot, Positive Commandment 18, Sefer HaChinuch , mitzvah 503).

The obligation of the king to possess two Torah scrolls is accepted by all authorities. However, the wording used by the Rambam arouses certain questions:
Sanhedrin 21b which appears to be the source for this halachah states: “Even though a person’s ancestors left him a Torah scroll, he is obligated to write one himself.” Accordingly, it appears that it would be improper for a king to rely on the scroll left him by his ancestors. Rather, he should write two scrolls himself.
The Kessef Mishneh resolves this difficulty by explaining that a private individual may not rely on a Torah scroll written by his ancestors. He must perform the mitzvah of writing a Torah scroll himself or commission one to be written. This experience will develop a stronger connection between him and the Torah. Similarly, the king must personally write a Torah scroll. However, if the king does possess an inherited scroll, there is no need for him to write two Torah scrolls. He may rely on the scroll left him by his ancestors to use as his second scroll.

Sanhedrin 21b states that he should “wear it on his arm as an amulet, as it is written (Psalms 16:8): ‘I have set God before me at all times. Since He is at my right hand, I will not be moved.’ “

Deuteronomy 17:19, which is the source for this mitzvah, states: “It should accompany him and he should read it....” Accordingly, the king’s scroll need not accompany him wherever it is unseemly to study Torah (Sanhedrin, loc. cit.).

This scroll is reserved for the king’s personal use. None of his subjects may study from it (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 4:4).
In Hilchot Sefer Torah 7:3, the Rambam writes: “The second [scroll] should accompany him at all times. It should not move from his presence except at night or when he enters the baths....”
The commentaries question why the Rambam excludes the night. They support their objections by quoting the Sifri, Shoftim, which specifically requires the king to take his Torah scroll with him at night. Similarly, from the Rambam’s statements in Halachah 5 of this chapter, it would appear that the king should keep the Torah scroll with him at night as well.
Based on these questions, Or Sameach suggests changing the text in Hilchot Sefer Torah to read “even at night except when....”

This prohibition is counted as one of the 365 mitzvot of the Torah (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 364, Sefer HaChinuch 501). The Rambam discusses the ethical ramifications of this mitzvah in Halachah 6.

See Sanhedrin 21a for an explanation how this figure is derived.

In Chapter 4, Halachah 4, the Rambam defines a concubine as a woman singled out by the king to be his without kiddushin or a ketubah. He adds that the privilege of taking a concubine is only given a king and not a commoner.
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling here, maintaining that the king is limited only regarding the number of his wives. He may take as many concubines as he desires. (From Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., it might be argued that the Rambam originally accepted the Ra’avad’s opinion, and when he wrote the Mishneh Torah, he revised his original decision:)
Narratives from the Bible are used to support both opinions. II Chronicles 10:21 relates how Rechavam, Solomon’s son and heir, took eighteen wives and 60 concubines, seeming to support the Ra’avad’s opinion. However, proponents of the Rambam’s opinion note that II Chronicles also states 12:14: “He (Rechavam) did evil for he did not set his heart on seeking God.” Hence, his behavior cannot necessarily be accepted as a paradigm from which we may derive Torah law.
Support for the Rambam’s opinion is brought from the narrative of David and Avishag (1 Kings, Chapter 1). Though she served David as a personal attendant, “lying in his embrace,” David “shared no intimacy with her.” Sanhedrin 22a explains that David did not marry her because he already had eighteen wives and did not want to divorce any of them in her favor.
According to the Ra’avad’s opinion, there would have been no necessity for David to exercise self-control. He could have taken her as a concubine without divorcing any of his wives. Nevertheless, proponents of the Ra’avad’s opinion maintain that Avishag refused to accept that less dignified status and David respected her wishes.
Additional support for the Rambam’s opinion can be derived from the verse (Deuteronomy 17:17): “He must not amass many wives lest they make his heart go astray,” which is the source for this prohibition. Both wives and concubines can cause a man’s heart to go astray.

The Kessef Mishneh questions why the king only incurs a penalty if he has relations with the additional wife. It would appear that he violates this prohibition as soon as he consecrates her.
In reply, the Lechem Mishneh explains that we must consider the reason for the prohibition: “Lest they make his heart go astray.” It is the aspect of sexual relations that may cause his heart to go astray. The Lechem Mishneh also cites a number of examples, the prohibition against a priest marrying a divorcee, or a high priest marrying a widow (see Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 17:4), where punishment is only incurred if the couple engage in sexual relations.

As mentioned above, Sanhedrin 22a notes that David could have divorced one of his wives to marry Avishag. He, nevertheless, refused to do so, because of the severity of divorce.

This prohibition, quoted from Deuteronomy 17:16, is one of the Torah’s 365 negative commands (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 363, Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 499).

The king is allowed to possess as many horses as necessary for military purposes. There is no prohibition involved, even if they are only necessary to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 2:5)
In the above-mentioned text and in Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam writes that the king is allowed only one horse as his own personal steed. Hence, we have translated merkavto as “cavalry.” However, that term may also be rendered as “chariot” According to that interpretation, the Rambam revised his decision, granting the king permission to have as many horses as necessary for his personal chariot.

This prohibition, quoted from Deuteronomy 17:17, is considered one of the 365 prohibitions of the Torah (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 365, Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 502).

As the Rambam concludes, the prohibition consists not in the collection of taxes, but rather, in their use for creating his own personal fortune.

Pride and glory often result from the accumulation of wealth as it is written (Deuteronomy 8:13-14): “You may amass much silver and gold..., but your heart may then grow haughty.”

I Chronicles 29:4 relates how King David amassed a vast amount of gold and silver to be used in the building of the Temple. Similarly, in later generations, the Temple treasury contained the wealth of the nation. Accordingly, it often became the target of enemy attacks.

Commenting on Sanhedrin, loc. cit., Rabbenu Nissim writes that a king is forbidden to amass personal wealth from taxation. However, he is allowed to accumulate a fortune from money taken as spoils of war. However, this opinion is not accepted by the Minchat Chinuch. See also the notes to Chapter 4, Halachah 9.

There is no blanket prohibition against a king’s drinking wine. Indeed, Chullin 4b relates that it was customary for the kings of Judah to drink wine with their meals. It is intoxication that is forbidden.

That verse continues: “Nor for princes to say: ‘Where is strong drink?’ Lest he drink... and pervert the judgement of any of the afflicted.” Sanhedrin 70b interprets this verse as follows: “Is it proper for one to whom all the secrets of the world are revealed to drink wine and become intoxicated? Is it proper for one to whose door all the princes of the world gather to drink wine and become intoxicated?”

The king must divide his time between Torah study and caring for the welfare of the people.
The king’s behavior should serve as an example to the entire nation. In that vein, the Tosefta, Sanhedrin 4:5 comments: “If a king of Israel, whose only involvement is for the welfare of the nation, is commanded: ‘He should read it all the days of his [life];’ how much more so does this apply to a common man!”
Note the commentary to Halachah 1, concerning the king’s Torah study at night. See also the following halachah which explains the reason for the emphasis on the constancy of the king’s Torah study.

This is a euphemism for sexual relations. The Rambam uses a similar expression in Hilchot De’ot 5:4: “Even though a person’s wife is permitted to him at all times, it is fit for a Torah scholar to practice holiness and not be with his wife ‘as a rooster’ [i.e. over-frequently].”

Hilchot De’ot 4:19 states:
Semen is the body’s power, its life energy, and brightness of its eyes. If an excessive amount is released, the body and its strength will become depleted.... This is what Solomon implied in his wisdom [in the verse,] “Do not give your strength to women.” Age will overcome a person who over-indulges in sexual relations and his vigor will be reduced.

Sanhedrin 21a states: A king may not marry even one wife if she will cause his heart to stray. If so, why did the Torah prohibit him from “amassing many wives?” Once he possesses the maximum number of wives, he is forbidden to marry any woman no matter how righteous she is.

Though the heart is one of the smallest organs of the body, it provides for the body’s entire energy and life-force. Similarly, the king generates and controls the tone of the vitality of the entire nation. In this vein, Bamidbar Rabbah 19:28 states: “The leader of the generation [represents] the entire generation.”

Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:5.

Sanhedrin 19a derives this concept as follows: Jeremiah 21:12 declares: “House of David... execute judgment in the morning” implying that the kings of the Davidic dynasty should serve as judges. Accordingly, we must assume that they could also be judged, for our Sages taught: “Correct yourself and afterwards, correct others.” Were the kings themselves not subject to the scrutiny of a court of law, they would have no right to judge others.

Sanhedrin, loc. cit., states: Why was this law enacted? Because of an incident which once occurred. The servant of Yannai, one of the later Hasmonean kings, slew another person. The Sages summoned Yannai to be present at his trial. The king complied with their request and came to the court. However, he seated himself.
Shimon ben Shetach, the presiding judge, ordered Yannai to stand, telling him: “Don’t think of yourself as standing before us, but rather see yourself as standing before God.”
Yannai answered him: “What do your colleagues say? I will follow their directions and not yours.”
He turned to the other judges to see their reaction. They all lowered their heads. When Shimon ben Shetach saw this, he declared: “You people are concerned with your thoughts. May the Master of thought repay you.” All of them died immediately. At that moment, the Sages declared: “A king does not judge, nor is he judged.”
There is a slight difficulty with this halachah. On the surface, the expression, “the kings of Israel” refers to the kings of the ten tribes. They lived centuries before Yannai. If the decree was only enacted at Yannai’s time, how could it affect those kings? Furthermore, on the surface, what difference does the dynasty of the king make? What is important is whether he is righteous or not.
Accordingly, the Kessef Mishneh explains that the Talmud’s words must be interpreted as follows: The kings of Israel were not automatically disqualified from judging. However, whenever an incident similar to Yannai’s occurred concerning a king of Israel, the Sages had the right to disqualify him. In contrast, since the above-mentioned verse from Jeremiah specifically associated the House of David with judgment, even in the event of a tragedy, they were not disqualified.
The Lechem Mishneh does not accept this view. He maintains that the Sages also had the power to disqualify kings of the House of David from judging. However, they never found cause to do so. In contrast, the kings of Israel were frequently unheeding of Torah law and hence, they were disqualified from being involved in judgment, lest a tragedy occur.

There is a question whether kings of the Davidic dynasty may testify or not. Sh’vuot 31 b disqualifies a king from giving testimony. Commenting on that passage, Rashi explains that forcing the king to stand before the judges would diminish his honor. Since, as mentioned above Chapter 2, Halachah 3, a king is not allowed to yield on matters of honor, he is not be allowed to serve as a. witness.
Nevertheless, the Rambam does not mention the king when discussing the individuals who are not required to testify, although he does mention the High Priest (Hilchot Edut 1:3). Note also the Kessef Mishneh’s commentary.

In Hilchot Sanhedrin, loc. cit., the Rambam states: “This is because they do not humble themselves before the words of Torah.”

As occurred in the incident with Yannai, the king, described above.

Allegorically, this law can be explained as follows: As stated above, the king is the “heart” of the entire Jewish people. A limb will die if separated from the life-flow emanating from the heart. Similarly, a subject is obligated to die if he is separated from his “heart,” the king.

Tosafot, Kiddushin 43a, explains that King David had the right to order the death of Uriah, the Hittite, for this reason. David ordered Uriah “go down to your house” (II Samuel 11:8). However, Uriah refused, explaining “The servants of my lord are encamped in the open fields. Shall I then go into my own house?”
Though his sentiments were noble, his refusal to obey David constituted rebellion against the king.

As will be explained, Shim’i ben Gera cursed King David when he fled from his son, Avshalom. Nevertheless, since he was the first to greet David after his forces were victorious, the king granted him a temporary pardon. However, before his death, he warned his son Solomon against allowing Shim’i to reach old age. Solomon ordered Shim’i to build a house in Jerusalem and remain there forever. He warned him (1 Kings 2:37): “On the day that you leave,... you will die.” For three years, Shim’i heeded Solomon’s command. Then, because of his own personal concerns-, he left Jerusalem for one day. When he returned, Solomon ordered that he be executed as one who rebelled against the king.

From the Rambam’s wording, it appears the matter is optional. The king is not obligated to execute the offender. Similarly, Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 173) appears to leave the matter to the king’s choice. Nevertheless, other authorities (Chatam Sofer, Even HaEzer, Responsum 151) question the matter.
On the surface, support for the Rambam’s opinion may be brought from David’s pardon of Shim’i as described above. On the other hand, that narrative cannot serve as conclusive evidence, for David counseled Solomon to put Shim’i to death.

The Chatam Sofer, (Orach Chayim, Responsum 208) questions how a matter of this serious nature can be derived from a book of the prophets. A prophet cannot create a mitzvah which is not mentioned in the Torah itself. However, other commentaries explain that the authority of the king to execute rebels is an extension of the mitzvah to appoint a king and to revere him. Accordingly, the charge to Joshua did not represent the creation of a new command, but rather, an extrapolation of an existing one.

II Samuel (16:5-9) relates that when David was fleeing his son Avshalom, he came to Bachurim. “Shim’i ben Gera came out, cursing as he came. He cast stones at David... cursing as follows: ‘...You bloody and base man. God has returned upon you the blood of Saul...’”
Avishai ben Tzeruya said to the king: “Why should this dead dog curse the king? Let me go over and take off his head.” Although David did not have him executed then, he was executed later as mentioned above.

As I Kings 12:11 relates, King Rechavam told the people: “My father (King Solomon) chastised you with rods.” By contrast, offenders who are sentenced to lashing by a Jewish court are whipped with lashes.

Hilchot Gezeilah 5:13 states: “Should a king confiscate a courtyard or field from one of the people unjustly, as defined by the laws which he himself legislated, behold, he is a thief.”
A king’s unjust seizure of his subject’s property is a very serious matter. It was King Achav’s murder of Navot of Yizre’el and confiscation of his property which excited the rage of the prophet, Elijah (1 Kings, Chapter 21).

Sheva ben Bichri tried to organize a revolt against King David. David sent his general, Amassa, to gather troops to quash the revolt before it grew. “Amassa went to muster the men... but was later than the set time... assigned him” (11 Samuel 20:5).
Why did Amassa tarry? Sanhedrin 49a explains that he found the men studying Torah and did not interrupt them. He reasoned: The verse (Joshua 1:18) which permits the king to execute rebels concludes: “Only be strong and brave.” The word “only” always indicates an exclusion or limitation. In this context, it implies that if the king attempts to negate the words of Torah, his words need not be heeded. Though Yoav slew Amassa for violating the king’s command, our Sages explain that Amassa had acted correctly.

Kiddushin 42b uses the same rationale to explain why an agent charged with the commission of a sin cannot blame the one who charged him with this act and must bear the burden of its violation himself.

The king’s rule is intended to strengthen the observance of Torah and mitzvot, not to cause the opposite.

The Torah is very exact in its requirements for testimony for capital punishment. If two witnesses were both able to identify a murderer, but their testimonies were even slightly inconsistent, the defendant is acquitted (see Hilchot Edut 2:1).

To incur the death penalty a murderer must be warned that he may suffer capital punishment for his crime (see Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:1-2).

In contrast to the two witnesses required universally by Torah Law.

Hilchot Rotzeach 6:10 states: “An enemy who inadvertently kills [one of his foes] is not exiled [the punishment for manslaughter]..., we may be assured that his act was close to being willful.”

In all these cases, though a court could not execute the offenders, if the king desired, he is granted the privilege of executing them.
There are a number of instances in the Bible where kings executed offenders despite the fact that a court would not have convicted them according to Torah law. For example, David ordered the Amalekite slain for killing Saul (11 Samuel 1:15) and the sons of Rimon slain for murdering Ish-Boshet, though the only evidence against them was their own statements. According to Torah law, a person’s own statements cannot be used to incriminate him. Nevertheless, David executed these offenders by virtue of his regal power.

Punishing wrongdoers as he sees fit.

In contrast, a Torah court may not try two capital cases in one day (Hilchot Sanhedrin 14:10).

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 states: “When a man is... executed, you must hang him on the gallows. However, you must not allow his body to remain on the gallows overnight. Rather, you must bury it on the same day.” Hilchot Sanhedrin 15:7 relates that the hanging was only momentary. The body was hung up right before sunset and immediately taken down.
II Samuel 21:10 relates that David allowed the seven sons of Saul whom the Gibeonites hung, to remain on the gallows for several months. Yevamot 79a asks why the Torah’s command “you must not allow his body to remain on the gallows” was ignored. It explains that the intent was to sanctify God’s name. Nations would look up to the Jews when they saw the sons of kings receive such severe punishment for maltreating converts. Similarly, in all instances, should a king see the need to continue leave bodies hanging, he may do so.