Parashat Shoftim
Appointing a King "Over Me"
In Parashat Shoftim the Torah foresees the time after Benei Yisrael settle the Land of Israel when they will want to appoint a king. The Torah writes, "You shall indeed appoint a king over yourself, whom Hashem your God shall choose…" (17:15).
In light of this verse, it becomes very difficult to understand the reaction of the prophet Shemuel when Benei Yisrael in fact request that he appoint for them a king. As we read in Sefer Shemuel I (chapter 8), the people approach Shemuel with their request and he chides them, seeing in their request an attempt to shake themselves free of God's kingship in favor of the rule of a human king. Why does Shemuel react this way to their request, if the Torah explicitly sanctions the appointment of a king?
The Keli Yakar (Torah commentary by Rabbi Shlomo Efrayim of Luntchitz, Poland-Bohemia, 1550-1619) explained that the people's request during the time of Shemuel differed from the request that Moshe foresees here in Parashat Shoftim. Moshe foresees the people saying, "I shall appoint a king over me" (17:14), whereas in Shemuel's time the people demanded, "Appoint for us a king" (Shemuel I 8:5). In Moshe's description, the people ask that a king be appointed "over them," to rule, lead, guide and govern. They seek somebody to whose authority they would submit, and whose instructions they would follow. But when the people approached Shemuel, they asked, "Appoint for us a king"; they wanted a king "for themselves," somebody whom they could control, a king who would serve them, rather than whom they would serve. Shemuel was a tough leader. He led the people with firm authority, and the people had no power or control over him. They therefore asked for a different kind of leadership, an authority figure without real authority, whom they could manipulate and control.
This is why Shemuel so strongly condemned their request. He understood that they sought not a leader, but a follower. A king of this nature would exert no authority over the people, and they would be free to act as they please and dictate their own rules.
Unfortunately, a similar situation exists in many communities today, who look for a Rabbi whom they can lead, rather than somebody to lead them. They want the Rabbi to serve them, to say only what they want to hear, and not to speak out against their misconduct. These communities don’t want a leader; they want somebody whom they can lead.
This is the precise opposite of the job of a Rabbi. The Rabbi's responsibility is to guide, lead and teach, to tell his congregation when he observes improper conduct and to urge them to change. Congregations must appoint a Rabbi "over them," and afford him the authority he needs to lead them.
The Talmud comments that the generation before the final redemption will resemble a dog. Some have explained that when a person walks his dog, the dog actually walks in front of the owner, giving the appearance as though the dog leads him. It is only when they reach an intersection, and the owner pulls the dog in the direction he wishes to walk, that it becomes clear that it is the owner who leads. In the generation of insolence that will precede the final redemption, Rabbis will only give the appearance of leadership. But when a community reaches an intersection, when an issue of grave importance arises, it will become clear that the congregants are the ones who hold the leash and lead the Rabbi. The committee will tell the Rabbi which position to take, which direction to follow, rather than following his guidance and instruction.
This is not how it should be. Communities do not need Rabbis just to agree with them all the time, to always tell them that they are correct. To the contrary, Rabbis must have the courage to speak out when necessary, and to lead and guide his community along the proper path of Torah and Mitzvot.
