[Par-reg] for Parshat Korach - Haftara

[Menachem Leibtag]

*************************************************************

        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]

            In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

      Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag

*************************************************************

 

            HAFTARA - PARSHAT KORACH

                  I Shmuel 11:14->12:22

 

      Is it good to have a king, or should the leader of Am Yisrael be
someone more 'spiritual', like a prophet or a wise-man?

      Anyone who has learned Sefer Shmuel would probably assume that a
king is bad, for Shmuel himself reacts very negatively to Bnei
Yisrael's request for a king.

    [See I Shmuel 8:1-7.] 

    Furthermore, if having a king is so important, we would have
expected Yehoshua set up a monarchy as soon as Bnei Yisrael crossed
into the land of Israel?

      On the other hand, if a king is bad, why does Sefer Devarim
permit (or possibly encourage) such an institution? 

[See Devarim 17:14-18, and Sanhedrin 20b, in regard to the dispute
whether appointing a King is "reshut" or "chova".]

 

      This week's Haftara - which describes the coronation of Shaul
ha'melech - can provide us with some insight on this multifaceted
topic as it describes how Shmuel may have the perfect opportunity to
abolish the kingdom (see 12:19), yet when all is said and done, he
actually encourages Bnei Yisrael to keep their king!

      In the following shiur, as we study this week's Haftara, we will
show how the answer to these questions lies in its concluding pasuk.

 

INTRODUCTION

      This week's Haftara (I Shmuel 11:14->12:22) opens as Shmuel
gathers the nation at Gilgal to establish Shaul as the accepted King
of Israel (see 11:14-15). Even though Shaul had already been appointed
King at an earlier gathering in Mitzpah (see 10:18-27), this
additional ceremony became necessary as the first ceremony lacked the
necessary enthusiasm and consensus of the people. 

[See 10:27, recall as well that Shaul was rather unknown at that
time.]  

 

    After Shaul's stunning victory in his battle to save the Gilad
area from Amonite aggression, Shmuel decides to gather the nation once
again to re-establish Shaul's monarchy - this time with complete
public approval.

      Shmuel utilizes this gathering to address the nation concerning
the spiritual dangers created by the appointment of a King. In his
address, Shmuel begins on a 'personal note', and then continues by
rebuking the nation in regard to the negative aspects of their request
for a king.

      As we review this address, we will note how it may contain
several positive aspects concerning the monarchy as well.

 

'SHOWING OFF'?

      In the first five psukim of his address (see 12:1-5), Shmuel
appears to be 'showing off' about how good (or least 'how straight) a
leader he has been:

"...Here is your King... As for me, I have become old...I have been
your leader from my youth to this day. Now answer me in the presence
of God and in the presence of his anointed one - Whose ox have I
taken... whom have I defrauded or whom have I robbed or from whom have
I taken a bribe?" (12:2-3)

 

      Is Shmuel simply taking this opportunity to 'show off' how great
a leader he was? Certainly one would not expect a "navi" to be so
vain!

      The answer is quite simple. If we read 12:3 a little more
carefully, we see that not only is Shmuel making this statement in
front of the nation, but also in front of God (i.e. the ARON) AND in
front of his 'anointed one' - which obviously refers to SHAUL, whose
monarchy is now being established. The purpose of Shmuel's statement
is simply to teach Shaul a lesson and to prepare him for 'public
office'. Shmuel wants to make sure that Shaul is publicly forewarned
that it is indeed possible (even though it is not easy) to remain a
public leader without becoming involved in corruption.

 

      Here, Shmuel is touching on one of the inherit problems of
appointing a king. Once so much power is invested into the hands of
one individual, it is almost inevitable that he will use this power
for his own personal gain. Shmuel's claim is that the king of Israel
must be different. Surely, he must be invested with supreme power to
enable him to run his kingdom, yet at the same time the leader must be
a fine example of honesty and integrity. Therefore, Shmuel brings an
example from himself. Even though he had been a national leader since
the time of his youth, he had never misused the powers entrusted in
him. Shmuel now publicly charges Shaul that he should follow this same
path in leadership.

[Note that here we find both positive and negative aspects of a
monarchy. By establishing a monarchy, an institution is created which
can easily lead to corruption. On the other hand, an opportunity is
created where leadership can set a shining example for the entire
nation.]

 

THE 'GREAT GRANDSON OF KORACH'

      After this short prelude, Shmuel enters the main section of his
address where he rebukes the people for requesting a King for the
wrong reason. However, note how refers to God in his opening
statement: "God who made Aharon & Moshe..." (see 12:6). 

      Why would Shmuel use this unique (and rather strange)
description of God, instead of the usual 'God of our forefathers', or
'God who took us out of Egypt' etc.?

      The answer may lie in the parallel between Shmuel's own life and
Parshat ha'Shavuah - Parshat Korach. Recall from this week's Parsha
shiur how Korach challenged both (1) the political leadership of MOSHE
and (2) the (exclusive) priesthood of AHARON and his children. From a
certain perspective, Shmuel (a great great grandson of Korach/ see I
Divrei Ha'yamim 6:3-13) follows in Korach's footsteps, for he too
challenges (& reforms) the corrupt priesthood of Eli's sons, and he
reforms as well the political institutions of leadership! [Note that
he is also a Levi who acts as a Kohen (offering korbanot).]

 

      The main difference however is that Shmuel makes these reforms
for the PROPER reason. He does not become involved for personal gain
(like Korach), but rather Shmuel is sincere in all of his endeavors.
Therefore, his reform is not only accepted, but also praiseworthy. 

[Note Rashi on Bamidbar 16:7 where he explains how Korach's foresight
of the greatness of his future grandson may have led him to rebel
'prematurely'.]

 

      After serving as both their spiritual and political leader for
so many years, Shmuel now hands over the mantle of national leadership
to Shaul, and opens his 'farewell address' by referring to Hashem as
"the God who made MOSHE & AHARON" - for they represent the ideal of
both spiritual and political leadership.

[Note also Tehilim 99:6 [from Kaballat Shabbat]: "Moshe v'Aharon
b'kohanav, u'SHMUEL b'korei shmo..." where again we see the parallel
between Shmuel and Moshe & Aharon. For a deeper insight, see the
conclusion of Seforno's introduction to Chumash (found at the
beginning of Sefer Breishit in the Torat Chayim edition) where he
quotes this pasuk in Shmuel (i.e. 12:6) to prove a very important
point concerning the nature of "nevuat Moshe"!]

 

    Let's return now to the Haftara itself.

 

 

A 'MINI' SEFER SHOFTIM

      Psukim 12:7-15 contain the thrust of Shmuel's rebuke of the
people. Read them carefully and note how they from a quick summary of
the main theme of Sefer Shoftim:

"And now stand upright - v'iy'SHAFTA - and I will JUDGE you in front
of God... Whenever you were left God, and he sold you to [your enemies
e.g.] Sisrah & Plishtim & Moav... And when you CRIED OUT to God and
confessed that you had sinned... then Hashem sent [saviours e.g.]
Yerubaal [=Gideon] & B'dan [=Shimshon?] & Yiftach... and SAVED YOU
from your enemies..." (see 12:7-11)

[Note how we have selectivey quoted in order to highlight the main
thematic and textual parallels to Sefer Shoftim. Be sure to compare
w/Shoftim 2:11-20!  Note also a possible deeper meaning of the word
SHOFET both here and there!]

 

      Recall, that it was Shmuel who wrote Sefer Shoftim, and most
likely for this very reason - to explain to the people that a king
alone will not solve all of their problems. If the underlying cause of
their problems - i.e. leaving God - was not eradicated; then they
would continue to suffer from their enemies, with a king or without.

      Now that the nation has chosen to be ruled by a king (instead of
a shofet), Shmuel fears that the people will not realize that they
must still remain dedicated to God for their salvation: 

"And NOW, when you saw that Nachash king of Amon was attacking, you
said to me NO [i.e. we DO NOT want to repent to deserve God's
salvation, INSTEAD:] we want a KING who will rule us [i.e. and he will
protect us & save us from our enemies], but [you are forgetting that]
HASHEM is your true king."

                                    (see 12:12)

 

      Shmuel is worried that once Bnei Yisrael appoint a king, they
will no longer cry for God's help (as they had done since the time of
Yetziat Mitzraim). From Shmuel's point of view, this is most dangerous
aspect of a monarchy, for the people will REPLACE their reliance on
God to a reliance on their King instead.  Therefore Shmuel warns the
people:

"Now, here is the king that you have chosen, God has agreed to give
you a king - BUT - only if you FEAR God and follow Him... but should
you NOT LISTEN to God and rebel against Him, then the Hand of God will
be against you..." (12:13-15)

 

A DIVINE SIGN

      Finally, Shmuel provides the people a 'divine' sign that God is
indeed quite angered by their request for a king:

"Behold see this great miracle that I will bring today - Is it not the
wheat harvest today?! [i.e. early summer (June)/ recall that from May
to September it does not rain in Israel)], but God will bring thunder
and rain [today] - a sign that you should realize how VERY BAD it is
what you have done in the eyes of God to ask for a king." (12:16-17)

 

      As the rain and thunder begin, the people are taken aback and
immediately ask Shmuel for forgiveness, recognizing their guilt in
asking for a king:

"And people said to Shmuel: 'Pray on behalf of your servants so that
we not die, for we have added to our sins by asking for a king." (see
12:19).

 

NO KING! NO KING! ...

      Considering this expressed 'regret', Shmuel should have taken
this opportunity to simply abolish the kingdom altogether.  After all,
was this not what Shmuel wanted to hear?  Was not he (and God) simply
'giving in' to the people because they were so insistent on having a
king?

      However, instead of this expected reaction, Shmuel does quite
the opposite.  He tells the people NOT to worry and to continue with
the coronation of their king! [See 12:20-25.]

 

      Apparently, even though the people's original request for a king
was made for the wrong reasons, there remains hope nonetheless that a
king may actually improve the 'state of the nation'. This may also
explain why God Himself had originally agreed to give them a king
(back in chapter 8) even though He was disappointed with that original
request (see 8:7).

      Note how Shmuel emphasizes this point in his response to the
people's fear. After explaining that they may keep their king on the
condition that they (i.e. the king AND the people) OBEY God (see
12:20-21), Shmuel concludes with an explanation of WHY God has agreed:

"KI - BECAUSE God will not abandon His people FOR THE SAKE OF HIS
GREAT NAME - for it is God's desire to make you HIS Nation" 

            (12:22  carefully!)

 

      Hidden in this short pasuk is the most important positive aspect
of having a king - for it is only through the establishment of a
monarchy that Am Yisrael can mature into a NATION! Surely, there are
dangers in appointing a king. But there are even greater dangers in
not appointing one; for without a monarchy, the result will be
anarchy.

 

BACK TO SEFER BREISHIT

      Recall from Sefer Breishit how God had hoped for the Nation of
Avraham to become His own special nation, living in Eretz Canaan,
serving as God's MODEL nation among the seventy nations of the world.
Unfortunately, up until this time period, this goal had not been
realized. Since the time of Yehoshua, Am Yisrael's history exhibited
many 'highs' and 'lows', but even at the best times - never did we
find Am Yisrael serving as God's model nation. During most of the time
period of the Shoftim, Am Yisrael was basically 'fighting for
survival'. 

    Both politically and economically, they never matured into a
full-fledged nation, nor had they enjoyed any type of positive
relationships with any of their neighboring countries.

[Note that not even once in Sefer Shoftim do we find a foreign power
entering into any sort of treaty with Am Yisrael. In contrast, once
David's monarchy is established he immediately enters into a treaty
with Chiram king of Tzor, while Shlomo widened his foreign diplomacy
to its fullest international potential.]  

 

      One could suggest that this may be the underlying reason why God
agreed at this time to appoint a king. He realized that without a
monarchy, i.e. a strong central government (with the right to
conscript soldiers and levy taxes/ see I Shmuel 8:11-17 ="mishpat
ha'melech"), Bnei Yisrael would never become the nation that He had
hoped for.  

    But since God's ultimate interest is for Am Yisrael to become His
model nation, sooner or later they must mature into a developed
political entity - 'like any other nation' ["k'chol ha'goyim"/see
Devarim 17:14 & Netziv in Emek Davar] - but with special laws that
will make them God's nation.

 

      Even though they presently ask for a king for the 'wrong
reason', God hopes to take advantage of the situation, in order to
catalyze a more ideal manner of national growth.

      As we shall see, it will be specifically the job of the NAVI to
make sure that the king truly leads the people in this direction. [See
12:23, see also I Shmuel 2:35!)

 

      Therefore, Shmuel agrees to a king, even though the people have
asked for the wrong reason, for their request has created an
unprecedented opportunity to finally steer Bnei Yisrael back in the
proper direction. It is not an easy job, but slowly and surely this
dream finally comes true (at least partially) during the time period
of David & Shlomo.

 

 

TODAY

      One cannot help but notice the parallel to the events in our own
generation (in connection to the establishment of the state of
Israel). 

    Certainly, the intentions of many of those who desired the
establishment of a sovereign Jewish state was not 'out of the fear of
God'. And certainly, the debate at that time concerning whether or not
it should be established was legitimate. However, now that Divine
Providence has allowed that state to come into existence, it may now
be our responsibility to do our best to help it develop properly - "ki
ho'il Hashem l'asot etchem lo l'Am" - "...for it is God's desire that
we become His nation, for the sake of His great Name" (12:22).

                              shabbat shalom,

                              menachem

 

==========================

FOR FURTHER IYUN

 

A. Based on the above shiur, why do you think that the Haftara ends
with pasuk 22 instead of finishing three psukim later at the end of
the perek (and the end of the 'parshia')?

 

B.  Even though the main section of Sefer Shoftim seems to make the
same point as Shmuel in chapters 8 & 12 that a kingdom would not be
good, clearly the conclusion of the Sefer and its closing four
chapters indicate quite the opposite -"ba'yamim ha'hem ein melech
b'Yisrael...". In fact, these chapters seem to blame Bnei Yisrael's
political and spiritual downfall on the fact that there is no king.
Iy"h, we will show in our series on Nviiim rishonim that Sefer Shoftim
presents a 'double message' regarding how to relate to the institution
of a "melech".

 

C. When we speak of "melech", there are two aspects:

1) a dynasty, the succession of power from father to son. 

2) a strong central gov't. with the right to levy taxes etc.

 

      Which of these two aspects would relate to modern day
democracies? Could this suggest the possibly that certain laws of a
"melech" may apply to a 'president' or 'prime-minister' of a democracy
as well?!

      See Rambam Hilchot Melachim I and Hilchot Terumot I:1-3.

 

D. A FITTING SIGN

      In conclusion, let's note how the Shmuel's sign of 'RAIN on a
summer harvest day' ["geshem b'yom katzir"] may reflect this very
concept. [based on a shiur by Rav Yoel bin Nun]

      Ask any farmer if rain is 'good' or 'bad', he'll immediately
tell you that most of the time rain is 'good', for without it, nothing
will grow. However, rain at the wrong time of the year, e.g. rain
during the wheat harvest - can be disastrous. 

      In a similar manner, the concept of a "malchut Yisrael" - a king
of Israel - in principle is a positive one, for through it Am Yisrael
can better develop into God's model nation. However, just as rain can
be damaging if it falls at the wrong time, so too a monarchy which is
established for the wrong reason. 

      In Shmuel's sign, he may be hinting to a similar concept. Bnei
Yisrael have asked for a king, which carried great potential, but for
the wrong reason, and hence at certain times it can be spiritually
damaging as well. 

                        

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: korachhaf.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 33050 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20060630/0e6bab2a/korachhaf-0001.pdf