Scaring them, or Creating a Sense of Awe?

There was a dispute and derasha which took a strange turn for me, and I wonder whether it’s real. In Sanhedrin 20b:

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּפָרָשַׁת מֶלֶךְ – מֶלֶךְ מוּתָּר בּוֹ. רַב אָמַר: לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֶלָּא לְאַיֵּים עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ.

With regard to the king’s rights, the Sages engaged in a dispute: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Concerning all the actions that are stated in the biblical passage about the king (see I Samuel 8:11–17), it is permitted for a king to perform them. Rav says: This biblical passage was stated only in order to threaten the Jewish people, so that they would accept the king’s sovereignty with reverence, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning, it is necessary that his fear should be upon you. But the king is not actually permitted to perform the actions stated there.

Rav Yehuda cites a dispute between his two teachers. According the Shmuel, the rules for a king are all real, even though they seem severe. According to Rav, they aren’t real, but — as related by the Talmudic text that appears above — it was to imbue a sense of reverence and sovereignty among the people.

If it were up to me to argue with Shmuel the Amora, I would say that they were made up in order to dissuade the people from choosing a king, to scare them off from this choice, rather than having awe of the king they are about to have.

Indeed, if the pasuk were not there, and the derasha were not there, that stated שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ, and it just ended לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֶלָּא לְאַיֵּים, that is exactly how I would have interpreted Rav’s statement.

Why? Given the context, the people asked for a king, but Shmuel the prophet did not think it was a good idea.

וַיֵּ֤רַע הַדָּבָר֙ בְּעֵינֵ֣י שְׁמוּאֵ֔ל כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר אָֽמְר֔וּ תְּנָה־לָּ֥נוּ מֶ֖לֶךְ לְשׇׁפְטֵ֑נוּ וַיִּתְפַּלֵּ֥ל שְׁמוּאֵ֖ל אֶל־יְהֹוָֽה׃ {פ}

Samuel was displeased that they said “Give us a king to govern us.” Samuel prayed to the LORD,

and Hashem tells him:

וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־שְׁמוּאֵ֔ל שְׁמַע֙ בְּק֣וֹל הָעָ֔ם לְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־יֹאמְר֖וּ אֵלֶ֑יךָ כִּ֣י לֹ֤א אֹֽתְךָ֙ מָאָ֔סוּ כִּי־אֹתִ֥י מָאֲס֖וּ מִמְּלֹ֥ךְ עֲלֵיהֶֽם׃

and the LORD replied to Samuel, “Heed the demand of the people in everything they say to you. For it is not you that they have rejected; it is Me they have rejected as their king.

כְּכׇֽל־הַמַּעֲשִׂ֣ים אֲשֶׁר־עָשׂ֗וּ מִיּוֹם֩ הַעֲלֹתִ֨י אוֹתָ֤ם מִמִּצְרַ֙יִם֙ וְעַד־הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה וַיַּ֣עַזְבֻ֔נִי וַיַּעַבְד֖וּ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֑ים כֵּ֛ן הֵ֥מָּה עֹשִׂ֖ים גַּם־לָֽךְ׃

Like everything else they have done ever since I brought them out of Egypt to this day—forsaking Me and worshiping other gods—so they are doing to you.

וְעַתָּ֖ה שְׁמַ֣ע בְּקוֹלָ֑ם אַ֗ךְ כִּֽי־הָעֵ֤ד תָּעִיד֙ בָּהֶ֔ם וְהִגַּדְתָּ֣ לָהֶ֔ם מִשְׁפַּ֣ט הַמֶּ֔לֶךְ אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִמְלֹ֖ךְ עֲלֵיהֶֽם׃ {ס}

Heed their demand; but warn them solemnly, and tell them about the practices of any king who will rule over them.”

So the real dispute between Rav and Shmuel is what God is instructing in הָעֵ֤ד תָּעִיד֙ בָּהֶ֔ם. Is this a warning of the real halachot, which heretofore had not appeared in the Torah from Moshe? Or was it a bluff? Look at the character of these practices for the kings:

For instance,

וְאֶת־בְּנוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם יִקָּ֑ח לְרַקָּח֥וֹת וּלְטַבָּח֖וֹת וּלְאֹפֽוֹת׃

He will take your daughters as perfumers, cooks, and bakers.

וְאֶת־שְׂ֠דֽוֹתֵיכֶ֠ם וְאֶת־כַּרְמֵיכֶ֧ם וְזֵיתֵיכֶ֛ם הַטּוֹבִ֖ים יִקָּ֑ח וְנָתַ֖ן לַעֲבָדָֽיו׃

He will seize your choice fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his courtiers.

…

וּזְעַקְתֶּם֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא מִלִּפְנֵ֣י מַלְכְּכֶ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֥ר בְּחַרְתֶּ֖ם לָכֶ֑ם וְלֹא־יַעֲנֶ֧ה יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם בַּיּ֥וֹם הַהֽוּא׃

The day will come when you cry out because of the king whom you yourselves have chosen; and the LORD will not answer you on that day.

Despite this, the people clamored for a king, in pasuk 19:

וַיְמָאֲנ֣וּ הָעָ֔ם לִשְׁמֹ֖עַ בְּק֣וֹל שְׁמוּאֵ֑ל וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ לֹּ֔א כִּ֥י אִם־מֶ֖לֶךְ יִֽהְיֶ֥ה עָלֵֽינוּ׃

But the people would not listen to Samuel’s warning. “No,” they said. “We must have a king over us,

On a peshat level, the purpose was to scare them off. In this pasuk 19, they should have instead been scared off and said “we’ve rethought this brilliant idea, and forget about having a king.”

If Rav were to argue with Shmuel and say these laws are not real, but that this is what a king will illegitimately do, why not point to the obvious peshat-based reason? Why say that the purpose was to put into them awe of the king they weren’t supposed to really be having?

So it is the derasha which reframes what אַיֵּים עֲלֵיהֶם means.

In fact, if we look at manuscripts, we don’t see this derasha appended. So, the printings do have it:

But these manuscripts end at approximately אַיֵּים עֲלֵיהֶם:

Indeed, Yad HaRav Herzog has אלא כדי ליראם ולבהלם, which certainly conveys more of a sense of scaring them off, rather than imposing awe for a king.

Now, the gemara does continue with an aligned brayta:

כְּתַנָּאֵי, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּפָרָשַׁת מֶלֶךְ – מֶלֶךְ מוּתָּר בּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשָׁה זוֹ אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְאַיֵּים עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ.

The Gemara comments that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Concerning all the actions that are stated in the biblical passage about the king, it is permitted for a king to perform them. Rabbi Yehuda says: This biblical passage was stated only in order to threaten the Jewish people, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning, it is necessary that his fear should be upon you.

Once again, we have אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְאַיֵּים עֲלֵיהֶם, followed by a derasha that certainly casts it as awe.

However, once again, it is primarily the printings that have the derasha.

In terms of manuscripts, Florence 8-9 has it:

But in Yad HaRav Herzog manuscript, this is divided differently, with Rabbi Yehuda saying it was to scare them off (like the position attributed to Rav above), and Rabbi Nechemia saying it was to impose awe:

The Reuchlin manuscript only has the scaring off portion for Rabbi Yehuda, and nothing from Rabbi Nechemiah, not a derasha. But towards the bottom has Rabbi Nechemia at the bottom, together with the derasha.

And Munich does have it, but as a marginal insertion.

Meanwhile, I think that the transformative derasha is a haavara, a transferred snippet of text. Yes, there is indeed a derasha involving awe and the king. As we see in Kiddushin 32,

אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר, אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: נָשִׂיא שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, מֶלֶךְ שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – אֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ.

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Ashi said: Even according to the one who says that if a Nasi forgoes the honor due him, his honor is forgone, if a king forgoes the honor due him, his honor is not forgone. As it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), which indicates that his fear should be upon you. The people are commanded to fear a king, and therefore it is not permitted for him to forgo the honor due to him.

and indeed, Rav Ashi’s (revised¹) derasha was in the scribe’s mind already, from being repeated on the previous daf, Sanhedrin 19b, in this case actually attacking Rabbi Yehuda:

לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא חוֹלְצִין וְכוּ׳. אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר נָשִׂיא שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, מֶלֶךְ שֶׁמָּחַל עַל כְּבוֹדוֹ – אֵין כְּבוֹדוֹ מָחוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״, שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ! מִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי.

The mishna teaches that the king does not perform ḥalitza with his brother’s widow and his brother does not perform ḥalitza with his wife, and Rabbi Yehuda says that he may do so if he wishes. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Ashi say: Even according to the one who says that with regard to a Nasi who relinquished the honor due him, his honor is relinquished, nevertheless, with regard to a king who relinquished the honor due him, his honor is not relinquished, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning that his fear should be upon you. The preservation of a king’s honor is mandated by the Torah. How could Rabbi Yehuda allow him to waive it? The Gemara answers: A mitzva is different; a king is not disgraced if he relinquishes his honor to perform a mitzva.

Or else from the Mishnah in tomorrow’s daf, Sanhedrin 22a:

מַתְנִי׳ אֵין רוֹכְבִין עַל סוּסוֹ, וְאֵין יוֹשְׁבִין עַל כִּסְאוֹ, וְאֵין מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּשַׁרְבִיטוֹ, וְאֵין רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא מִסְתַּפֵּר, וְלֹא כְּשֶׁהוּא עָרוֹם, וְלֹא כְּשֶׁהוּא בְּבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״, שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ.

MISHNA: One may not ride on the king’s horse, and one may not sit on his throne, and one may not use his scepter, and one may not see him when he is having his hair cut, nor when he is naked, nor when he is in the bathhouse, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning, ensure that his fear should be upon you. All of these actions would lessen one’s fear of and reverence for the king.

So here, some scribe saw לְאַיֵּים in the context of a king, and so brought the pasuk indicating there should be eima. But, that was never what Rav intended.

1. by which I mean that it’s possible that Rav Ashi didn’t say this statement or derasha either, and the actual derasha is found for a different purpose, in tomorrow’s Mishnah on 22a. Bli neder, more on this in another post summarizing my earlier article on the topic.