And if all the community of Israel should err, and the thing be hidden from the eyes of the assembly, and they do one of all YHWH’s commands that should not be done, and they bear guilt... Rabbi Benamozegh, citing the wisdom of Ḥazal, states that “all the community” (כל עדת) refers to the Sanhedrin, the supreme council and tribunal of elders and officers leading the nation of Israel. He argues against later commentators who disagreed with this interpretation, presenting two main reasons to substantiate his view. Firstly, Rabbi Benamozegh emphasises the representative role of the elders and officers. Just as an emissary embodies the one who sent him, so do these leaders represent the entire populace of Israel. Therefore, when they are involved in a matter, it is as if the entire nation is involved, warranting the term “all the community”. Secondly, he draws attention to Scriptural nuances that distinguish “all the community” from “Israel”. For example, in Bemidbar 25:6, it is stated that both “Israel” and “all the community” are present, indicating they are not the same entity. Further, in Bemidbar 35:24, the term “all the community” is used exclusively for the Sanhedrin in the context of judgement. This distinction is reiterated in the story of Pineḥas, where “all the community” cannot mean the entire assembly of Israel but rather the elders, given the spatial and situational context. In a similar way, Rabbi Benamozegh points to the term עם meaning ‘people’, which can also stand as a synecdoche (a rhetorical device where a part is used to represent the whole or the whole for a part) for the chiefs of the people. He evidences this from the statement attributed to the עם in Yitro, but which in Va’etḥanan is attributed to the heads of the people.

When a prince offends and does one of all the commands of YHWH his God that should not be done, in error, and he bears guilt... Rabbi Benamozegh begins by identifying the “prince” or “chieftain” (נשיא) mentioned in the verse as ‘the king’, drawing on the interpretations of the 18th century German Hebraist, Rabbi Naftali Wessely. Delving into historical context, Rabbi Benamozegh explains that in many nations, including among the Israelites before the establishment of the Davidic monarchy, the king was essentially the foremost among princes and judges. This perspective views the king not as a distinct entity but as an elevated prince (נשיא). He supports this by noting that even after the cessation of the traditional kingdom in Israel, the role of the ‘nasi’ persisted, guiding the assembly’s head. This historical continuity underscores the enduring importance of the ‘nasi’ in Jewish leadership. He supports this with an example from the kingdom of Aragon, where the king’s authority was contingent on his adherence to established norms and expectations, as recorded by the 18th century French philosopher Nicolas Antoine Boulanger. This example further illustrates the shared authority and mutual obligations between a king and his subjects in historical governance systems. Rabbi Benamozegh then addresses a misunderstanding about the phrase מלך רבי (‘a certain rabbi ruled’), which appears in the Talmud such as in Ta’anit 21a. He clarifies that it signifies a rabbi’s appointment as a ‘nasi’, which fits his description of the role of king. Thus, utilising this phrase was not an act of arrogance or false pride. He counters the notion that such titles were used boastfully, grounding his argument in historical and cultural comparisons. For instance, he cites a work by 18th century Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico, which details how early French monarchs were essentially ‘first among peers’. This comparison is used to illustrate how kings from the house of David functioned similarly - as the head of the Sanhedrin, with judicial responsibilities as the first among equals on that judicial body. Further elaborating on the judicial role of kings, Rabbi Benamozegh references Scriptural mandates for justice and judgement, highlighting the unique position of Davidic kings in both judging and being judged. This dual role is seen as a continuation of the function of ‘nasi’, maintaining leadership over the Sanhedrin as long as they existed among the Israelites.