“You shall not deviate from the word which they tell you, to the right or to the left.” Rashi explains that even if they tell you that right is left, etc. It seems that he derived this interpretation because the verse does not say “Do not deviate to the right or to the left from the word,” but rather it says right and left after which they tell you. This implies that even though in truth it is not right and left except for their telling you that it is right and left. Regarding the reason for this matter, the commentators have struggled and provided many different explanations, each distinct from the other.

According to the truth, I do not see any difficulty in this matter, as our Sages already said (Chagigah 3b): “Perhaps a person might say, ‘Since some declare something pure and others declare it impure, some prohibit and others permit, how can I learn Torah now?’ Scripture therefore states, They were given from one shepherd (Ecclesiastes 12:11), meaning that one God gave them all, etc.” But this is difficult — doesn’t the question return to its place, and ultimately how can one learn Torah? Rather, the explanation of the matter is that in every issue of impurity and purity, there are several aspects that suggest purity, and several aspects that suggest impurity. If the Torah declares something pure, it is because the considerations pointing toward purity are more numerous than those pointing toward impurity, and vice versa. The same applies to matters of what is permitted and prohibited, or valid and invalid. For this reason, our Sages said (Sanhedrin 17a) that we do not appoint someone to the Sanhedrin unless he knows how to prove a sheretz [creeping animal] pure from the Torah. The reason for this is that if sometimes there is a need for a temporary ruling against the Torah because of a time to act for the Lord, they have violated Your Torah (Psalms 119:126), then the sage or prophet can combine the concept of a time to act for the Lord with those minority opinions that were previously rejected due to the majority, and follow the minority — like Elijah’s ruling on Mount Carmel. But if the sage or prophet does not know any reasoning for the opposite view, then he would never declare something pure even as a temporary ruling. He is obligated to declare it pure by supporting the concept of a time to act for the Lord with the minority opinions that lean toward the opposite view, thus weakening the majority that opposes it. If the lower court rules that something is pure when it is impure according to the Torah, since there are also reasons to consider it pure, we combine the majority of the lower court who agreed to declare it pure with the minority of reasons that would independently suggest purity, and this weakens the majority that supports impurity. For God has given power even to the lower court to develop reasoning in both directions, and thus the considerations leaning toward purity increase. Therefore, our Sages appropriately said (Chagigah 3b): “Make your ear like a funnel and acquire a heart that can hear the words of those who declare pure and those who declare impure.” For in truth, every person needs all the reasoning, as one cannot be part of the Sanhedrin until one has mastery of all perspectives. For this reason, it is proper to accept from them even if they say that right is left, because of those reasons that also lean toward the left — and this is a very correct approach.

And if you wish to say that they said this regarding legal judgments, that a judge has only what his eyes see, as it is written, and with you in the matter of judgment (II Chronicles 19:6). And this refers to what was written above between judgment and judgment for everything depends on what the judge’s eyes see. Then the matter explains itself, because it is in his power to judge according to the assessment of his understanding, as it is written, Truth and judgment of peace, judge in your gates (Zechariah 8:16). And it says judge regarding all three, and in your gates is an expression of evaluation, because all three require intellectual evaluation and assessment according to the time, place, and matter. For sometimes it is necessary to alter the truth for the sake of peace and the like, and likewise peace is not good in itself in every place, for a gathering of wicked people is bad for them and bad for the world (Sanhedrin 71b). And so too judgment requires evaluation and assessment of one’s understanding in the way that has been explained.

You shall surely set a king over yourself, etc. Many people say, Who will show us a good thing? Here is a sufficient explanation for the great question that falls upon this commandment: If it was God’s will that a king should justly reign when they desire one, then why did the prophet Samuel, with God’s support, rebuke them when they asked for a king? This implies that it was something abhorrent in God’s eyes. Some say that the rebuke was because they said to judge us like all the nations, wanting to be judged according to the customs of the nations. Others say that this passage is not a commandment but rather an informative statement, where the Holy One, blessed be He, declares the end from the beginning, foretelling that Israel will request this in the future, and God permitted it to them. Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel elaborated on this debate.

I will briefly state my opinion, that the divine will was that a king should reign over them justly in order to impose his fear upon all of them, as our Sages said (Avot 3:2), “Pray for the welfare of the government, for if not for the fear it inspires, etc.” This was not for the purpose of administering justice, since there were established courts in every city, but rather for the purpose of unifying and establishing proper order in the provinces, and only in such a manner that the fear of the monarchy would be upon them, because this is what God desired. Similarly, He said to Joshua (Deuteronomy 31:23), For you shall bring this people, [implying] “take a staff and strike their heads.” Therefore it says, When you come to the land, etc., because after inheritance and settlement, Jeshurun will grow fat and kick, and each man will do what is right in his own eyes when there is no king in Israel. Then certainly the remnant whom God calls will say that it is time to act and request a king. And you will say, “I will set a king over me”, meaning that his fear should be upon me, as the expression over me implies that he will be superior to me and rule and dominate me with a strong hand, like all the nations around me, to act like the most properly governed among them who do not rebel against their kings and accept their authority upon themselves, as current events demonstrate. Regarding this it says, You shall surely set over yourself a king, because this request is appropriate when the king will be over you, meaning his fear will be upon you, as understood from the word over you.

But in the days of Samuel, they did not speak properly, for they said Give us a king (1 Samuel 8:6). They did not say “a king over us” but rather for us, because they did not want to accept authority that would instill fear “over us,” but rather wanted one that would be for us, handed over to us, so that we could establish kings and remove kings. The outcome of this would be that the king would be forced to flatter us. Therefore they said to judge us like all the nations (1 Samuel 8:5), because the main need for flattery is in judgments, similar to the custom in these countries where they appoint a rabbi for a specific time period so that they will not fear him; on the contrary, he fears them. Thus, he is compelled to flatter them so they will not dismiss him. And the thing displeased Samuel when they said Give us a king, because the main fault was in the words for us to judge us — if he is for us and not “over us,” how can he be “our judge”? And God said to Samuel, Listen to their voice, etc., for they have not rejected you (1 Samuel 8:7). On the contrary, this is your praise, because they consider you steadfast in not flattering them, therefore they requested a king in your place who would necessarily flatter them. In this, they have rejected Me and did not ask according to the Torah, because all they wanted was a king who would nullify My will before their own will. And this is what is meant by from reigning over them, meaning in this they rejected Me, in that they did not want the king to reign over them. Now, listen to their voice, but you shall warn them, and tell them the manner of the king who will reign over them (1 Samuel 8:9) — specifically over them and not “for them,” because “these are what I desire,” says the Lord. And he said, This will be the manner of the king who will reign over you (1 Samuel 8:11), for even if you only choose him to be “for you,” in the end, with poured out wrath, he will reign over you and take your sons, etc. This is your punishment for not asking properly, and you will cry out on that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves (1 Samuel 8:18) — meaning, and not over yourselves, and you will confess that the opposite of what you requested has happened to you. But the people refused, etc., and they said, “No, but a king shall be over us” (1 Samuel 8:19). When they said No, it was a form of confession, saying, “We no longer desire a king in the manner we first asked when we said ‘Give us a king.’ Rather, a king shall be over us as God has spoken.” And so it was later said, For we have added to all our sins to ask for ourselves a king (1 Samuel 12:19), meaning at the beginning, before we heard the punishment. This explanation is precious. And the change in language between “over us” and “for us” is understood, and [also] from the precision of our Sages who said that “his fear should be upon you” (Ketubot 17a), for the main commandment depends on this.

And regarding what it says, “And God said to Samuel,” “Listen to their voice, etc.” and “you shall appoint for them a king” (First Samuel 8:22) — it should have said “over them.” This is because the acceptance of authority depends on those receiving it, and it was not God who did this, but rather He gave them a king who was equal to them, so that his heart would not be lifted above his brothers. Therefore, it says at the time of the act for them. Nevertheless, it was not proper for Israel to say it this way, but rather as God said: And you shall say, “I will set a king over me” — that is how they should have said it.

“And it shall be, when he sits on the throne of his kingdom.” Rashi explained that if he does this, his kingdom is worthy to be established. A hint to this matter is in the word “kise” [throne], which is an acronym for “kesef, sus, ishah” [money, horse, woman]. By virtue of being careful with these three things, he will merit to sit on God’s throne, as it is written, And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord (First Chronicles 29:23). Therefore, he needs to be cautious of things that divert his heart from God and separate between Him and God, because amassing silver and gold brings him to forget God, as it is written, And your silver and gold multiply… then your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord your God (Deuteronomy 8:13–14). Similarly, having many horses causes him to remove his trust from God and to trust in horse and chariot, as it is written, Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help and rely on horses (Isaiah 31:1). And this is why it says, He shall not return the people to Egypt to multiply horses. The prohibition is not about going to Egypt for commerce, but the main prohibition is because multiplying horses removes from him trust in God. Therefore, He commanded that he should not return the people to Egypt in order to multiply horses, as if all his trust was in horse and chariot. But for other commerce, it is permitted to go to Egypt. This explanation is more precious than what all the commentators have said about this. Similarly, having many wives causes his heart to turn away from God, as happened to Solomon.

And it says, “And he shall write for himself a copy of this Torah, etc.” In order that he would read it and know to be careful about these three things. Against the multiplicity of silver [money], it says so that his heart will not be lifted up above his brethren, because money brings haughtiness of heart. And against the multiplicity of wives, it says so that he will not turn aside from the commandment to the right or to the left, as it says above, He shall not multiply wives for himself, lest his heart turn away. And against the multiplicity of horses, it says that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel, to say that if he trusts in horse and chariot, he will die in battle, for the horse is a vain thing for safety and with the multitude of his strength he will not save his soul, but if he trusts in the salvation of God, he will prolong his days and not die.

And it says “in the midst of Israel,” to say that one who trusts in horse and chariot seeks salvation and help from the lands of the nations and not from within Israel, as it is stated, Woe to those who go down to Egypt for help, etc. (Isaiah 31:1). But if he does not multiply horses for himself, then he will find salvation in the midst of Israel and not from the lands of the nations. And it further alludes that Israel is saved by God who walks in the midst of Israel, as it is written, For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp (Deuteronomy 23:15). And it means that he will prolong his days, etc., from the One who is in the midst of Israel.