לא תזבח….אשר יהיה בו מום, "Do not slaughter for G'd anything blemished." The wording אשר יהיה בו מום "on which there will be a blemish," must be understood in conjunction with Sifri that our verse forbids an animal suffering from a temporary blemish. This ruling is hinted at by the word יהיה, "will be." That word includes not only permanent blemishes but even temporary blemishes. Perhaps one may also say that if the animal in question has a limb which would result in it becoming blemished unless said limb was amputated, the animal in question is considered blemished even before the operation (regardless of whether the animal is being considered for a sacrifice). The words לא תזבח …אשר יהיה בו מום mean "you must not sacrifice it…as it is going to develop a blemish" (which would disqualify it.)

כי ימצא בקרבך, "If there be found amongst you, etc." The reason the Torah adds the word בקרבך, "in your midst," is to place the burden of dealing with the sinner (idolator) on the local authorities. Jews in other cities are only charged with dealing with the idolator if the people of his own city have failed to do so. This is what is meant by the words באחד שעריך, "in one of your cities." Our sages in Ketuvot 45 make use of the expression שעריך both here and in verse 5 to rule that the execution of the idolator takes place where he performed the sin and not in the city where he was sentenced to death (assuming they are not the same). The reason that the verse concludes with "which the Lord your G'd is about to give to you," is a reminder that one of the reasons G'd gave us the Holy Land is that we observe the commandment to execute idolators.

לעבר בריתו, "to violate His covenant." Moses means that it is important for the sinner to realise that he violated G'd's sacred covenant. This is the reason he cannot be executed unless he had been properly warned of the penalty in store if he proceeded with his intention to commit this sin. There is also a hint here that if the idolator told the people who warned him to desist that he had sworn an oath to serve this particular deity, that he must be reminded that such an oath is not valid as he had been obligated under a previous oath dating back to Mount Sinai not to engage in any form of idolatry. His execution would therefore be perfectly legal if he went ahead and ignored the warning.

יומת המת, "the condemned person will be executed." The reason the Torah repeats the reference to the condemned being dead is to alert us that if no witnesses could be found or that the warning was not legally valid for some reason, the fact that the terrestrial court could not execute the sinner does not make him any less guilty of death in the eyes of G'd. The word יומת applies when the legal proceedings here on earth could be completed.

כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט, "If a matter of judgment is hidden from you, etc." The apparently extraneous word למשפט is needed to remind us that the subject matter now being introduced, i.e. the "rebellious elder" who will be executed for insubordination to the Supreme Court, is applicable only to the kind of person who had himself been ordained as judge, etc. (compare Mishnah Sanhedrin 86). If the dissenting opinion was handed down as law by a student who had not yet been ordained, such a pupil is not liable to the penalty provided for in our paragraph. I have found a Baraitha in Sanhedrin 87 which derives the fact that an unordained student is free from the death penalty from an interpretation of the word כי יפלא in our verse as not meaning "if it is concealed," but "if the most distinguished one of the judges errs." If we base ourselves on this exegesis we can understand why the Torah added the word למשפט. It means that unless the dissenting opinion was actually formulated as a practical judgment, -as opposed to a learned opinion,- such as by the presiding judge of the Sanhedrin- the penalty provided in our paragraph is not applicable. This is also why the Mishnah added that the words in verse 12: "and the man who will act deliberately sinfully, etc." prove this point. Accordingly, our verse would prove that the dissenting elder is guilty of death only if he personally acts against the majority decision but not if he instructed others to do so. The word למשפט is needed therefore to also make him guilty if he instructed others to act on the basis of his dissenting ruling.

We may also approach the verse from the following angle. כי יפלא …למשפט, "Even if the dissenting opinion was issued as an instruction to act contrary to the majority ruling of the local court, and it is proven that the majority opinion was in error, if the subject matter was one where deliberately sinning carries the karet penalty, etc., the dissenting judge will not be executed unless he repeated the same ruling in the face of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court, openly defying them." This is also the concensus of the sages in the Talmud on the application of this halachah.

ודרשת והגידו לך, "and you shall enquire and they will tell you, etc." It is up to you to make these enquiries, i.e. to find out (from the Supreme Court) why the judges ruled as they did. On the other hand, the judges of the Supreme Court are obligated to explain their ruling to you once you ask them. If you did not ask for the Supreme Court to tell you their reasons they are not under any obligation to volunteer it.

The explanation is, obviously [he must obey] that selfsame ruling, but rather even other rulings that are based on that verdict, for many judgments branch from the detail of a single judgment.

בי תבא..ואמרת..שום תשים עליך מלך. "When you come to the land…and you will say..l want to appoint a king,…appoint a king over yourself, etc." The wording: "when you come and you will say, etc." shows that G'd did not decree that the people have to appoint a king for themselves. If they want to, however, the Torah gives them the right to do so. The repetition of שום תשים at the end of the verse appears to suggest that it is indeed a positive commandment to appoint a king. Are we faced with a contradiction here?

It appears to us that the best way to understand the wording of the verse is as follows. There may be two reasons why the people want to appoint a king. 1) They want a king with superior intelligence in whose ability to conduct wars successfully they have confidence. They want him to be able to compete successfully with the bravery, etc., of Gentile kings. This is something G'd mightily disapproves of. The reason for this is that the kings of the Gentile nations are not motivated by what is right but merely what appears expedient, even if objectively speaking their undertakings are not even useful in the long run. Not only that, but they do not trust in G'd but in their own prowess. The second reason for Israelites wanting a king is that they want their king to represent the glory of Israel, G'd's people. They want the king to be the kind of person on whose account (merits) G'd will make the whole nation successful in its undertakings. G'd had done so repeatedly in the days of the Judges when the merit of the individual judge ensured that G'd would grant him victory over enemies who were (or appeared) much stronger. King David too enjoyed success all the time becaue he merited G'd's personal assistance. The request to appoint this kind of king is one which G'd approves of.

This is why our verse commences with: "when you come to the land and you want to appoint a king over yourself to match what other nations are doing, etc." Clearly, here the Torah describes the first of the two scenarios we described for the Israelites wanting a king. This is the scenario, which, basically, G'd does not approve of. The verse concludes with the Torah encouraging us to appoint a king, i.e. שום תשים. This means that the prerequisite for the Israelites appointing a king is that G'd approves, i.e. אשר יבחר ה׳ אלוקיך (you consult the Supreme Court of 71 elders who in turn consult with a prophet as they are G'd's representatives). When a king is appointed on such a basis he cannot be compared to the kind of king Gentile nations appoint for themselves. Under such conditions we are entitled to understand the words שום תשים עליך מלך as a positive commandment. These words are simultaneously a positive commandment and a negative commandment not to appoint the wrong kind of king for the wrong reasons. Without these words I would have assumed that the appointment of a king with the powers of kings amongst Gentile nations was altogether forbidden. Even though the Torah also writes that a Jewish king is subject to being chosen by G'd, i.e. אשר יבחר ה׳ אלקיך, this would not have been enough to forbid the monarchy as a valid form of government in a Jewish state. Once the Torah wrote שום תשים, repeating the instruction, it was not worried that we would interpret the verse as merely offering us the monarchy as an option.

You will have noted that G'd was quite upset about Israel in the days of the prophet Samuel when the people demanded from the prophet that he would appoint a king who would rule over them. (Samuel I chapter 8). At first glance this appears quite out of step with what we have learned here. Why would G'd (or the prophet) have been upset if the permission to appoint a king was already solidly based on our passage in the Torah? When you consider what we have written you will have no difficulty understanding why G'd was angry at that time. The Torah had specifically commanded that the reason for establishing a monarchy should not be in order to become more like the Gentile nations; however, this was precisely what motivated the people who demanded that Samuel appoint a king over them. We are told in Samuel I 8,5 that the reason for demanding a king was inter alia לשפטנו ככל הגוים, "to judge us like all the other nations." It was the rationale for the request which angered G'd at that time. Had they asked for a king who would be guided first and foremeost by G'd's wishes, instead of because they hoped to increase their military clout once they had a king, they would have performed a positive commandment with their very request.

We find a dispute in Sanhedrin 20 concerning the three commandments the Israelites were to fulfil after taking possession of their homeland. Rabbi Yehudah said the three were: 1) to appoint a king; 2) to exterminate the descendants of Amalek; 3) to construct a permanent Temple. Rabbi Nehorai claimed that our passage was written only as a response to people who would demand to be ruled over by a king, but that it does not constitute a positive commandment. Our comments are based on the viewpoint of Rabbi Yehudah and this is the halachah. Maimonides also rules like Rabbi Yehudah that appointment of a king is a positive commandment in chapter one of Hilchot Melachim. Nonetheless the viewpoint of Rabbi Nehorai deserves further examination. After all, the plain meaning of the words שום תשים עליך מלך is clearly a commandment and not merely an option.

Perhaps we can understand the situation as follows. If all of Israel were to be righteous, would not request a king, and would be content to let G'd be their only king as the prophet said in Samuel I 12,13, then G'd would be willing to act as its exclusive king. If, however, Israel had already reached the stage where they asked for a king other than G'd or in addition to G'd, then the commandment שום תשים would become applicable. This may be the reason the Torah did not commence the passage with the words שום תשים, but prefaced it with the words: "if you will say 'I want to appoint a king over myself.'" When you look at the two verses 14 +15 in this way you find that provided the conditions of the first verse have been met even Rabbi Nehorai could agree that the words שום תשים constitute a positive commandment.

לבלתי רום לבבו, "so that his heart does not become arrogant, etc." This may be understood as analogous to Avot 6,1 ומלבשתו ענוה ויראה, "and it clothes him in meekness and the fear of G'd." [The subject is a person who studies Torah with a pure purpose. Ed.] The Torah means that studying Torah as the king is bidden to do daily will ensure that he does not become haughty. Concerning the king developing fear of the Lord, the Torah had already written in verse 19: "in order that he will learn to fear the Lord his G'd."