ON THE PARSHA Parshas Shoftim by Dovid Lipman, Jerusalem The World Of The Supernatural (17:14) "You must put upon yourself a king..." If this is a mitzvah, why was the prophet Shmuel angry at the Jews for asking for a king? (Shmuel I, 8:6) (They even used the Torah's language from here in the request! [ibid. 8:5]) One answer is that by requesting a king, they showed a desire not to rely on Shmuel himself, who was a prophet (they could even have made him king if they wished). The purpose of a prophet is to be in place of Hashem speaking to the people directly, as we see in our parsha (18:16). The people wanted a king who would be "one of their own", not a messenger of Hashem (which they weren't willing to relate to) like Shmuel, who is compared to Moshe (Tehillim 99:6). That is why Hashem had to explain to Shmuel that they were rejecting Him, not him (Shmuel I, 8:7). It also explains why the people expressed surprise that Sha'ul could be among prophets (ibid. 10:11) - he was their idea of 'a regular person', although a great one, and that's why he was chosen to fulfill the people's request. Shmuel showed the people their mistake by "loud sounds" (ibid. 12:18), which the gemara (Bera. 59a) says teaches people to relate to Hashem, which they realized they had been avoiding. A Time To Laugh (17:8) "...matters of fighting at your gates..." If we only are told to go to the High Court for battles between litigants, who will solve difficult halacha problems? So, Rashi and the Targum translate our phrase as "halacha disagreements", so all possible issues are included. But why is it called "fighting"? So it must be like in the gemara (Kidd. 30b): A possible mistake in halacha is indeed worth fighting over. Worthy Of Note (17:17) "He may not have many wives..." The Midrash says (Shmos Rabbah 6:1) that King Shlomo reasoned: the Torah gives the reason for limiting kings' wives as fear of them turning him astray; I will not be turned astray, therefore I may take many wives. How could he think this way? Isn't the Torah obviously telling the king that he SHOULD fear he might be led astray? Perhaps the key is in the nature of kings: a king, unlike a prophet, is a leader who is "one of the people", with no supernatural link to Hashem - so he might easily be swayed. Shlomo, as it appears from p'sukim (Melachim I, 3:5-14) and especially one Midrash (Tanchuma Shmos 1), was also a prophet, so he thought the entire approach of the parsha of kings was not referring to a king like HIM. The problem with this lies in the "yud" of the word "yarbeh" (meaning 'have many'), which our original Midrash says complained to Hashem that Shlomo forgot about him. The "yud" in such cases is the letter which creates a command, as we see in the gemara (Makkos 12a). So Shlomo, whose reasoning overlooked that a command is a command, and a person cannot make himself an exception, was wrong. From the Gemara (19:15) Makkos 6b - The testimony must be received directly from the witnesses, and not through the translation of an interpreter. (19:15) Makkos 5b - Three witnesses are equal to two: Just as the testimony of two witnesses collapses if one is found invalid, if one of a group of three is found invalid, the testimony is also invalid, for the group is considered totally interdependent. (19:15) Makkos 6a - The above law only includes the witnesses, who fulfill the language of the pasuk "establishing the facts", but the people who were involved themselves cannot break the testimony if they are not valid to testify. Rare And Unusual Words (19:15) "Eid". The gemara (Sota 2b) remarking on the language "one witness", notes that obviously the number "one" only needs to be added to a clearly singular noun because the word "eid" usually refers to two witnesses, who are apoken of in the singular because they combine to form an interdependent group, as mentioned above.