Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

According to most commentaries, the source of this halachah is Sanhedrin 20b and Sifri, Re’eh. However, those sources do not quote verses from the Torah to show the connection between these mitzvot and the settlement of Eretz Yisrael. Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tetzei, sec. 15, does cite Biblical sources, however, as does the Rambam.
Many other mitzvot, including all the agricultural regulations, must be fulfilled upon entering Eretz Yisrael. However, those mitzvot are incumbent on every member of the nation as an individual. In contrast, the mitzvot mentioned here were commanded to the people as a collective entity. (See the conclusion of Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments).
The designation of the Jewish people as a tzibbur, collective entity, is only possible within Eretz Yisrael. Hence, the fulfillment of these mitzvot depends upon the Jews’ presence in Eretz Yisrael. (See Horiot 3a; Tzaphnat Pa’aneach, Responsum 143.)

The Torah specifies that the Jews must appoint a king when they “come to the land that God... is giving” (Deuteronomy 17:14).

Here, too, Deuteronomy 25:18 states that this mitzvah is to be fulfilled “when God gives you peace... in the land.”

In this instance as well, Deuteronomy 12:1 states “These are the rules and laws that you must carefully keep in the land that God... is giving you?’ implying that the Temple will be built in that land.
In Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 1:1, the Rambam also mentioned the mitzvah of constructing the Temple. However, in that passage, he quoted Exodus 25:8 “And you shall make Me a sanctuary” as the Biblical source.
This apparent contradiction can be resolved as follows: The commandment in Exodus refers to the sanctuary constructed in the desert, while the present verse refers to Shilo and the Temple.
There are a number of levels in the fulfillment of the mitzvah of building “a house for God, prepared for sacrifices to be offered.” On the most basic level, the mitzvah was fulfilled when the Sanctuary was constructed in the desert. However, the ultimate fulfillment of that commandment will be when the Temple will be constructed by the king in Jerusalem, after Amalek is annihilated (see Lechem Mishneh; Even HaEzel).

In his commentary on Sanhedrin, 20b, Rashi emphasized that it was necessary to fulfill these mitzvot in this sequence. Indeed, the Talmud and the Rambam emphasize this order.

Sanhedrin 20b, which is the source for this halachah, quotes a different Biblical reference for this concept. The Rambam cites his verse because it clearly demonstrates the sequence in which these mitzvot must be fulfilled.
This also teaches us a general principle regarding the composition of the Mishneh Torah. Although the Rambam uses the Talmud and the Midrash as sources, he reserves the option of employing Biblical references that are not mentioned in those texts (Lechem Mishneh).

David wanted to build the Temple only after he had fought the wars necessary to establish Israel’s security.
[To briefly restate the historical background: After receiving Samuel’s command, Saul waged war and utterly defeated Amalek. He slew the entire nation except for their choice sheep, and their king, Agag. The sheep and the king were taken to the prophet, Samuel. Samuel severely rebuked Saul for not fulfilling the Torah’s command, and for not utterly destroying Amalek (15:23): “Because you have rejected the word of God, God has rejected you from being king.” Afterwards, Samuel slew Agag.
Between his capture and execution, though, Agag was able to sire children. Thus, although Amalek ceased to exist as a nation, its seed was perpetuated. For example, Haman, the minister who tried to destroy the Jews in the Purim saga, was an “Agagite,” one of Agag’s descendants.]
Saul was not charged with building the Temple. This may have been because God had already rejected him, or because he was about to become embroiled in prolonged conflicts with the Philistines, which would ultimately cost him his life. When power was transferred to King David, he did establish the political security of the Jewish nation. Afterwards, he turned his attention to building the Temple, as described in the narrative cited by the Rambam.

As I Samuel 12:17 states: - “I will call to God, and He will send thunder and rain, so that you may know that your wickedness is great... in asking for a king.”

Sanhedrin 20b comments: “The elders of [that] generation made a proper request (I Samuel 8:6): ‘Appoint a king for us to judge us.’ However, the common people spoiled [the tone of the request], demanding (ibid. 19-20): ‘Let us have a king so that we will be like all the nations...’”

This refers to the Sanhedrin, Israel’s supreme court. The Rambam describes its function in Hilchot Sanhedrin 1:3. The appointment of the king by this court is also mentioned in that text, 5:1.

The mention of Joshua in this context raises a question: In Halachah 1, the Rambam stated that the appointment of a king could come only after entering Eretz Yisrael. Joshua was charged with leading the Jewish people before they came into the Land. Similarly, the Sages and the Rambam sometimes referred to Moses as a king (see the commentaries to Deuteronomy 33:5, Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:11), although he never entered Eretz Yisrael.
Accordingly, we must say that the concept of monarchy went through a number of stages. As explained above, a parallel concept may be seen regarding the mitzvah of building a Temple. The ultimate fulfillment of the mitzvah was the construction of the Temple in Jerusalem. However, before that, a Tabernacle was built to accompany the Jews through the desert, and a Sanctuary was built in Shilo. Similarly, although monarchy in its full sense was not achieved until Saul and David were anointed, Moses and Joshua may also be considered kings.

Rambam LeAm emphasizes that, as apparent from Halachah 7, the participation of the Sanhedrin and a prophet is only required in order to appoint a king when there is no heir to the position.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Command 362) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 498) include this prohibition as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot.

A convert is always considered a full-fledged member of the Jewish faith and is granted the same privileges and obligations as any other Jew. Nevertheless, regarding yichus, pedigree of lineage, a distinction is made; for example, a convert cannot marry a priest and may marry a mamzer (a child born from adulterous or incestuous relations). Similarly, because of this lack of yichus, a convert may not assume a position of authority within the Jewish people.

The bracketed addition was made to resolve the following difficulty: The mother of Rechavam, Solomon’s son and heir, was Na’ama, an Ammonitess. If so, how could he have succeeded his father as king?
Tosafot (Yevamot 102a) explain that if a person’s father is a native-born Israelite, he may be appointed to positions of authority, regardless of his mother’s origins. Alternatively, a king’s yichus is questioned only at the beginning of a dynasty. Once the dynasty has been established, a son may assume his father’s position, even if his mother is a convert (Noda B’Yehudah, Choshen Mishpat, Responsum 1).

King Herod was an Idumean, an offspring of the Edomites who were forcibly converted to the Jewish faith by King Yannai, a descendant of the Hasmoneans. Accordingly, neither he nor his descendants were qualified to serve as kings of Israel.
Herod was particularly sensitive on this issue. When he heard the Sages mention this verse, he slaughtered many of them (Bava Batra 3b). Sotah 41 a, b relates that Agrippas, a descendant of Herod and one of his successors, read the book of Deuteronomy to the people at the Hakhel gathering. As he recited the above verse, his eyes welled up with tears.
“Do not worry?” the Sages reassured him, “you are our brother.” The Talmud states that God decreed the Jews’ doom because of this flattery. (Though most commentaries explain that Agrippas’ mother was also a convert, Rashi maintains that she was an Israelitess. Hence, he was fit to be king.)

Nasi literally means “the uplifted one.” It refers to the Sage who led the Sanhedrin – and indeed, the Jewish nation as a whole - in the Second Temple era.

See Kiddushin 76b.
Shemaya and Avtalyon were converts. Nevertheless, they excelled in Torah knowledge to the point that they were appointed nasi and Head of the Supreme Court respectively. Their assumption of these positions, despite their lack of yichus, apparently contradicts the Rambam’s statements.
The Knesset HaGedolah explains that the nation accepted Shemaya and Avtalyon as leaders, because their capabilities surpassed those of the rest of the people. In such an instance, no prohibition is involved.
Alternatively, Shemaya and Avtalyon were appointed by the Hasmonean kings. A king is granted absolute authority over the nation’s internal affairs. He may appoint judges who are not acceptable according to Torah law, if he feels it necessary (Tumim 7:1).

In Jewish history, we find two examples of queens who ruled the country:
II Kings (Chapter 11) describes how Atalya, the mother of Achaziah, slew the heirs to the throne and ruled over the kingdom of Judah for seven years. Nevertheless, her assumption of the monarchy was never acknowledged by the Sages. She was always considered a murderous, idol-worshipping usurper. As soon as possible, the Priests and Sages installed Yoash, the rightful heir, on the throne.
Similarly, towards the end of the Hasmonean dynasty, Queen Salome assumed rule over the nation. She was a righteous woman who followed the guidance of her brother, the nasi, Shimon ben Shetach. However, neither he nor the other Sages were consulted regarding her assumption of the throne. Furthermore, there was little alternative, as the two other potential heirs to the throne were Sadducees who persecuted the Sages, and wanted to stamp out Torah practice.

As mentioned above, the Torah establishes a parallel between the monarchy and other positions of authority regarding the disqualification of a convert. The scope of that comparison is further extended to include the disqualification of women (Kiryat Sefer).
Judges (4:4) mentions that Devorah, the prophetess, served as a judge. This seems to contradict this principle. Two explanations are offered: a) She was a prophetess, and she assumed the position because of God’s decree. b) She did not actually serve as a judge. Rather, she taught the people Torah. Since the judges’ decisions were based on her teachings, it was considered as if she judged the people (Tosafot, Niddah 50a).

Recently, manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah have been discovered which omit this profession, replacing it with “bloodletters.” Similarly, Kiddushin 82a, which appears to be the source for this halachah, does not mention butchers.

Not only the monarchy, but all other positions of authority are denied these individuals (Kiryat Sefer). The Talmudic passage cited above also mentions a number of other artisans, including perfume salesmen, knitters, and jewelers, professions primarily involved with women. Hence, they are also not considered sufficiently prestigious to be appointed king.

Tashbetz mentions that the Rambam included those professions which were deemed undignified in his day. Should the social norms change and these professions become considered prestigious and others undignified, these laws must also be altered.

Kessef Mishneh explains that these individuals are only disqualified if they served professionally in these capacities. If one person cut another’s hair as a favor or as a school-boy’s prank, he may still be appointed king.

This refers to the oil of anointing made by Moses, as described in Exodus 30:25. In Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:2-3, Rambam describes in detail this oil was prepared from olive oil and a mixture of spices. In the desert, Moses used this oil to sanctify the Tabernacle’s utensils. Despite its use, miraculously, the oil remained totally intact. In the following generations, it was not employed for this purpose. Rather, it was used only to anoint kings, High Priests, and the priests who led Israel’s military campaigns (Keritot 5b). Ultimately, it was buried toward the conclusion of the First Temple era (Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:1).

Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:9, the Rambam wrote: “Kings of the Davidic dynasty are anointed [by pouring the oil as] a crown on their heads.”
This verse describes the anointing of Saul as king. According to the Rambam, Samuel used the oil prepared by Moses for this purpose. See Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 17, which also mentions this opinion. This view is not, however, accepted by all commentaries. Radak states that the oil prepared by Moses was only used to anoint kings of the Davidic dynasty. In contrast, Saul was anointed with afarsimon oil, as were the kings of Israel. See Halachah 10.

The verse is both a blessing and a statement, implying that if its conditions are fulfilled, the king’s heirs will inherit his position.

After the death of Achaziah, King of Judah, Atalya, his mother, slew all his heirs and assumed the throne herself. Yoash, Achaziah’s infant son, was saved. He was hidden and raised by Yehoyada, the high priest, until he was seven. At that time, he was granted the monarchy (see II Kings, Chapter 1).

The first in line for the monarchy are the deceased king’s sons, in order of age. Should none of his sons be alive, the right is passed to his grandchildren. The children of the elder son are granted preference. If the king has no male descendents, the monarchy is given to his brothers. If they are not alive, it is granted to their sons. From them, the right to the throne passes to the deceased king’s nephews (his sister’s sons), then to his uncles, to his first cousins. See Hilchot Nachalot, Chapter 1.

This law is derived from 11 Chronicles 21:10: “And he gave the monarchy to Yehoram, for he was the first born.”
King David bestowed the monarchy on Solomon, his youngest son. This raises an apparent contradiction to this principle. However, 1 Chronicles 22:2 relates that he was charged to do so by God: “God... chose Solomon, my son, to sit on the throne.... “

See Sifri, Shoftim.
This law has been a matter of controversy throughout the years. In regard to positions of communal authority, almost all authorities accept this concept. However, controversies have frequently arisen over the inheritance of Rabbinical positions. Here, the Rambam’s decision has frequently been challenged.
Maharshdam (Yoreh De’ah, Responsa, n. 85) states that a city must seek out the most capable Rav possible without regard to inheritance. Similarly, the Terumat HaDeshen (Pesakim 128) states “Torah cannot be inherited.”
However, many prominent authorities (Rivash, Responsa 271, Ramah, Yoreh De’ah 245, Maharit Algazi, Simchat Yom Tov 6) have explained that this law applies even in regard to rabbinical positions.
The difficulties in deciding the question may be seen in the Chatam Sofer’s lack of certainty regarding it. In his Responsa (Orach Chayim, Responsum 12), he at first espouses the opinion that rabbinical positions should not be handed down from father to son. However, later (Responsum 13), he reversed himself and granted the son his father’s position by inheritance.
In practice, most Rabbis have reached the opinion that if the son is a capable Rabbi, though less qualified than another who seeks the position, his father’s position should be awarded to him. However, if the community sees the son as incapable of filling his father’s position at all, it may be given to another person.

Leviticus 16:32 describes the High Priest as one “who was anointed to fill the the place of his ancestor.” Torat Kohanim (Tzav) comments: “Should he be anointed even though he does not ‘fill the place’ [i.e., does not equal the level of his] ancestors? No, the Torah states ‘fill the place.’ If he is not equal to his father, the position should be granted to someone else.”
The same principles apply to the inheritance of the monarchy and to other positions of authority.

Ketubot 103b describes how Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi instructed that his son Gamliel be given his position, even though his knowledge was not as great as his father’s.

The fear of God is the very foundation of the spiritual heritage of the Jewish people. Anyone who lacks that quality can never be a competent leader.

Mechilta, Shmot, states: “Until David was chosen, all Israelites were fit for the monarchy. Once he was chosen, all Israel was excluded, as [II Chronicles 13:5] states: ‘God... granted the kingdom of Israel to David forever.’”

Mechilta continues: “Three gifts were granted conditionally: Eretz Yisrael, the Temple, and the Davidic dynasty. What is the source for these remarks?... [Concerning the Davidic dynasty,] it is written: ‘If your children will keep My covenant....’”

II Samuel 7:15 relates that God promised: “My grace will not depart from him, as I removed it from Saul.”

Although the Davidic dynasty suffered much during its existence, it continued to rule throughout the entire First Temple period. Furthermore, the Messiah, who will renew the kingship of Israel, will also be a scion of the House of David. See Chapter 11, Halachah 4.

Here the Rambam does not mention the participation of the Sanhedrin, as he does in Halachah 3. The Radbaz states that the appointment of the king must be "by God's word." Divrei Moshe explains that according to law, a king must be appointed by the Sanhedrin. Here, however, we are not concerned with an appointment according to law. (For after the establishment of the Davidic dynasty, there is no concept of another king according to law.) Instead, the appointment of such a king is a directive for application in the immediate time (horeat shaah). Such directives are conveyed to a prophet from time to time and supersede Scriptural Law, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 9:3. Since the appointment is only an immediate matter, ultimately the dynasty of that king will cease as stated in Halachah 9.

The Jerusalem Talmud, Horiot 3:2, states: “The King of Israel and the King of Judah are equal in status. Neither is greater than the other.”
The equal standing of the King of Israel in regard to the King of Judah may also be seen by the Rambam’s statements in Hilchot Shegagot, regarding the sacrifice brought for committing an unintentional sin:
Who is meant by the nasi mentioned in the Torah? The king, over whom no one in Israel has authority... except God, his Lord. [This applies whether the king] is of the House of David or from other tribes of Israel.
If there are many kings, and none is subservient to any other, each must bring a goat (the special sacrifice brought by the king) for unintentionally committing a sin.

Achiyah of Shilo was considered one of the greatest spiritual figures of his age, serving as the leader of the Sanhedrin. See the Rambam’s Introduction to the Mishneh Torah.

The Rambam’s citation of the verse differs slightly from the actual text.

In Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 362), the Rambam states that “Only a descendent of David and Solomon may be king over any believer in the Torah of Moses, our teacher.” Accordingly, certain commentaries explain that when Rambam later composed the Mishneh Torah, he changed his views regarding the legitimacy of the kingdom of Israel. According to the explanation of Divrei Moshe cited above, the two positions can be reconciled.
Other: commentaries also question the Rambam’s acceptance of the halachic legitimacy of the kingdom of Israel. In the commentary to Genesis 49:10, Ramban stated that the appointment of Jeroboam was only intended as a temporary measure, and that the ten tribes should later have returned to the Davidic dynasty. Ra’avad takes an intermediate view. He accepts the kings of Israel as rulers, but maintains that they should have been subservient to the kings of Judah, as the Romans possessed a Caesar and deputy Caesar.
In this context, it is appropriate to consider the Halachic legitimacy of the Hasmonean kingdom during the Second Temple period. The Rambam in Hilchot Chanukah 3:1 described how: “The Hasmoneans... delivered Israel from their hands and appointed a king from among the priests, thus returning the monarchy to Israel for more than two hundred years.”
This would seem to indicate the Rambam’s acceptance of the Hasmoneans as kings, despite the fact that: a) they were not appointed by prophets; and b) they ruled in the city of Jerusalem (see Halachah 10).
Similarly, a number of references in the Talmud (Kiddushin 66a, Sotah 41a, Sanhedrin 19a) imply that the Sages recognized the authority of the Hasmonean and Herodian kings. In contrast, Ramban (ibid.) viewed the Hasmoneans as usurpers of the monarchy. He explained that this sin alone was responsible for the tragedy and misfortune which plagued their dynasty, and cited the Jerusalem Talmud, Horiot, which explicitly states that a king should not be appointed from among the priests. From the Rambam’s statements here, it would appear that the Rambam would share that view. For they were appointed neither by a prophet, nor the Sanhedrin.

As stated in the previous and following halachot, the monarchy. was granted to David as an eternal heritage.

See commentary to Halachah 7 which explains that the Davidic dynasty continued in power even when the kings were not righteous.

The Rambam views the rule of Jeroboam and of the other kings of Israel as a temporary measure, instituted by God for a specific purpose. Accordingly, even if his descendants had all been righteous, their dynasty would not have continued forever (Kessef Mishneh). Ra’avad disagrees and maintains that had Jeroboam and his descendants remained righteous, their dynasty would have continued forever, alongside David’s, but in a secondary status as stated above.

Even HaEzel explains the difference between the kings of Israel and those of the Davidic dynasty as follows: When a king from the kingdom of Israel dies, there is no mitzvah to appoint a king, even though there is a capable and fitting descendant from the previous dynasty. In contrast, when there is no king from the Davidic dynasty, there is a mitzvah to appoint one of his descendants if he can fill the position.

This refers to the anointing oil prepared by Moses mentioned in Halachah 7.

A fragrant oil produced by mixing olive oil and spices. Alternatively, the Aruch HaShulchan describes it as “a resin which exudes from the balsam trees.”

Although other kings may legitimately rule according to halachah, as explained in Halachah 8, they may not establish their rule in Jerusalem.
This halachah raises questions about the status of the Hasmonean kings who were priests with no connection to the Davidic line. Nevertheless, they ruled in Jerusalem. See commentary to Halachah 8.

The use of anointing oil for any person except for a High Priest, a priest appointed to lead a military campaign, or a king of the Davidic dynasty, is a violation of one of the Torah’s 365 prohibitions. See Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:5-7.
The last kings of the Davidic dynasty also were not anointed with this unique oil. The anointing oil prepared by Moses was hidden away by King Josiah along with the Holy Ark. No other anointing oil was ever prepared. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 4:1.

Horiot 12a explains that the king was anointed there as a sign that his dynasty should be perpetuated, just as a stream continues in a never-ending flow. This symbolism is only appropriate for kings of the Davidic dynasty, whose dynasty will continue forever. In contrast, the dynasties of the kings of Israel will eventually be interrupted[see Halachah 9 (Kessef Mishneh)].
Accordingly, King David ordered that Solomon be anointed at the Gichon Stream (1 Kings 1:33).

The Kessef Mishneh explains that David and Saul were anointed even though there was no controversy over their rule because they were the first of their lines. In contrast, the kings of Israel are to be anointed only if there is a controversy over their assumption of the monarchy. If there is no controversy, they are not to be anointed, even though their rule initiates a new dynasty.

Many commentaries render milchamah as war. Lechem Mishneh interprets it as “murmuring of the people,” a conflict of a lesser intensity than “dispute.”

The Rambam writes in Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 1:11: “If there was a debate [concerning whom to appoint king], he is to be anointed: a) to remove [all] disagreement; and b) to make known that he alone is the king.’
Hilchot Klei HaMikdash describes the preparation of this special oil and its use in anointing the kings of the Davidic dynasty. Accordingly, it adds “to make known that he alone is king,” which can only apply in regard to kings of the Davidic dynasty, for only they possess the essential quality of monarchy as explained above. In contrast, this phrase is omitted in Hilchot Melachim for that section also deals with laws of the kings of Israel.

I Kings, Chapter 1, describes Adoniyahu’s abortive attempt to declare himself as David’s successor.
Horiot 12a associates Solomon’s anointing with that of David, his father: “David and Solomon, who were anointed with a horn of oil, merited having their dynasty endure.”
The kings of the Davidic dynasty must descend from Solomon as well as David. Thus, Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 362) states “There may be no king over any believer in the Torah of Moses, our teacher except from the descendants of David and Solomon.”
Solomon’s anointing revealed “that he alone was king.” He possessed the essential quality of monarchy epitomized by David and he transferred this virtue to his children.

II Kings, Chapter 11, describes Atalyah's murder of the children of King Achazyahu, her assumption of the throne, and the revolt which established Joash as king.

Jehoach’az was younger than Jehoyakim. Nevertheless, he was given the throne, because he was more capable than his brother, and better suited to serve in his father’s position.

The king is chosen by God for his office. His function is to impress the people with their responsibility to their Creator. Accordingly, he is worthy of all the tokens of respect and honor described in this and the following halachot.

The Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 2:6 comments: “The verse states: ‘You shall appoint a king.’ God tells the people: ‘I will not appoint the king. You must grant him this authority yourselves.’”

Sanhedrin 95a relates that if the king’s life is in danger, his servants may ride on his horse to save him. For example, Avishai rode on David’s horse to save him from death at the hands of the Philistines, as alluded to in II Samuel 21:17.

These are obviously items specific to a king and their use by a commoner would constitute the usurpation of the king’s authority.

The crown is more closely associated with kingship than any other royal accouterment. Accordingly, when Haman suggested that the king’s crown be used to honor another person, Achasverosh refused (Esther 6:8-10).

It was customary to burn the king’s bed and personal property, as implied by Jeremiah’s prophecy to Tzedekiah (Jeremiah 34:5): “You shall die in peace, and as they made pyres for your ancestors, the earlier [kings...], they will make pyres for you.”
In Hilchot Evel 14:26, the Rambam explains that this custom was not considered as gentile in origin. Hence, was not forbidden. Neither was it viewed as a waste of property (see Chapter 6, Halachah 10), since it was performed as an honor to the departed ruler.

Avishag was King David’s attendant in his final days. However, David did not marry her or share intimacy with her (I Kings 1:1-4).
When David died and Solomon succeeded him, David’s son Adoniyahu asked to marry Avishag (ibid. 2:I7). Since he was a commoner and not fit to benefit from the services of a woman who had attended the king, Solomon considered this as an act of rebellion and ordered him executed.
However, Solomon would have been allowed to marry Avishag. Since David did not marry her, she was not prohibited as a king’s widow (see the following halachah) and Solomon, as a king, was permitted to benefit from the services of the king’s attendants.

Sanhedrin 18a explains that this prohibition applies even when a mitzvah is involved, for example, should a king die childless. In such an instance, the wife of a commoner would be obligated to marry her deceased husband’s brother in order to perpetuate her husband’s memory (yibbum in Hebrew; see Deuteronomy 25:5-6.) As mentioned in the following halachah, this mitzvah does not apply to a king’s widow.

There is a seeming contradiction to this law in 11 Samuel 12:7-8 which relates how Nathan, the prophet told King David: “Thus says the Lord:... ‘I anointed you king over Israel.... I gave you your master’s (Saul’s) house and gave your master’s women into your bosom.’”
Nevertheless, Sanhedrin 18a explains that the term “women” mentioned does not refer to Saul’s wives, but rather, to his daughters, Merav and Michal whom David married.

In his commentary to the Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 2:3, Mareh HaPonim quotes the following Biblical narrative as an example of this law: When King David fled Jerusalem after the revolt of his son Avshalom, the latter had relations with David’s concubines as a way of publicly casting off his authority (11 Samuel 16:21-23).
Afterwards, when David returned to Jerusalem he continued to provide for the needs of these concubines, but no longer shared intimacy with them. They were (ibid. 20:3) “shut up to the day of their death, widows of a living husband.”
Were it permissible for another man to marry a king’s divorcee, David surely would have divorced them, rather than subject them to a life of loneliness.

Even if the king consents to the presence of others, they are forbidden to join him, for a king may never forgo his honor.

It is a mitzvah for a person whose brother dies childless to marry his sister-in-law and perpetuate his seed through levirate marriage (yibbum). If the surviving brother does not desire to marry the deceased's widow, he may free her to marry another man by performing the chalitzah ceremony; see Deuteronomy 25:5-10.

The woman’s spitting is intended to embarrass her brother-in-law for not performing the mitzvah of perpetuating his brother’s line. The king may not be subjected to this shame.

Other individuals, for example, a High Priest, a nasi, or judge have the privilege of forgoing the honor due them. A king, by contrast, may not yield on a point of honor for there is a specific command to hold him in awe.

Yevamot 3a mentions the principle "All those who are not fit to perform yibbum, are not required to perform chalitzah." However, the converse of that principle, seemingly, the basis of this halachah, is not found in the Talmud.
Tosafot (Yevamot 44a) accepts this principle, but Rashi does not. Instead, he explains that a king does not perform yibbum because it would not be appropriate for his status for his child to be considered as his brother’s.

For as mentioned above, a king’s wife may never engage in sexual relations with another person.

The Rambam implies that chalitzah is not performed for her, because she can not engage in yibbum. The Kessef Mishneh explains that she does not perform chalitzah, for it is demeaning for a king’s widow to perform the service of removing someone else’s shoe, an essential aspect of the chalitzah ceremony.

Regardless, there would be no practical benefit from this chalitzah, for as mentioned above, a king’s widow may not remarry.

I.e., his father, mother, wife, brother, sister, son, or daughter, as mentioned in Hilchot Evel 2:1.

To participate in the funeral.
Sanhedrin 20a quotes a debate among the Sages on this question. The Mishnah’s first opinion, quoted by the Rambam, forbids a king from attending funerals. In contrast, Rabbi Yehudah considers the matter optional, citing King David’s attendance of the funeral of Avner ben Ner (11 Samuel 3:31) as proof that a king may participate in mourning rites.
The others explain that David made an exception in this case in order to unify the nation after the civil war between his forces and those loyal to Mefiboshet, the son of King Saul. Avner had led those troops. By attending his funeral, David was able to mollify the strife and friction between the two camps (see Hilchot Evel 7:7).

After a funeral, it is customary to serve the bereaved family a meal. The food for this meal may not belong to the mourners.

A mourner is forbidden to sit on a normal chair. In many communities, it is customary for him to sit on the ground itself. As a token of respect, the king is allowed to sit on a low couch.
Generally, those who comfort the mourner may sit on normal chairs. In this instance, out of deference to the king, the people must sit on the ground.

Rashi (Yoma 25a) derives the prohibition against sitting in the Temple Courtyard from the verse (Deuteronomy 18:5): “For the Lord has chosen him... to stand and to serve in the name of the Lord.”
Tosafot question whether the priests are permitted to sit in the courtyard when they partake of the sacrifices of the most holy order. From the Rambam’s statements, it appears that he does not permit such leniency. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:6 and commentaries.

In contrast, the kings of the kingdom of Israel were not given this honor. Indeed, Sanhedrin 101b relates that this differentiation was one of the reasons Jeroboam did not go to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage festivals and prevented his nation from doing so.

This event took place after David requested permission to build the Temple. God answered him in a vision to the prophet Nathan, informing him that David’s son would build the Temple. Nevertheless, as a reward for his dedication, God promised David an everlasting dynasty.
After receiving this promise, David went to the Ark to offer his thanks to God. He exclaimed: “Who am I, O Lord, G‑d, and what is my house that You have brought me this far.” At the moment when he was granted this great honor, he displayed humility.

The Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 2:6 relates that Rabbi Yochanan went to visit the nasi. The latter came out to greet him wearing a simple linen garment. Rabbi Yochanan suggested that he return home and don a more attractive woolen garment for “One’s eyes should behold the king in his beauty.”

11 Chronicles 29:23 refers to the throne as “the throne of God.”

There was a unique aspect to the crown passed on in the Davidic dynasty. If a king was appropriate for his office, it would fit correctly on his head. Otherwise, it would not be able to rest upon him (Avodah Zarah 44a).

This act of homage required kneeling and bowing down with one’s face to the ground as evident from the continuation of the verse from I Kings cited by the Rambam.

The prophets always honored the kings even when the latter were not righteous. Accordingly, I Kings 18:46 relates how Elijah ran before Achav’s chariot as a token of respect.
Though a prophet is obligated to show homage to the king, our Sages praised the kings for showing humility in their relationships with the prophets. For example, Bamidbar Rabbah praises Jehosephat for humbling himself before Elisha, the prophet.

The second chapter of Sanhedrin elaborates on the contrasts and similarities between these two great offices. Both were considered of great importance. In certain matters, the honor due the High Priest surpassed that due the king and in others, the king was supreme. Horiot 13a concludes that the king is considered supreme.

The stones - or the names of God - embedded in the High Priest's breastplate which served as oracles. See the conclusion of Hilchot Klei HaMikdash.

By honoring the Torah, the king shows his respect for God, its Author.

When it is unnecessary for him to create an impression of majesty among the people, he should follow these modest practices.

Lest the people lose their respect for him.

Without any honorary titles.

Ketubot 103b relates that before Rabbi Yehudah, the nasi, passed away, he instructed his son Gamliel, who would assume his position: “Conduct your authority with a high hand. Cast fear into the students.”

Megillah 31a states: “Where you find God’s greatness, there, you find His humility.” The fusion of these two qualities must also be reflected in a king. He must hold himself proudly before the nation, but remain humble in his heart.

Rashi (Berachot 61b) interprets this verse as a statement that David had entirely subdued his yetzer hara, evil inclination.

The king’s behavior must inspire the people to revere him and hold him in awe. Nevertheless, it should not cause them to recoil and despise him for his pride.

The Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 2:4, explains that David’s statements (Psalms 131:1): “My God, I have not made my heart haughty or my eyes lofty” refer to the time when he was anointed king by Samuel.

The people must dedicate themselves to the king and accept his absolute authority. Similarly, the king must dedicate himself to the people and involve himself in their concerns.
When two Sages refused to accept positions of authority out of humility, Rabban Gamliel assured them: “Don’t worry. I am not giving you honor and authority, I’m making you servants [of the people]” (Horiot 10a).

The previous halachah instructed the king to refrain from “speaking gently” in public. However, that only applies when addressing an individual or small group. When the kings speaks to the entire people or their representatives, he must adopt a mild demeanor, as reflected by the manner in which David spoke to the people in the verse cited.

After King Solomon’s death, the ten tribes who later formed the kingdom of Israel, gathered under the leadership of Jeroboam and told Rechavam, Solomon’s heir: “Your father made our yoke difficult... if you will make the yoke lighter,... we will serve you.”
Rechavam consulted his father’s advisors who told him: “If today, you will be a servant to this people,... they will be your servants forever.”
Rechavam refused to accept this advice and consulted with younger advisors who had grown up with him. They told him to deal with the people heavy-handedly and reply: “My father made your yoke heavy, I will add to your yoke.” He followed their advice. When the ten tribes received this haughty reply, they revolted against Rechavam and established the independent kingdom of Israel.

Though the burden of leadership was entirely on his shoulders, Moses was “humble, more so than any man on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3). Even when the people rebelled against him in Korach’s mutiny (see Numbers, Chapter 16), he patiently sought to make peace with the leaders of the rebellion.

The Rambam’s wording closely resembles Deuteronomy 1:12.

Cf. Numbers 11:12.

That Psalm describes how God took David “from the sheepfolds... to shepherd Jacob, His nation.” Shmot Rabbah 2:2 explains that God watched the kind and merciful way David pastured his father’s sheep. “Such a person,” God stated, “is fit to lead My people.”

This verse refers to the manner in which God will care for the people after the Messianic redemption. These qualities must be emulated by every king.

Or commission others to write for him.

Deuteronomy 31:19 states: “Now, write for yourselves this song.” Based on this verse, Sanhedrin 21 b states that it is a mitzvah for every Jew to write a Torah scroll or have one written for him. (See also Hilchot Sefer Torah 7:1).
In addition to fulfilling the above command, the king is obligated to write a second Torah which will accompany him at all times. Writing this scroll is considered one of the Torah’s 613 Mitzvot (Sefer HaMitvot, Positive Commandment 18, Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 503).

The obligation of the king to possess two Torah scrolls is accepted by all authorities. However, the wording used by the Rambam arouses certain questions:
Sanhedrin 21b which appears to be the source for this halachah states: “Even though a person’s ancestors left him a Torah scroll, he is obligated to write one himself.” Accordingly, it appears that it would be improper for a king to rely on the scroll left him by his ancestors. Rather, he should write two scrolls himself.
The Kessef Mishneh resolves this difficulty by explaining that a private individual may not rely on a Torah scroll written by his ancestors. He must perform the mitzvah of writing a Torah scroll himself or commission one to be written. This experience will develop a stronger connection between him and the Torah. Similarly, the king must personally write a Torah scroll. However, if the king does possess an inherited scroll, there is no need for him to write two Torah scrolls. He may rely on the scroll left him by his ancestors to use as his second scroll.

Sanhedrin 21b states that he should “wear it on his arm as an amulet, as it is written (Psalms 16:8): ‘I have set God before me at all times. Since He is at my right hand, I will not be moved.’ “

Deuteronomy 17:19, which is the source for this mitzvah, states: “It should accompany him and he should read it....” Accordingly, the king’s scroll need not accompany him wherever it is unseemly to study Torah (Sanhedrin, loc. cit.).

This scroll is reserved for the king’s personal use. None of his subjects may study from it (Tosefta, Sanhedrin 4:4).
In Hilchot Sefer Torah 7:3, the Rambam writes: “The second [scroll] should accompany him at all times. It should not move from his presence except at night or when he enters the baths....”
The commentaries question why the Rambam excludes the night. They support their objections by quoting the Sifri, Shoftim, which specifically requires the king to take his Torah scroll with him at night. Similarly, from the Rambam’s statements in Halachah 5 of this chapter, it would appear that the king should keep the Torah scroll with him at night as well.
Based on these questions, Or Sameach suggests changing the text in Hilchot Sefer Torah to read “even at night except when....”

This prohibition is counted as one of the 365 mitzvot of the Torah (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 364, Sefer HaChinuch 501). The Rambam discusses the ethical ramifications of this mitzvah in Halachah 6.

See Sanhedrin 21a for an explanation how this figure is derived.

In Chapter 4, Halachah 4, the Rambam defines a concubine as a woman singled out by the king to be his without kiddushin or a ketubah. He adds that the privilege of taking a concubine is only given a king and not a commoner.
The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s ruling here, maintaining that the king is limited only regarding the number of his wives. He may take as many concubines as he desires. (From Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit., it might be argued that the Rambam originally accepted the Ra’avad’s opinion, and when he wrote the Mishneh Torah, he revised his original decision:)
Narratives from the Bible are used to support both opinions. II Chronicles 10:21 relates how Rechavam, Solomon’s son and heir, took eighteen wives and 60 concubines, seeming to support the Ra’avad’s opinion. However, proponents of the Rambam’s opinion note that II Chronicles also states 12:14: “He (Rechavam) did evil for he did not set his heart on seeking God.” Hence, his behavior cannot necessarily be accepted as a paradigm from which we may derive Torah law.
Support for the Rambam’s opinion is brought from the narrative of David and Avishag (1 Kings, Chapter 1). Though she served David as a personal attendant, “lying in his embrace,” David “shared no intimacy with her.” Sanhedrin 22a explains that David did not marry her because he already had eighteen wives and did not want to divorce any of them in her favor.
According to the Ra’avad’s opinion, there would have been no necessity for David to exercise self-control. He could have taken her as a concubine without divorcing any of his wives. Nevertheless, proponents of the Ra’avad’s opinion maintain that Avishag refused to accept that less dignified status and David respected her wishes.
Additional support for the Rambam’s opinion can be derived from the verse (Deuteronomy 17:17): “He must not amass many wives lest they make his heart go astray,” which is the source for this prohibition. Both wives and concubines can cause a man’s heart to go astray.

The Kessef Mishneh questions why the king only incurs a penalty if he has relations with the additional wife. It would appear that he violates this prohibition as soon as he consecrates her.
In reply, the Lechem Mishneh explains that we must consider the reason for the prohibition: “Lest they make his heart go astray.” It is the aspect of sexual relations that may cause his heart to go astray. The Lechem Mishneh also cites a number of examples, the prohibition against a priest marrying a divorcee, or a high priest marrying a widow (see Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 17:4), where punishment is only incurred if the couple engage in sexual relations.

As mentioned above, Sanhedrin 22a notes that David could have divorced one of his wives to marry Avishag. He, nevertheless, refused to do so, because of the severity of divorce.

This prohibition, quoted from Deuteronomy 17:16, is one of the Torah’s 365 negative commands (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 363, Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 499).

The king is allowed to possess as many horses as necessary for military purposes. There is no prohibition involved, even if they are only necessary to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy (Rambam, Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 2:5)
In the above-mentioned text and in Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam writes that the king is allowed only one horse as his own personal steed. Hence, we have translated merkavto as “cavalry.” However, that term may also be rendered as “chariot” According to that interpretation, the Rambam revised his decision, granting the king permission to have as many horses as necessary for his personal chariot.

This prohibition, quoted from Deuteronomy 17:17, is considered one of the 365 prohibitions of the Torah (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandment 365, Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 502).

As the Rambam concludes, the prohibition consists not in the collection of taxes, but rather, in their use for creating his own personal fortune.

Pride and glory often result from the accumulation of wealth as it is written (Deuteronomy 8:13-14): “You may amass much silver and gold..., but your heart may then grow haughty.”

I Chronicles 29:4 relates how King David amassed a vast amount of gold and silver to be used in the building of the Temple. Similarly, in later generations, the Temple treasury contained the wealth of the nation. Accordingly, it often became the target of enemy attacks.

Commenting on Sanhedrin, loc. cit., Rabbenu Nissim writes that a king is forbidden to amass personal wealth from taxation. However, he is allowed to accumulate a fortune from money taken as spoils of war. However, this opinion is not accepted by the Minchat Chinuch. See also the notes to Chapter 4, Halachah 9.

There is no blanket prohibition against a king’s drinking wine. Indeed, Chullin 4b relates that it was customary for the kings of Judah to drink wine with their meals. It is intoxication that is forbidden.

That verse continues: “Nor for princes to say: ‘Where is strong drink?’ Lest he drink... and pervert the judgement of any of the afflicted.” Sanhedrin 70b interprets this verse as follows: “Is it proper for one to whom all the secrets of the world are revealed to drink wine and become intoxicated? Is it proper for one to whose door all the princes of the world gather to drink wine and become intoxicated?”

The king must divide his time between Torah study and caring for the welfare of the people.
The king’s behavior should serve as an example to the entire nation. In that vein, the Tosefta, Sanhedrin 4:5 comments: “If a king of Israel, whose only involvement is for the welfare of the nation, is commanded: ‘He should read it all the days of his [life];’ how much more so does this apply to a common man!”
Note the commentary to Halachah 1, concerning the king’s Torah study at night. See also the following halachah which explains the reason for the emphasis on the constancy of the king’s Torah study.

This is a euphemism for sexual relations. The Rambam uses a similar expression in Hilchot De’ot 5:4: “Even though a person’s wife is permitted to him at all times, it is fit for a Torah scholar to practice holiness and not be with his wife ‘as a rooster’ [i.e. over-frequently].”

Hilchot De’ot 4:19 states:
Semen is the body’s power, its life energy, and brightness of its eyes. If an excessive amount is released, the body and its strength will become depleted.... This is what Solomon implied in his wisdom [in the verse,] “Do not give your strength to women.” Age will overcome a person who over-indulges in sexual relations and his vigor will be reduced.

Sanhedrin 21a states: A king may not marry even one wife if she will cause his heart to stray. If so, why did the Torah prohibit him from “amassing many wives?” Once he possesses the maximum number of wives, he is forbidden to marry any woman no matter how righteous she is.

Though the heart is one of the smallest organs of the body, it provides for the body’s entire energy and life-force. Similarly, the king generates and controls the tone of the vitality of the entire nation. In this vein, Bamidbar Rabbah 19:28 states: “The leader of the generation [represents] the entire generation.”

Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:5.

Sanhedrin 19a derives this concept as follows: Jeremiah 21:12 declares: “House of David... execute judgment in the morning” implying that the kings of the Davidic dynasty should serve as judges. Accordingly, we must assume that they could also be judged, for our Sages taught: “Correct yourself and afterwards, correct others.” Were the kings themselves not subject to the scrutiny of a court of law, they would have no right to judge others.

Sanhedrin, loc. cit., states: Why was this law enacted? Because of an incident which once occurred. The servant of Yannai, one of the later Hasmonean kings, slew another person. The Sages summoned Yannai to be present at his trial. The king complied with their request and came to the court. However, he seated himself.
Shimon ben Shetach, the presiding judge, ordered Yannai to stand, telling him: “Don’t think of yourself as standing before us, but rather see yourself as standing before God.”
Yannai answered him: “What do your colleagues say? I will follow their directions and not yours.”
He turned to the other judges to see their reaction. They all lowered their heads. When Shimon ben Shetach saw this, he declared: “You people are concerned with your thoughts. May the Master of thought repay you.” All of them died immediately. At that moment, the Sages declared: “A king does not judge, nor is he judged.”
There is a slight difficulty with this halachah. On the surface, the expression, “the kings of Israel” refers to the kings of the ten tribes. They lived centuries before Yannai. If the decree was only enacted at Yannai’s time, how could it affect those kings? Furthermore, on the surface, what difference does the dynasty of the king make? What is important is whether he is righteous or not.
Accordingly, the Kessef Mishneh explains that the Talmud’s words must be interpreted as follows: The kings of Israel were not automatically disqualified from judging. However, whenever an incident similar to Yannai’s occurred concerning a king of Israel, the Sages had the right to disqualify him. In contrast, since the above-mentioned verse from Jeremiah specifically associated the House of David with judgment, even in the event of a tragedy, they were not disqualified.
The Lechem Mishneh does not accept this view. He maintains that the Sages also had the power to disqualify kings of the House of David from judging. However, they never found cause to do so. In contrast, the kings of Israel were frequently unheeding of Torah law and hence, they were disqualified from being involved in judgment, lest a tragedy occur.

There is a question whether kings of the Davidic dynasty may testify or not. Sh’vuot 31 b disqualifies a king from giving testimony. Commenting on that passage, Rashi explains that forcing the king to stand before the judges would diminish his honor. Since, as mentioned above Chapter 2, Halachah 3, a king is not allowed to yield on matters of honor, he is not be allowed to serve as a. witness.
Nevertheless, the Rambam does not mention the king when discussing the individuals who are not required to testify, although he does mention the High Priest (Hilchot Edut 1:3). Note also the Kessef Mishneh’s commentary.

In Hilchot Sanhedrin, loc. cit., the Rambam states: “This is because they do not humble themselves before the words of Torah.”

As occurred in the incident with Yannai, the king, described above.

Allegorically, this law can be explained as follows: As stated above, the king is the “heart” of the entire Jewish people. A limb will die if separated from the life-flow emanating from the heart. Similarly, a subject is obligated to die if he is separated from his “heart,” the king.

Tosafot, Kiddushin 43a, explains that King David had the right to order the death of Uriah, the Hittite, for this reason. David ordered Uriah “go down to your house” (II Samuel 11:8). However, Uriah refused, explaining “The servants of my lord are encamped in the open fields. Shall I then go into my own house?”
Though his sentiments were noble, his refusal to obey David constituted rebellion against the king.

As will be explained, Shim’i ben Gera cursed King David when he fled from his son, Avshalom. Nevertheless, since he was the first to greet David after his forces were victorious, the king granted him a temporary pardon. However, before his death, he warned his son Solomon against allowing Shim’i to reach old age. Solomon ordered Shim’i to build a house in Jerusalem and remain there forever. He warned him (1 Kings 2:37): “On the day that you leave,... you will die.” For three years, Shim’i heeded Solomon’s command. Then, because of his own personal concerns-, he left Jerusalem for one day. When he returned, Solomon ordered that he be executed as one who rebelled against the king.

From the Rambam’s wording, it appears the matter is optional. The king is not obligated to execute the offender. Similarly, Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 173) appears to leave the matter to the king’s choice. Nevertheless, other authorities (Chatam Sofer, Even HaEzer, Responsum 151) question the matter.
On the surface, support for the Rambam’s opinion may be brought from David’s pardon of Shim’i as described above. On the other hand, that narrative cannot serve as conclusive evidence, for David counseled Solomon to put Shim’i to death.

The Chatam Sofer, (Orach Chayim, Responsum 208) questions how a matter of this serious nature can be derived from a book of the prophets. A prophet cannot create a mitzvah which is not mentioned in the Torah itself. However, other commentaries explain that the authority of the king to execute rebels is an extension of the mitzvah to appoint a king and to revere him. Accordingly, the charge to Joshua did not represent the creation of a new command, but rather, an extrapolation of an existing one.

II Samuel (16:5-9) relates that when David was fleeing his son Avshalom, he came to Bachurim. “Shim’i ben Gera came out, cursing as he came. He cast stones at David... cursing as follows: ‘... You bloody and base man. God has returned upon you the blood of Saul...’”
Avishai ben Tzeruya said to the king: “Why should this dead dog curse the king? Let me go over and take off his head.” Although David did not have him executed then, he was executed later as mentioned above.

As I Kings 12:11 relates, King Rechavam told the people: “My father (King Solomon) chastised you with rods.” By contrast, offenders who are sentenced to lashing by a Jewish court are whipped with lashes.

Hilchot Gezeilah 5:13 states: “Should a king confiscate a courtyard or field from one of the people unjustly, as defined by the laws which he himself legislated, behold, he is a thief.”
A king’s unjust seizure of his subject’s property is a very serious matter. It was King Achav’s murder of Navot of Yizre’el and confiscation of his property which excited the rage of the prophet, Elijah (1 Kings, Chapter 21).

Sheva ben Bichri tried to organize a revolt against King David. David sent his general, Amassa, to gather troops to quash the revolt before it grew. “Amassa went to muster the men... but was later than the set time... assigned him” (11 Samuel 20:5).
Why did Amassa tarry? Sanhedrin 49a explains that he found the men studying Torah and did not interrupt them. He reasoned: The verse (Joshua 1:18) which permits the king to execute rebels concludes: “Only be strong and brave.” The word “only” always indicates an exclusion or limitation. In this context, it implies that if the king attempts to negate the words of Torah, his words need not be heeded. Though Yoav slew Amassa for violating the king’s command, our Sages explain that Amassa had acted correctly.

Kiddushin 42b uses the same rationale to explain why an agent charged with the commission of a sin cannot blame the one who charged him with this act and must bear the burden of its violation himself.

The king’s rule is intended to strengthen the observance of Torah and mitzvot, not to cause the opposite.

The Torah is very exact in its requirements for testimony for capital punishment. If two witnesses were both able to identify a murderer, but their testimonies were even slightly inconsistent, the defendant is acquitted (see Hilchot Edut 2:1).

To incur the death penalty a murderer must be warned that he may suffer capital punishment for his crime (see Hilchot Sanhedrin 12:1-2).

In contrast to the two witnesses required universally by Torah Law.

Hilchot Rotzeach 6:10 states: “An enemy who inadvertently kills [one of his foes] is not exiled [the punishment for manslaughter]..., we may be assured that his act was close to being willful.”

In all these cases, though a court could not execute the offenders, if the king desired, he is granted the privilege of executing them.
There are a number of instances in the Bible where kings executed offenders despite the fact that a court would not have convicted them according to Torah law. For example, David ordered the Amalekite slain for killing Saul (11 Samuel 1:15) and the sons of Rimon slain for murdering Ish-Boshet, though the only evidence against them was their own statements. According to Torah law, a person’s own statements cannot be used to incriminate him. Nevertheless, David executed these offenders by virtue of his regal power.

Punishing wrongdoers as he sees fit.

In contrast, a Torah court may not try two capital cases in one day (Hilchot Sanhedrin 14:10).

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 states: “When a man is... executed, you must hang him on the gallows. However, you must not allow his body to remain on the gallows overnight. Rather, you must bury it on the same day.” Hilchot Sanhedrin 15:7 relates that the hanging was only momentary. The body was hung up right before sunset and immediately taken down.
II Samuel 21:10 relates that David allowed the seven sons of Saul whom the Gibeonites hung, to remain on the gallows for several months. Yevamot 79a asks why the Torah’s command “you must not allow his body to remain on the gallows” was ignored. It explains that the intent was to sanctify God’s name. Nations would look up to the Jews when they saw the sons of kings receive such severe punishment for maltreating converts. Similarly, in all instances, should a king see the need to continue leave bodies hanging, he may do so.