Sefer Shoftim presents a period of Israelite history characterized by the absence of centralized monarchy and depicts both individual autonomy and collective assemblies of the people. The sources explore tensions between personal judgment and communal deliberation, as well as later rabbinic frameworks for leadership accountability.
אִישׁ הַיָּשׁר בְּעֵינָיו יַעֲשֶׂה
Opens as a working sheet — explore, annotate, and export.
What the sources say
The closing refrain of Shoftim, repeated verbatim at Shoftim 17:6 and again at Shoftim 21:25, states that "there was no king in Israel; everyone did as they pleased" — a phrase the text itself offers as an explanation for the disorder described, suggesting that the absence of centralized authority is presented as a problem rather than an ideal.
Against that cautionary note, Shoftim 20:1–11 depicts something closer to collective self-governance: the entire people "from Dan to Beer-sheba" assembles "as one" before God at Mizpah, is invited to deliberate — "produce a plan of action here and now" — and then rises collectively to declare a shared course of action, showing the nation acting through communal assembly rather than royal decree.
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 16a) adds a structural layer from outside Shoftim but relevant to its period: even a king may not take the nation to an optional war without the authorization of the Great Sanhedrin representing "all the congregation," which the Gemara derives from the Bamidbar verse about Yehoshua — indicating that even legitimate executive leadership was constitutionally constrained by representative bodies.
שופטים כ״א:כ״ה
Judges 21:25
The book closes by repeating that 'in those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes,' a key line for discussions about anarchy versus governance.
בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔ם אֵ֥ין מֶ֖לֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אִ֛ישׁ הַיָּשָׁ֥ר בְּעֵינָ֖יו יַעֲשֶֽׂה׃
In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did as they pleased.
שופטים י״ז:ו׳
Judges 17:6
In Israel during that period there was no king, and each person acted according to what seemed right to them.
בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵ֔ם אֵ֥ין מֶ֖לֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל אִ֛ישׁ הַיָּשָׁ֥ר בְּעֵינָ֖יו יַעֲשֶֽׂה׃ {פ}
In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did as they pleased.
שופטים כ׳:א׳-י״א
Judges 20:1-11
The tribes assemble 'as one man' for a public deliberation before war, offering a vivid picture of collective decision-making among the people.
וַיֵּצְאוּ֮ כׇּל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וַתִּקָּהֵ֨ל הָעֵדָ֜ה כְּאִ֣ישׁ אֶחָ֗ד לְמִדָּן֙ וְעַד־בְּאֵ֣ר שֶׁ֔בַע וְאֶ֖רֶץ הַגִּלְעָ֑ד אֶל־יְהֹוָ֖ה הַמִּצְפָּֽה׃ הִנֵּ֥ה כֻלְּכֶ֖ם בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל הָב֥וּ לָכֶ֛ם דָּבָ֥ר וְעֵצָ֖ה הֲלֹֽם׃ וַיָּ֙קׇם֙ כׇּל־הָעָ֔ם כְּאִ֥ישׁ אֶחָ֖ד לֵאמֹ֑ר לֹ֤א נֵלֵךְ֙ אִ֣ישׁ לְאׇהֳל֔וֹ וְלֹ֥א נָס֖וּר אִ֥ישׁ לְבֵיתֽוֹ׃
Thereupon all the Israelites—from Dan to Beer-sheba and [from] the land of Gilead—marched forth, and the community assembled as one, before GOD at Mizpah. Now you are all Israelites; produce a plan of action here and now!” Then all the people rose as one and declared, “We will not go back to our homes, we will not enter our houses!
סנהדרין ט״ז א — ד"ה אֵין מוֹצִיאִין וְכוּ׳
Sanhedrin 16a:16
A king may only initiate an optional war with the authorization of the Great Sanhedrin, as derived from the verse describing Joshua's appointment, where "he" refers to the king, "the priest anointed for war" represents the priestly advisor, and "all the congregation" denotes the Sanhedrin.
אֵין מוֹצִיאִין וְכוּ׳. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְלִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן יַעֲמֹד״. ״הוּא״ – זֶה מֶלֶךְ, ״וְכׇל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִתּוֹ״ – זֶה מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה, ״וְכׇל הָעֵדָה״ – זֶה סַנְהֶדְרֵי.
§ The mishna teaches that the king may bring the nation out to an optional war only on the basis of a court of seventy-one judges, i.e., the Great Sanhedrin. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Abbahu says: It is as the verse states with regard to the appointment of Joshua: “And he shall stand before Elazar the priest, and he shall ask counsel of the Urim before the Lord; by his word they shall go out, and by his word they shall come in, he and all of the children of Israel with him and all of the congregation” (Numbers 27:21). Rabbi Abbahu analyzes the end of the verse. With regard to the word “he,” this is the king, referring to Joshua and to any other leader who brings the nation out to war. With regard to the word “him” in the verse “And all of the children of Israel with him,” this is the priest anointed for war, who was anointed specially to stand and instruct the people before the war (see Deuteronomy 20:2). “And all of the congregation”; this is the Sanhedrin. Consequently, the king can embark on an optional war only if the Great Sanhedrin is present and grants authority to him.
Sources examine how classical commentators understood systems of political authority and rulership in the Book of Judges, including perspectives on the contrast between judicial and monarchical governance in ancient Israel.
Sources identify and explain the commandments derived from Parashat Shoftim, including the establishment of judges and officers in every city, the appointment of a king, prohibitions against judicial partiality and bribery, and proper treatment of the executed.
Jewish law establishes two complementary systems of authority: courts administering Torah law and kings empowered to act for the common good beyond strict halakha. These sources explore how divine law guides both the judiciary and monarchy, and how political necessity integrates with religious obligation in establishing a just society.
Abarbanel and other classical commentators argue that the Torah does not command or praise monarchy as an ideal institution, but rather permits it as a reluctant concession to the nation's misguided desire to imitate foreign kingdoms. The sources present the divinely sanctioned model of Israelite governance as a system of judges and elders, which represents the true vision for Israel's political order.
The passage examines how classical Jewish sources understand the story of Micah's household shrine and graven image in Judges 17. Chazal, Rishonim, and Acharonim analyze the narrative's depiction of religious corruption, the mother's misguided dedication of silver, the absence of centralized authority, and the principle that everyone acted according to their own judgment without binding Torah law or leadership.
Sources present the rabbinic doctrine of the Three Oaths from Song of Songs, which restrict Israel from forcefully ascending to the land or rebelling against nations before the appointed time of redemption. Interpretations range from viewing these oaths as binding halakhic prohibitions against establishing Jewish government to more spiritual readings that emphasize the redemptive process.