2 http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/468?m=23374711#23374711
source | link

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein discusses this sort of issue in an article of his titled "סמיכה בארץ ישראל ובחוץ לארץ" (roughly: ordination in Israel and the Diaspora) printed in his collection of essays Minchat Aviv beginning on page 479 (particularly pages 481-483).

Rav Lichtenstein opens his discussion by citing the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 4:6): "אין מעמידין מלך ישראל בחו"ל" -- We do not establish kings in the Diaspora.

He notes that while the Rambam in his Laws of Kings mentions a geographic limitation in his listing in Chapter 4 of the king's powers (namely, in 4:2 ושולח בכל גבול ישראל (cf. Hilchot Shemitta 10:10 and Vayikra 25:9)), he omits such a mention in Chapter 2 where he lists the obligations related to honoring the king (in particular, in 2:3 where he doesn't suggest the widow perform Chalitza in the Diaspora).

Accordingly, Rav Lichtenstein argues that a king ruling in Israel has full power as king only in Israel, while the obligation to honor him extends elsewhere.

However, a pseudo-king ruling in the Diaspora is different. Rav Lichtenstein further argues that since there is no separate Mitzva of honoring a king as there is by Talmidei Chachamim (Chinukh #222) [or parents (Chinukh #27)] but rather it is a part of the nature and Mitzva of appointing a king as opposed to any other leader, a pseudo-king ruling in the Diaspora would not even need to be honored there as his formal powers do not apply, as above.

Since, as he notes in footnote 6, the Yerushalmi (Horayot 3:2) seems clear that kings can gain and lose their status depending on de facto leadership (eg. through a temporary coup, such as with David and Avshalom), it seems to me that, combining all the above, the individual in your question would no longer have the status of a king, neither regarding his powers nor the obligation to honor him, since he no longer has any de facto control of any territory in the Land of Israel. (It may still be appropriate to honor him if he is the de facto ruler in his current location (or perhaps just as a remembrance of the past), but it is not part of the formal biblical rule of kingship so much as part of Dina deMalchuta.)

[I don't see anywhere where he deals with the fact that some laws (eg. those in 2:2) of honoring a king still apply after the king dies and is (presumably therefore) no longer king. Perhaps we should distinguish between a king who dies in office and one who leaves before dying, or perhaps between those laws honoring the person of the king versus those that honor his office. These would of course also then be relevant in understanding II Samuel 16:20-23 and 20:3.]

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein discusses this sort of issue in an article of his titled "סמיכה בארץ ישראל ובחוץ לארץ" (roughly: ordination in Israel and the Diaspora) printed in his collection of essays Minchat Aviv beginning on page 479 (particularly pages 481-483).

Rav Lichtenstein opens his discussion by citing the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 4:6): "אין מעמידין מלך ישראל בחו"ל" -- We do not establish kings in the Diaspora.

He notes that while the Rambam in his Laws of Kings mentions a geographic limitation in his listing in Chapter 4 of the king's powers (namely, in 4:2 ושולח בכל גבול ישראל (cf. Hilchot Shemitta 10:10 and Vayikra 25:9)), he omits such a mention in Chapter 2 where he lists the obligations related to honoring the king (in particular, in 2:3 where he doesn't suggest the widow perform Chalitza in the Diaspora).

Accordingly, Rav Lichtenstein argues that a king ruling in Israel has full power as king only in Israel, while the obligation to honor him extends elsewhere.

However, Rav Lichtenstein further argues that since there is no separate Mitzva of honoring a king as there is by Talmidei Chachamim (Chinukh #222) [or parents (Chinukh #27)] but rather it is a part of the nature and Mitzva of appointing a king as opposed to any other leader, a pseudo-king ruling in the Diaspora would not even need to be honored there as his formal powers do not apply, as above.

Since, as he notes in footnote 6, the Yerushalmi (Horayot 3:2) seems clear that kings can gain and lose their status depending on de facto leadership (eg. through a temporary coup, such as with David and Avshalom), it seems to me that, combining all the above, the individual in your question would no longer have the status of a king, neither regarding his powers nor the obligation to honor him, since he no longer has any de facto control of any territory in the Land of Israel. (It may still be appropriate to honor him if he is the de facto ruler in his current location (or perhaps just as a remembrance of the past), but it is not part of the formal biblical rule of kingship so much as part of Dina deMalchuta.)

[I don't see anywhere where he deals with the fact that some laws (eg. those in 2:2) of honoring a king still apply after the king dies and is (presumably therefore) no longer king. Perhaps we should distinguish between a king who dies in office and one who leaves before dying, or perhaps between those laws honoring the person of the king versus those that honor his office. These would of course also then be relevant in understanding II Samuel 16:20-23 and 20:3.]

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein discusses this sort of issue in an article of his titled "סמיכה בארץ ישראל ובחוץ לארץ" (roughly: ordination in Israel and the Diaspora) printed in his collection of essays Minchat Aviv beginning on page 479 (particularly pages 481-483).

Rav Lichtenstein opens his discussion by citing the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 4:6): "אין מעמידין מלך ישראל בחו"ל" -- We do not establish kings in the Diaspora.

He notes that while the Rambam in his Laws of Kings mentions a geographic limitation in his listing in Chapter 4 of the king's powers (namely, in 4:2 ושולח בכל גבול ישראל (cf. Hilchot Shemitta 10:10 and Vayikra 25:9)), he omits such a mention in Chapter 2 where he lists the obligations related to honoring the king (in particular, in 2:3 where he doesn't suggest the widow perform Chalitza in the Diaspora).

Accordingly, Rav Lichtenstein argues that a king ruling in Israel has full power as king only in Israel, while the obligation to honor him extends elsewhere.

However, a pseudo-king ruling in the Diaspora is different. Rav Lichtenstein argues that since there is no separate Mitzva of honoring a king as there is by Talmidei Chachamim (Chinukh #222) [or parents (Chinukh #27)] but rather it is a part of the nature and Mitzva of appointing a king as opposed to any other leader, a pseudo-king ruling in the Diaspora would not even need to be honored there as his formal powers do not apply, as above.

Since, as he notes in footnote 6, the Yerushalmi (Horayot 3:2) seems clear that kings can gain and lose their status depending on de facto leadership (eg. through a temporary coup, such as with David and Avshalom), it seems to me that, combining all the above, the individual in your question would no longer have the status of a king, neither regarding his powers nor the obligation to honor him, since he no longer has any de facto control of any territory in the Land of Israel. (It may still be appropriate to honor him if he is the de facto ruler in his current location (or perhaps just as a remembrance of the past), but it is not part of the formal biblical rule of kingship so much as part of Dina deMalchuta.)

[I don't see anywhere where he deals with the fact that some laws (eg. those in 2:2) of honoring a king still apply after the king dies and is (presumably therefore) no longer king. Perhaps we should distinguish between a king who dies in office and one who leaves before dying, or perhaps between those laws honoring the person of the king versus those that honor his office. These would of course also then be relevant in understanding II Samuel 16:20-23 and 20:3.]

1
source | link

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein discusses this sort of issue in an article of his titled "סמיכה בארץ ישראל ובחוץ לארץ" (roughly: ordination in Israel and the Diaspora) printed in his collection of essays Minchat Aviv beginning on page 479 (particularly pages 481-483).

Rav Lichtenstein opens his discussion by citing the Tosefta (Sanhedrin 4:6): "אין מעמידין מלך ישראל בחו"ל" -- We do not establish kings in the Diaspora.

He notes that while the Rambam in his Laws of Kings mentions a geographic limitation in his listing in Chapter 4 of the king's powers (namely, in 4:2 ושולח בכל גבול ישראל (cf. Hilchot Shemitta 10:10 and Vayikra 25:9)), he omits such a mention in Chapter 2 where he lists the obligations related to honoring the king (in particular, in 2:3 where he doesn't suggest the widow perform Chalitza in the Diaspora).

Accordingly, Rav Lichtenstein argues that a king ruling in Israel has full power as king only in Israel, while the obligation to honor him extends elsewhere.

However, Rav Lichtenstein further argues that since there is no separate Mitzva of honoring a king as there is by Talmidei Chachamim (Chinukh #222) [or parents (Chinukh #27)] but rather it is a part of the nature and Mitzva of appointing a king as opposed to any other leader, a pseudo-king ruling in the Diaspora would not even need to be honored there as his formal powers do not apply, as above.

Since, as he notes in footnote 6, the Yerushalmi (Horayot 3:2) seems clear that kings can gain and lose their status depending on de facto leadership (eg. through a temporary coup, such as with David and Avshalom), it seems to me that, combining all the above, the individual in your question would no longer have the status of a king, neither regarding his powers nor the obligation to honor him, since he no longer has any de facto control of any territory in the Land of Israel. (It may still be appropriate to honor him if he is the de facto ruler in his current location (or perhaps just as a remembrance of the past), but it is not part of the formal biblical rule of kingship so much as part of Dina deMalchuta.)

[I don't see anywhere where he deals with the fact that some laws (eg. those in 2:2) of honoring a king still apply after the king dies and is (presumably therefore) no longer king. Perhaps we should distinguish between a king who dies in office and one who leaves before dying, or perhaps between those laws honoring the person of the king versus those that honor his office. These would of course also then be relevant in understanding II Samuel 16:20-23 and 20:3.]