Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Response from a non zionist, regarding RAMBAN, and vilna gaon 600000
q_q_:
You said the word Chiyuv appears in the paragraph at the end
The Ramban in his commentary to the Rambam's "Sefer Hamitzvot" (Positive Commandment #4) notes the following.
"That we are commanded to take possession of the Land ...[text included in earlier posts]........ behold, we are commanded with the conquest(KIBOOSH) of the land in every generation."
So how many more sentences are there to this paragraph before we get about being Chiyuv(obligated) in every generation? Too many to include? And all in the same place/paragraph?
I know you quoted the sentence.. But I already had quite a paragraph, and I do not see where it fitted into the paragraph. Was that paragraph just missing a statement in the end? So e.g. was it something like straight after Kiboosh?
btw, regarding your counter argument about the RAMBAM . (that it was issur to live in egypt, and he did). He did not have a response to that one. So you "neutralised" that paticular challenge of his.
And is it , ramban`s mitzva number 4, or is it commentary to rambam`s (positive?) mitzva 4.. I think you said it was the latter, but I just want to verify.. `cos somebody in the room said that ramban had his own numeration to get to 613.
judeanoncapta:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on February 08, 2008, 10:22:34 AM ---You said the word Chiyuv appears in the paragraph at the end
The Ramban in his commentary to the Rambam's "Sefer Hamitzvot" (Positive Commandment #4) notes the following.
"That we are commanded to take possession of the Land ...[text included in earlier posts]........ behold, we are commanded with the conquest(KIBOOSH) of the land in every generation."
So how many more sentences are there to this paragraph before we get about being Chiyuv(obligated) in every generation? Too many to include? And all in the same place/paragraph?
I know you quoted the sentence.. But I already had quite a paragraph, and I do not see where it fitted into the paragraph. Was that paragraph just missing a statement in the end? So e.g. was it something like straight after Kiboosh?
btw, regarding your counter argument about the RAMBAM . (that it was issur to live in egypt, and he did). He did not have a response to that one. So you "neutralised" that paticular challenge of his.
And is it , ramban`s mitzva number 4, or is it commentary to rambam`s (positive?) mitzva 4.. I think you said it was the latter, but I just want to verify.. `cos somebody in the room said that ramban had his own numeration to get to 613.
--- End quote ---
The sentence that I quoted about the CHiyuv(obligation) is about three lines from the bottom of the paragraph. It is not directly after Kiboosh but it is close to it.
I'm glad to hear that I neutralised his challenge.
And it is neither the ramban's fourth mitzvah nor is it a commentary on the rambam's fourth mitzvah, it is fourth on a list of mitzvot that the ramban thought the rambam should have included.
q_q_:
while we are here, I will ask a related thing.. related to your ask judea 2. and you mentioned this in a post too.
You said that the commentaries on RAMBAM disagree with him, in that they say one requires a prophet (no doubt we speak of commentaries on Hilchot Melachim.. 1:3).
I do not have those commentaries.. I do have a talmud in english. You said those commentaries disagree with him because the Talmud does not require a prophet. Can you provide me with the daf ? I will look it up.
thanks
q_q_:
ok. Got an answer, it is a very lame answer..
The non zionist did not bother to look it up, and has no intention of doing so.
Another person had studied it over shabbos, and said it does say KIBOOSH(conquer) and does say CHAYAV(obligated) (he did not say it said in every generation).
He said that Reb Shlomo Teichtal of Ein Habanim Semeicha, accepts the RAMBAN, and says it applies to us, and we should conquer the land. (I actually did not notice that in ein habanim semeicha).
He said that Reb Moshe Feinstein says the mitzva of conquering only applies when there is a temple. He did not say whether Reb Moshe Feinstein is here elucidating the RAMBAN or disagreeing with him. He suggested he was elucidating.
The reason he gave for Reb Moshe Feinstein, was that if RAMBAN meant obligated in every generation, then all the great rabbis were wrong.
And jews living outside israel when the bayt hamikdrash stood, were also wrong.
note- I can see this is faulty
a)the argument you gave about the RAMBAM staying in egypt even though it was against what he thought was right. So rabbis are not perfect.. (the non zionist could not grasp that concept, or pretended not to be able to)
b)who says all the great rabbis were holding by the RAMBAN..
b2)who cares if all the great rabbis say one thing. What halacha says to follow "gedolim".
Perhaps he presented reb moshe feinstein wrongly. Or perhaps I am wrong, but he certainly did not show where.
The non zionist tried to change the subject to Whether we are Chayav to conquer the land.
I stuck with asking about the RAMBAN.
He had one point though. Nothing to do with the RAMBAN.
The non zionist`s argument, which he had stated, was that in halacha we hold by the majourity, and the RAMBAN is in the minority.
(and of course he added the gratuitious insult that religious zionists take minority opinions and ignore all the [other] gedolim. This was of course a lame comment on his part. Since gedolim do not rule, judaism does not work by democracy, and people should do what they think is right, if that means one is in a minority, then fine. It is not about choosing ravs that hold minority opinions and hiding behind them. Like The classic non zionist hides behind gedolim).
What is your response though, to his argument that he halacha we hold by the majourity, and thus we ignore the ramban?
Ultimately, the non zionist follows Gedolim, and I don`t see him rationally arguing when he is not convincing his opponent.
The other person in the room tried to prove that we should follow Gedolim, by quoting Hilchot Mamrim 1:4, but what he read was purely about Batai Din and Sanhedrin having authority. What he explained was that now we do not have that it means local rabbi and gedolim. So he ignored the details and fluffed the explanation. So that was a poor show!
I do have a very interesting argument though from RDG (Rabbi dovid gottlieb) of Ohr, about being bound by a rav`s decision. I will start a new thread for it.
q_q_:
I just had a conversation with a religious zionist "johnyame" . familiar with Rabbi Bar Hayyim, he said something very interesting. You hebrew speaking scholars are no doubt aware of it..
The RAMBAN (besides his usage of the words KIBOOSH, and CHAYAV), uses the expression Milchemet Mitzva. So it may be that the RAMBAN considers israel`s wars to be milchemet mitzva.
This is a difference with the RAMBAM who as I have shown- (and perhaps even convinced johnyame), he does write under the assumption that you have a King when waging a milchemet mitzva. But more than that, he implies that you need a King. In chapter 6 it is clear that you HAVE to offer them peace first, and peace includes acceptance of the 7 laws, AND Tribute to the KING.
The fact that the RAMBAN says this though, is significant.. Infact, the fact that any really great rabbi accepted by non zionists too, would say this, or anything supporting of tenets of religious zionism denied by them, is significant.
Because non zionists do consider religious zionists to be a bit like reform jews.
As outrageous as that seems.. So being a religious zionist, they think is like being a religious reform jew. Their only basis for this stupidity is that they define zionism as secular zionism - and the movement is. They rubbish the idea that RZs even claim it is rooted in torah.
So even if RAMBAN is a minority opinion, it is significant, merely to show them that it is a legitimate torah position. They accept the RAMBAN
It is not like quoting some contemporary zionist rabbi. They accept the RAMBAN as a great Torah scholar. And his positions as Torah positions.
And they would not dare say that RAMBAN was like a religious reform jew!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version