Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Response from a non zionist, regarding RAMBAN, and vilna gaon 600000
jdl4ever:
If that is so then why did Rabbi Akiva appoint him as King, he should have waited for Elijah the Prophet since he didn't have a Prophet which is necessary to appoint a King as per your understanding.
I have a better answer for you; that the R' Akiva incident was quoted very brief in passing by the Rambam and therefore the Rambam didn't necessarily agree with everything R' Akiva did since he didn't expound this story and derive a lot of information from it but he just derived one thing from the story and went on. This answer supports your position the best.
Also even if the Rambam did mean like you think that all Kings must be appointed by both the Sanhedrin and a Prophet, and when he brought the R' Akivah incident he didn't mean to bring it to agree with the entire incident; I still must support those who say that the Rambam made a mistake since the more I'm thinking about the Torah and Jewish History the more contradictions there is with this theory. The whole second Temple Era comes to mind, several Shoftim come to mind who were appointed with no Prophet, the Torah before Shaul, the verses in the Torah that give eternal commandments saying nothing about Moshiach or Kings like "erradicate the rememberance of Amalek in every Generation, don't forget", the story of Channukah etc. There are too many problems with this theory and I can't bring myself to believe the Rambam made such a big mistake.
kahaneloyalist:
Lets not forget the Rambam was full of praise for the Hashmonaim who were not appointed by a Navi
q_q_:
jdl4ever-
can you provide references..
where did rabbi akiva appoint bar kochba as king?
I have not read much nach, you did not provide references there either.
And where is it about
the fact you mentioned to me
"the Prophet Shmuel appoint King David as King in secret and anoint him without the Sanhedrin? "
I only ask because I am not familiar with nach.. I would have to read those parts.
The only person who ever suggested that the RAMBAM made a mistake was you.
jdl4ever:
Maimonides: The Laws of Monarchy and Wars Chapter 11
Samuel 1 Chapter 16
I am saying that if you view the Rambam like you view it then it is wrong. I obviously think the Rambam requires Jewish control of Israel and Milchamat Mitzvah and Milchemet Rishoot applies our time, and a King is not required to do most things he talks about in Hilchot Melachim. The Rambam simply defines Milchamat Mitzvah and Milchemet Rishoot as a war between the 7 nations and a war not between the 7 nations in Hilchot Melachim. He never says they require a King. Your misunderstanding that just because something is menchaned in Hilchot Melachim or menchans something about Kings in that suject makes it only apply to having a King only and nothing else is wrong. As an analogy is I tell you "it is raining so take out an umbrella" does not mean that if I don't have an umbrella I can not cover myself with anohter object if it is raining. You need proof of the Rambam saying outright that something exclusively applies to having a King only. Otherwize, you can not make such a claim. Since it is Hilchot Melachim he's going to talk about a King relating to verious situations whether one is required or not. He lists these things there as a matter of conveinyence and the Rambam also lists many of them in other chapters. There is a lot of redundancy in the Rambam. For example, in Hilchot Shabbat the Rambam says outright that any band of Goyim that attack your city and you think they wish to kill you, the Jews may attack them on Shabbat. This is talking about even the Galut.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: jdl4ever on February 12, 2008, 06:07:51 PM ---Maimonides: The Laws of Monarchy and Wars Chapter 11
Samuel 1 Chapter 16
I am saying that if you view the Rambam like you view it then it is wrong. I obviously think the Rambam requires Jewish control of Israel and Milchamat Mitzvah and Milchemet Rishoot applies our time, and a King is not required to do most things he talks about in Hilchot Melachim. The Rambam simply defines Milchamat Mitzvah and Milchemet Rishoot as a war between the 7 nations and a war not between the 7 nations in Hilchot Melachim. He never says they require a King. Your misunderstanding that just because something is menchaned in Hilchot Melachim or menchans something about Kings in that suject makes it only apply to having a King only and nothing else is wrong.
--- End quote ---
no.
I never said that. And there are some things in hilchot melachim that are not related to a king. Like not leaving bavel and not leaving Eretz Yisroel. And the fact that the sages loved EY and rolled in its dust.
But in hilchot melachim, ch6, he talks of any milchemet mitzva/reshut as if it is a given that there is a King. Furthermore, since only 2 wars are spoken of there. Milchemet(war) Mitzva and Milchemet(war) Reshut. And the title of the book is Laws Of Kings And Their Wars. It pretty darn obvious.
[/quote]
--- Quote from: jdl4ever on February 12, 2008, 06:07:51 PM --- As an analogy is I tell you "it is raining so take out an umbrella" does not mean that if I don't have an umbrella I can not cover myself with anohter object if it is raining. You need proof of the Rambam saying outright that something exclusively applies to having a King only.
--- End quote ---
Writing about it in such a way that there has to be a King. That is enough.
Your idea that we can remove the King from the RAMBAM`s explanation, is stretching things.
--- Quote from: jdl4ever on February 12, 2008, 06:07:51 PM ---
Otherwize, you can not make such a claim. Since it is Hilchot Melachim he's going to talk about a King relating to verious situations whether one is required or not. He lists these things there as a matter of conveinyence and the Rambam also lists many of them in other chapters. There is a lot of redundancy in the Rambam. For example, in Hilchot Shabbat the Rambam says outright that any band of Goyim that attack your city and you think they wish to kill you, the Jews may attack them on Shabbat. This is talking about even the Galut.
--- End quote ---
I do not have hilchot shabbat.
Are you claiming that according to the RAMBAM, Hilchot Shabbat, we can have a milchemet mitzva in Galut?
I suppose now you go to hilchot melachim, and remove not just the King, but the subjugation too. Why not remove the whole lot. Here`s an idea.. Why not just remove the fact that it talks of being attached by my people.. I mean, what if it is not a bunch of people. What if it is just an anti-semitic thug, and you beat the hell out of him. Is that a milchemet mitzva? I am all for beating the hell out of him, but don`t call it a milchemet mitzva.
I will check the samuel reference
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version