Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Response from a non zionist, regarding RAMBAN, and vilna gaon 600000
jdl4ever:
When the Rambam first introduces the concept of Milchemet Mitzvah and Milchemet Reshoot at the very beginning he simply defines it as a war against the 7 nations and a war against other nations respectfully in Chapter 5. He does not say in the definition itself that a King is required, but this is merely implied by you since the first words the Rambam says "when a King makes war he must first do Milchemet Mitzvah" and then the Rambam goes on to define what is a Milchemet Mitzvah. You are getting mislead by the first few words in the verse to think that since the verse began with a King waging the wars, by definition they require a King; but this is not so. The Rambam goes back and defines what the wars are in the next few words. Look at the definition itself, he does not say a King is required but simply what I wrote before. And if you say that a King is required for both wars then why does the Rambam specifically go out of his way to say that a war against Amalek requires a King first and proves it with a Torah verse? Wouldn't that be redundant acccording to you? According to me, the Rambam lists the exception which is Amalek where a King is first required but this is not the case with the other wars.
And as to your question, if the Goyim want to attack us in Israel and we attack them that is considered a Milchemet Rishoot by definition.
q_q_:
I was not referring to chapter 5.
I repeated the argument many times to you already.
Chapter 6.
Talks of any milchemet mitzvah or reshut, and it REQUIRES A KING.. (since it mentions offering peace, and them paying a tribute TO THE KING)
now if you want to remove the Tribute, The King. Well, then remove other things too and apply it to fighting a thug. It is distorting the RAMBAM.
And if he writes under the assumption that there is a King, and you say it applies without a King, then you have no basis. Just as removing more and applying it to fighting a thug.
judeanoncapta:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on February 12, 2008, 08:47:38 PM ---I was not referring to chapter 5.
I repeated the argument many times to you already.
Chapter 6.
Talks of any milchemet mitzvah or reshut, and it REQUIRES A KING.. (since it mentions offering peace, and them paying a tribute TO THE KING)
now if you want to remove the Tribute, The King. Well, then remove other things too and apply it to fighting a thug. It is distorting the RAMBAM.
And if he writes under the assumption that there is a King, and you say it applies without a King, then you have no basis. Just as removing more and applying it to fighting a thug.
--- End quote ---
If Milchemet Mitzvah requires a King annointed by a prophet, how did Yehoshua fight the seven nations?
Or Yiftah?
Or Shimshon?
Or Gideon?
None of them were Kings and they ALL fought a Milchemet Mitzvah.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: judeanoncapta on February 12, 2008, 09:33:38 PM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on February 12, 2008, 08:47:38 PM ---I was not referring to chapter 5.
I repeated the argument many times to you already.
Chapter 6.
Talks of any milchemet mitzvah or reshut, and it REQUIRES A KING.. (since it mentions offering peace, and them paying a tribute TO THE KING)
now if you want to remove the Tribute, The King. Well, then remove other things too and apply it to fighting a thug. It is distorting the RAMBAM.
And if he writes under the assumption that there is a King, and you say it applies without a King, then you have no basis. Just as removing more and applying it to fighting a thug.
--- End quote ---
If Milchemet Mitzvah requires a King annointed by a prophet, how did Yehoshua fight the seven nations?
Or Yiftah?
Or Shimshon?
Or Gideon?
None of them were Kings and they ALL fought a Milchemet Mitzvah.
--- End quote ---
I would have to read about them.. But
rambam also writes about Joshua in 1:3
"A King may only be appointed by a court of 71 elders together with a prophet , as joshua was appointed by moses and his court, and as saul and david were appointed by samuel of ramah and his court"
So, there you have about Joshua.. he was appointed. by a prophet and a court of 71 elders. As RAMBAM requires for a King
The commentary in hilchot melachim, in the edition published by moznaim says "in halacha 1, the rambam stated that the appointement of a king could come only after entering eretz israel. Joshua was charged with leading the jewish people before they came into the land. Furhermore, the sages and the rambam sometimes referred to moses as a king, although he never entered eretz yisrael. Accordingly, we must say that the concept of monarchy went through a number of stages. AS expalined above, a parallel concept may be seen regarding the mitzva of building a temple. The ultimate filfillment of them itzvah was the construction of the temple in jeruslaem. However, before that, a tabernacle was built to accomodate the jews through the desert, and a sancturary was built in shilo. "
Whatever the interpretation is.. one should not take a problem with RAMBAM, a few exceptions, and use them to weaken the definition and nullify everything else the RAMBAM says. And then say that is what the RAMBAM meant. The best we can do is as the above explanation does. Explain the exceptions, speculate if you must, but admit they are exceptions. Don`t change everything else the RAMBAM wrote, turning it into nonsense, nullifying it. Based on some speculation..
RAMBAM says there is a mitzva to appoint a a king, on entering EY. And he says a King requires a prophet and a court of 71 elders.
Interestingly, he also says that first a King, then destroy, then and only then, build the temple. So according to RAMBAM, we cannot build the temple yet either. (so the most right wing religious zionists who want to built the temple now, should not claim to be following the rambam)
jdl4ever:
I've already answered your argument before. In Chapter 6, the Rambam does talk about tribute to a King, but that is not necessary for a Milchemet Mitzvah and Milchemet Rishoot since the Rambam defines what these wars are in Chapter 5 and he does not say they require a King, he merely says the definition of a MM and MR are that one is a war against the 7 nations and the other is not. He never says they require a King. Also the Rambam specifically singles out a war with Amalek as something you must have a King first. according to you this problematic since is redundant. The Rambam mentions tribute and other things applying to a King since this is Hilchot Melachim and the Rambam is going to apply every concept mentioned in this Chapter to Kings whether it is required to have a King or not. He also talks about Kings having wives and concubines in these Chapters. So are you going to tell me that since the Rambam talks about wives and concubines in the Chapter of Kings that from this we derive only Kings can have wives and concubines? Not necessarily so. And when he talks about giving honor to a King, does that mean a Torah Scholar doesn't require honor since the Rambam mentions honor by a King? Your "proof" is not a proof at all
I am also not negating things the Rambam says, just reading him correctly; you are just reading him very superficially since you want him to say your view on something and ignoring the outright contradictions such a view holds. Your view has many contradictions in the Rambam's own words and in the Torah itself. This will become apparent when you read different Chapters of the Rambam that repeat things mentioned in this Chapter, this time without mentioning Kings, and when you read the Torah. And that commentary you have printed does not give a half satisfactory answer to these questions. It only answers how Joshua could be considered a King since that was before we entered Israel. But anyone after him until Shaul wasn't a King. And if you say they were, then a further question is that the Rambam said that a female can not be considered King, then how could Devorah the Prophetess be considered a King and wage a Milchemet Rishoot? So either way there is no answer you can give and the Rambam must be saying like me.
Also, attacking a bunch of thugs in Israel who invade you is considered a Milchemet Reshoot whether you like it or not.
So in summary your "proof" from Chapter 6 is invalid due to a logical fallacy since you can't derive exclusivity from association. Meaning, the Rambam must exclusively say that something only applies to a King to be a proof. In the definition of the wars at the beginning of Chapter 5, he defines them without saying they exclusively apply to a King. Anything applying to a King after this definition is not necessary, but only applies if you happen to have a King, if not then it doesn't matter since exclusivity was never stated by the Rambam anywhere. Something talked about in the Chapter of Kings does not necessarily mean it applies only to Kings anymore than something talked about in the Chapter of Sabbath applying only to Sabbath. The Rambam must say outright that this thing only applies to Kings or you must have a King first like he does for Amalek.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version