Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Ask Judea Torah Show 3
Shlomo:
Why on earth has "giving up Israel" even become a topic in the forum recently? Do you understand how many Jewish people gave up their lives to posses it? Do you understand how wrong it is to give away any of that land or to even entertain the thought of such a sin?
Giving away any part of Israel is a horrible crime and dwelling on it isn't a whole lot better. It took dwelling on it to make it sound acceptable, G-d forbid, to any real Jews at all. I would like to see us be a lot stronger than this and never even consider such an evil and detestable thing. Even if we lost our lives!
You know King David would risk Jewish lives to save Israel - and rebuild the Temple like we are supposed to do. If enough Jewish people stood up and did right, losing Jewish lives wouldn't even be an issue. G-d would give it to us and the Messiah would come.
judeanoncapta:
Lubab said
"In order for me to be kosher in this belief the Rambam does not need to say Moshiach can come from the dead. All I need to show is that he does not say this is Asur, and then you know my belief is Kosher.
Proving a negative if pretty tough, that's why it's upon you to bring something which says my belief is no good.
That's the idea behind Hamotzie Mechaveiro.
I do maintain that not one word in those chapters contradicts such a belief. If you can product something I would like to see it
However, you are correct that I did say that I think something in the Rambam actually SUPPORTs this belief. I was not lying. I do believe this.
But let's just be clear on this.
If I can prove this, this would be nothing more than a bonus for me. It's not neccesary for me to do this to prove my belief is in the bounds of the Torah, because everything is permitted until the Torah makes it forbidden, not the other way around.
Now on to my bonus:
I do actually think the Rambam's chapters SUPPORT this belief.
And that is the Rambam's choice to use the word "Neherag" instead of "Meis" in chapter 11:4.
Why did the Rambam use that word, instead of just saying any king who died is disqualified.
The clear implication to me is that death by the hands of man (neherag) disqualifies a Messianic candidate, but not death by the hands of G-d, natural means, etc.
When the Rambam talks about bar kochba it's the same story. He's careful to talk about how he was "killed" when Rabbi Akiva gave up on him...he never says it was because he died.
My other indication that the Rambam is cool with this belief is what he does not say.
Here we have a clear gemarah in 98:B seeming to say that Moshiach can come from the dead.
Incidentally, how many commentaries on the gemarah do we have making a big deal out of this "heretical"(sic) belief? How many do we have jumping on this "out of the mainstream" stuff?
Answer: None.
Not one commentary on that gemarah makes so much as a peep about it. Yad Rama actually repeats Rashi's interpreation and the rest are pretty much silent. That tells me it was accepted that it's a valid thing to believe.
And this includes the Rambam. The Rambam had ample opportunity to make it clear that a Moshiach could not die. Hilchose melachim would have been the perfect opportunity. This would have been a wonderful proof against Christianity, too. And it would have made the job of determining who is a proper Chezkas Moshiach a lot easier for a lot of people. Why didn't he say it?
Why doesn't he clearly say in these laws that natural death disqualifies?
I think there is only one reasonable explanation: it wasn't a big deal to the Rambam just as it wasn't a big deal to all the commentaries on the gemarah. There are SO MANY sources midrashim and stuff all over the place in Rashis on Daniel and everywhere talking about Moshiach being concealed from our view and then revealed at a later stage. The prophets say this concealment will last years (see Daniel Ashrei Sheychake)
I mean let's just think about this for a moment.
We know Moshiach will either come riding on a donkey or from a cloud, right? A cloud? A living person is all the sudden going to wind up on a cloud? Or a donkey? Where the big dramatic entry if a guy who was alive the whole time all the sudden just comes riding on a donkey???
It only makes sense that the Moshiach his first concealed in some way from the eyes of man before he is revealed again. How else could he come on a cloud?
There are many many sources which talk about this concealed-revealed process Moshiach will go through.
That's why the Rambam doesn't mention it or outlaw it. Because this belief is a Jewish as gefilte fish.
PS. Do you still have that statement by Hillel in your shas?
Why not just rip it out? It's not holy, is it? It's wrong.
Then you can go and rip out anything else in there you don't think makes sense.
Let's see kind of Torah you have left when you are done. "
q_q_:
--- Quote from: lubab on February 13, 2008, 01:59:48 PM ---....
--- End quote ---
There are the 3 sins, and a 4th - chillul hashem.
sinning in public, desecrates G-d`s name. And it is better to die than commit that. Even for the smallest thing, the smallest custom.
So , as your academic question asks. What if giving away land was a sin per se ? Then because of the chillul hashem, we would be meant to die rather than give it up.
Also, I read once that there is something in the shulchan aruch - something about if the enemy comes and - not says "land or war"- but even if they say "(give us your) straw or (we) war", then we should go to war against them.
Normally if a mitzva (positive or negative) endangers life. We don`t keep it. But war is an exception because the danger is inherent/guaranteed.
Lubab:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on February 13, 2008, 08:08:25 PM ---
--- Quote from: lubab on February 13, 2008, 01:59:48 PM ---....
--- End quote ---
There are the 3 sins, and a 4th - chillul hashem.
sinning in public, desecrates G-d`s name. And it is better to die than commit that. Even for the smallest thing, the smallest custom.
So , as your academic question asks. What if giving away land was a sin per se ? Then because of the chillul hashem, we would be meant to die rather than give it up.
Also, I read once that there is something in the shulchan aruch - something about if the enemy comes and - not says "land or war"- but even if they say "(give us your) straw or (we) war", then we should go to war against them.
Normally if a mitzva (positive or negative) endangers life. We don`t keep it. But war is an exception because the danger is inherent/guaranteed.
--- End quote ---
Yes. But the Shulchan Aruch is talking about reality. In reality when you give land to your enemy you endager everyone. That does not address the theoretical question of what if you would not.
Chilul hashem would apply to every mitzvah done publically. My question was not about a public situation, it was about a person who put a gun to someone's head privately and said "give me your house in Jerusalem or I'll shoot". That's a private one so the Chilul Hashem thing doesn't apply.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: lubab on February 13, 2008, 08:50:06 PM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on February 13, 2008, 08:08:25 PM ---
--- Quote from: lubab on February 13, 2008, 01:59:48 PM ---....
--- End quote ---
There are the 3 sins, and a 4th - chillul hashem.
sinning in public, desecrates G-d`s name. And it is better to die than commit that. Even for the smallest thing, the smallest custom.
So , as your academic question asks. What if giving away land was a sin per se ? Then because of the chillul hashem, we would be meant to die rather than give it up.
Also, I read once that there is something in the shulchan aruch - something about if the enemy comes and - not says "land or war"- but even if they say "(give us your) straw or (we) war", then we should go to war against them.
Normally if a mitzva (positive or negative) endangers life. We don`t keep it. But war is an exception because the danger is inherent/guaranteed.
--- End quote ---
Yes. But the Shulchan Aruch is talking about reality. In reality when you give land to your enemy you endager everyone. That does not address the theoretical question of what if you would not.
Chilul hashem would apply to every mitzvah done publically. My question was not about a public situation, it was about a person who put a gun to someone's head privately and said "give me your house in Jerusalem or I'll shoot". That's a private one so the Chilul Hashem thing doesn't apply.
--- End quote ---
Note that is not really giving away land though.. That is agreeing to give your house or land away(or letting him think you agree), while you have a gun to your head. Once he removes the gun, there is nothing stopping you - when you are ready - from taking the house back (and fighting back like judah maccabee)..
The possible sin, might be fighting back (According to non and anti zionists)
And another possible sin, is breaking the agreement, by taking the house back afterwards. (According to non and anti zionists).
They would probably say go by the law of the land.. consult the law enforcement agencies.. do not rise up against the nations. Depending on the situation, that may be the smart thing to do anyway.
So they are only really possible sins according to people who accept the 3 oaths literally and have no answer for how jews reacted on chanukah and how G-d reacted with miracles and how it is a positive thing.
Also, I think what is below(by rav binyamin kahane) applies also, to a situation where a thief has taken your house. (e.g. because he got you to hand it over when he had a gun to your head, and you "agreed").
It basically says that the thief knows that you will come and stop him, and so he plans to slay you, and so slay him first.
In your case, he might not know for sure, he is taking his chances, but still potential is there. What is below may apply.
Normal People Think Ahead by Rav Binyamin Kahane ZTL HYD
"
On the verse in our parsha, "If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall be no blood shed on his account", Rashi brings down a gemorah that is certain to shock liberal Jews: "If one comes to slay you, arise and slay him first. And this man (the thief) indeed came to kill you, for behold, he knows that one will not stand there and quietly watch his possessions being stolen. Therefore, the owner, having this in mind that the thief is prepared to kill him, should arise and slay him first."
Absolutely amazing! In other words, the sages are telling us here that the rule, "if one comes to slay you, slay him first" does not exclusively apply to the situation where one has a knife being held to his throat. In the above Rashi we see a much more expanded application of this simple "halacha". We see that one is obligated to think a few steps ahead and anticipate what the likely result will be. If one sees a real potential that this person will slay him, this in itself requires one to "arise and slay him first". What the sages have done here is to enter the psyche of the housethief, who, knowing the likelihood of resistance, has prepared himself to kill the owner if necessary. The knowledge of the owner that the thief is ready to kill him, even if only potentially, allows him to kill the thief first.
"
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version