Ask Judea Torah Show 3

[judeanoncapta]

Seeing that this past week got fewer questions than last week, I have decided to make the next show a free-for-all.

Ask as many questions as you want whenever you want.

[q_q_]

what is a good way to learn hebrew..

biblical hebrew, not ivrit.

I can sound out the words, but understand hardly any of it.


I could read tenach along with a linear translation, but truth is that even the best translations have problems.  I am thinking maybe I should accept those problems then fix them up with a concordance, after going through it all.

How many roots are there in hebrew? Is the way to learn it, to study all the roots?

The etymological dictionary of biblical hebrew seems to have all the roots, but is 300 pages long. And is a dictionary.  Reading a dictionary seems crazy. But if just the roots cover 300 pages.. Maybe it would take even longer with tenach with linear translation, that will have all variations of each root.

what are your thoughts? any suggestions?



 
 

[q_q_]

This is a question about muhleetzah/melisa.

sorry is so long.. I hope it isn`t too long. But it actually is not really subquestions. Just elaboration of the one question .  Since most people have not heard of this word melisa at all. And it has HUGE implications.

Speaking to "the maimonidean", he said that the noachide laws only apply in jewish sovereignty (presumably when we have a king). He provided no evidence of that at all.

But then I realised that perhaps he doesn`t even think they were given to Noah.. It turns out I was right.   I thought about his reasoning..

I was thinking, what is the basis for the idea that 7 laws were given to adam and noah?

first - the name, noachide laws. sheva mitzvot bnei Noah.

second-    the drash on Gen 2:16 where Adam is given a command by G-d.  The drash says that each word of that command refers to each of the noachide laws, making all 7.

People nowadays tend to take drash literally, and say that implies that they were given at that time. But according to this maimonidean, it does not imply that at all. 

He calls these biblical references "melitza"/melisa  which he translates as rabbinical rhetoric.
The term does appear in the Jastrow dictionary.

This is also his argument about the 3 oaths, by the way. That it is melisa.  And so he says no problem going en masse to israel. or I suppose, of rising up against the nations if they over persecute us.. e.t.c.

Do you have any idea what this word "melisa" is all about. And what do you think of his conclusion, or lack of one, concerning the noachide laws ?

The word muhleetza certainly exists and is known! (since it is in the jastrow dictionary)..

The article anti maimonidean demons by jose faur  (which is pro maimonidean) says that anti maimonideans have no concept of melisa. This maimonidean has often said that maimonideans lost, and Nachmonides and Co prevailed..  Most jews nowadays accept kabbalah.

And it seems, are not familiar with the term melisa.

What do you think? What is melisa?!

note- 2 useful pages on noachide laws (you would be familiar with info in these links already. nothing about melisa. just classic stuff)
http://www.geocities.com/rachav/seven_laws_in_genesis.html   (biblical sources)
http://www.geocities.com/rachav/oadnl.html  (talmudic source, with the drash)

[Dominater96]

What do you believe to be the perfect type of Tzitzit ? Techelet, which type of techelet, type of material, type of tieing, etc. everything about the tzitzit.

[q_q_]

In the previous show, you referred to discussion can israel appoint a King.  You answered that.  And certainly, I guess that if it can appoint a King, then Israel is a malchut.

A problem there is that we need a sanhedrin/court of 71 rabbis.  A psychological criticism of the current sanhedrin.. is that they call themselves "nascent" sanhedrin.  How can a sanhedrin that calls itself that, be considered a sanhedrin. They themselves would not consider themselves strong enough to appoint a King. So, since we have only a self-declared nascent sanhedrin too weak to appoint a king, we still cannot appoint a King.   

And what is to stop 71 mad rabbis in cherem from appointing a Sanhedrin, with shmuley boteach as leader. And then having HUGE authority.   Surely if they are rejected, or unknown, to the majourity of orthodox jews, they cannot even be considered a sanhedrin.

So we still cannot appoint a king in our times.  (if you argue - as 99.99% or 100% of scholars would, that we need a sanhedrin)

[q_q_]

Are you one that believes the state of israel (as it is, no king) is a malchut  ?

What are the arguments for and against? who has made them?
What are the implications?

I have heard that some say it is a malchut. But how can anybody honestly say it is a malchut?

I do not think it is a malchut.. I do not think anything about milchemet mitzva"/"reshut applies.
It seems obvious to me - at least that the RAMBAM does not consider it a malchut.

Given that the book Hilchot Melachim has a full title of Hilchot Melachim U`Milchamoteichem, Laws of *kings* and *their* wars. And that when discussing milchemet reshut and milchemet mitzva, he writes in that book, under the assumption of there being a King.  Do you seriously think that the RAMBAM would consider plain "jewish sovereignty"(like the state of israel - even if it were religious) a malchut?

And a proof that the RAMBAM writes under the assumption that there is a King, is that in chapter 6 halacha 1, he says "whether it is a milchemet reshut or a milchemet mitzva.......they must accept subjugation.....and a tribute to the king".

Is there another authority, pre modern zionism, that differs with RAMBAM and says plain jewish sovereignty is a malchut?

[Yisrael]

Shalom Judea,

I missed last show.

I have 2 questions. I would appreciate if you can answer both.

1) Do you think that the Muslim terrorists that kill Jews in the name of their G-d will go to hell? If they truly think that what they do is righteous, would G-d still punish them?

2) What is considered Kol Isha? I think we can all agree that hearing a women sing live is forbidden for men. But, how about if you listen to a CD? Watch on TV? Hear live but from another room? How about a girls choir?

Thanks for doing the show and answering my questions,

Yisrael

[q_q_]

What is the basis for ruling by majourity.  The concept is not invented, since I heard Rav Yosef Kairo uses this method in the shulchan aruch.
note- i am aware that a criticism of his work is he ruled only by a majourity of sephardi rabbis!

Does this ruling by majourity, mean that we should ignore minority opinions?

Thus becoming an argument for "follow the gedolim", and also , not to follow any scholar (even if he is a gadol) that is in the minority.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

Shalom Judea,

 I would like to ask about the opinion that some say that all Jews have to live in the land of Israel now. If this is soo and it is accomplished then what will be the job of  the Messiah, and wouldn't that go agains't the statement that one of the things the Messiah would do is to gather in the Jews from exile?
 Also on that same subject, expecially from the rationalist, not relying on miracles, etc. perspective. Wouldn't it be a danger to the survival of the Jewish nation, if all Jews during a time of exile (before the Messiah comes and their is true Peace in the world) would gather in one area, be it Israel or any other place. Then when the enemies would want to destroy the nation it would be much easier for them, etc. I dont want to sound gloomy, but reality is reality, anything could happen, for example what if the muzzies get nukes and use them agains't Israel and all Jews would be their? Or the other way around, if all Jews are in NY for example and something devestating like a nuke comes.

[Lubab]

Hi Judea,

Thank you for doing this show.

Here is my question. We know some Rabbis argue that we may give away land to save Jewish lives. Now you and I know that giving away land actually endangers Jewish lives, so if we are genuinely concerned about Jewish lives we should be TAKING BACK our land from the Arabs, not giving it away to the enemy.

But then there is the academic question.

What if giving away land from Eretz Yisrael in some other scenario actually WOULD save a Jewish life?

If we say that we cannot do that, then we are saying that the sin against giving away land is a "Yehareg VaAl Yaavor"...i.e. a sin that we should sooner be killed for than commit. You would basiclly be saying that if a gentile came to you with a gun and said "give me your house in Jerusalem" or I will kill you...then you should get killed and not give away your house.

Is this what you believe we should do in that situation?

If so, I'm troubled.
I thought it was well known that there are only 3 sins for which we must sooner be killed than transgress and last I checked giving away land was not one of those three?

Any thoughts on all of this?

[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_]

....

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]

....

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. 

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_]

....

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. 

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.

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.
"