JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: q_q_ on February 07, 2008, 01:05:12 AM
-
In a previous thread, the 3 oaths were discussed. (Ketuvot 110B-111A)
I put to a non zionist I know, the argument used by Rabbi Kahane ztl hyd, Rav Kook ztl, Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, and others, that the 3 oaths are interdependent.
He said the argument has no basis. And no pre modern zionist source says that. And he put the challenge for any pre modern zionist source that does not take the 3 oaths seriously.
Judea made the following posts, to show that the 3 oaths in ketuvot 110B-111A, were not taken seriously by many great rabbis. PRE MODERN ZIONISM.
Note- I heard an interesting argument from a maimonidean. He said they are certainly not to be taken literally. They are MuhLeeTzah/melisa. A sort of rabbinical rhetoric. Like a drash on a verse. He also said, it was the students that gave it, not the rabbis themselves. When the gemara says verabbi and verav, it means the students and it is rhetoric. He mentioned a rabbi frizzi - who is obscure , that apparently wrote about melisa. Of course, this is not a great argument, it does not say what the "rhetoric" means. What the 3 oaths teach. But anyhow..
Here was Judea`s list of arguments. Or rather, his post with some of his arguments.
Yes, the Ramban who says that the Mitzvah of conquering Eretz Yisrael applies at all times. Obviously the three oaths are not taken into account if the Ramban is saying that we are ALWAYS obligated to conquer eretz yisrael.
Also the Vilna Gaon in the sefer Kol Hator says that the Jewish people should go to Israel with atleast 600,000 Jews at one time. That is the definition of en masse.
Also the Yaabetz Rabbi Yaaqov Emden says that we should move to Israel en masse. All of the Jewish people are required to go to Israel at all times.
Also Rashi who in his commentary on the verse in Song of Songs that the three oaths is based on, says "There are many Midrashim on this verse that do not make sense." and then goes on to say that the Gentiles and not the Jews are being sworn in this oath.
So there are plenty of Rabbanim who said at the time that there is no issur in moving back en masse. In fact, I would ask your non-zionist friend to find ONE poseq who brought this down as a halakha before the BACKLASH AGAINST the Modern Zionist Movement."
I put the RAMBAN and the vilna Gaon arguments to the non zionist.
The others, I suppose, are pending.
The non zionist responded ..
Regarding the RAMBAN argument..
He said the RAMBAN does -not- say it is a mitzva to conquer eretz yisroel. He says it is a mitzva to settle eretz yisroel , yishuv haaretz.
He said that furthermore, the RAMBAN does not say we are "chayav" the mitzva.. (chayav probably means obligated). So it is like the mitzva of shooing away the mother bird before taking the nest for its birds or eggs. We do not go around looking for nests. So going to israel is a voluntary mitzva..
Then he made an interesting point.
He said, If the RAMBAN really believed we are obligated to go live in israel, then why was it that he left it till the end of his life, when he was literally fleeing for his life, before he actually went there ?
An interesting thing I noticed is the RAMBAM(with a Mem), did try to live in israel. And the RAMBAM of course omitted it from his mitzvot list.
The key argument from the non zionist though, is that this is about settling.
Nothing about Conquering.
note: I do not have the text or relevant text of RAMBAN so cannot comment.
Regarding the Vilna Gaon
judea- "Also the Vilna Gaon in the sefer Kol Hator says that the Jewish people should go to Israel with atleast 600,000 Jews at one time. That is the definition of en masse."
I put to the non zionist that the Vilna Gaon said that 600000 people are allowed to go up. And 600k is clearly en masse.. so thus that is the vilna gaon not treating the 3 oaths seriously. That is a source pre modern zionism.
(And of course the vilna gaon is a very respected rabbi and Gadol, he is not an obscure guy).
First, he asked for a book chapter verse, for this claim.. I googled and found Kol HaTor, which happens to be the source judea mentioned.
note- I found the text online
http://www.yedidnefesh.com/kaballah/kol-hator/6.htm
His response was..
Kol HaTor, was not written by the Vilna Gaon..
the author cites his grandfather who asks the Vilna Gaon a question and gives the Vilna Gaon`s alleged response. Why alleged?
the entire sefer is of questionable provinence(origin)
it was never written down until 1968
rather was never published until 1968
it was allagedly handed down generation to generation in manuscript form.
an abridged version was written fown in 19xx..
The Vilna Gaon died in 1797
why was it never published? it was sitting around for over 150 years, v strange.
a sefer of questionable provinence.
that is attributed to this disciple, (or rather, grandson of a disciple )
and suddenly appears in zionist yeshivas.
OK.. that was what he said
So to say
"the Vilna Gaon in the sefer Kol Hator says "
is disingenuous.
Secondly..
looking at the whole sentence
"the Vilna Gaon in the sefer Kol Hator says that the Jewish people should go to Israel with atleast 600,000 Jews at one time. That is the definition of en masse."
The non zionist did not actually deal that much with the sentence.. Focussed alot on the fact that the claim was as if the vilna gaon says it. (because he wanted to get on with the RAMBAN. And he had made a great point already, that the vilna gaon did not write it, e.t.c.)
We can look at the exact text though (assuming this website is correct)
http://www.yedidnefesh.com/kaballah/kol-hator/6.htm
"
The following are the circumstances and manners of Redemption:
1. gathering in the exiles-how will this occur? To what extent are we, emissaries of G-d at the time of the beginning of the Redemption, obligated to engage in gathering in the exiles? The minimum number of exiles that has the power to bring back the Shechina to Israel is the number our Sages considered when the term “population of Israel” was used, that is, 600, 000. This number has the power to vanquish Samael at the gates of Jerusalem. As our Sages stated concerning G-d: “For I will not enter Jerusalem above until the population of Israel enters Jerusalem below” [see Chapter 1, 15].
My grandfather (R’ Binyamin) once asked the Gaon what to do if it becomes possible practically and naturally to bring all of Israel to the Holy Land at one time. According to our Sages, if we do not merit it, the Redemption will come little by little like the dawn. The question is, what should we do? The Gaon replied: “if it is possible, then 600, 000 should be brought over at first, because that is the number that can overpower Samael who rules in the gates of Jerusalem. Then, in any case, the entire Redemption will occur.
.........................................
"From where should the ingathering begin? From the North, as is written: “behold I will bring them from the land of the north, etc. (Jer. 31:7), because the main ruling power of Samael is on the northern side, and Samael is referred to as “the northern one.” It says about him: “I will distance the northern one from you” [Joel 2:20]. And he is the one who drew the main part of the exile of Israel to the north, as noted: “out of the North, evil will break forth” [Jer. 1:14]. Therefore, the beginning of the ingathering of the exiles must also be from the place ruled by Samael, from the North. "
"
So that is what it says..
Is is a THEORETICAL. KABBALISTIC thing.
let`s take it literally.. I assume it is meant literally.
The Vilna Gaon did not encourage 600,000 jews to go to israel, during his lifetime. There is no evidence of that. He had his students who went there, but that is far from 600,000.
The Vilna Gaon was just saying that if 600,000 jews come together (he may mean simultaneously) to overpower "samuel", from the north, then the redemption will occur at once.
So it is far from the claim it is made out to be.
--adding this paragraph---
sorry, just adding this sentene rather late.. I should not have said "Vilna Gaon says". "The Kol HaTor alleges that the Vilna Gaon said". And I say Kol HaTor now that a description of what the Kol HaTor is there - and that description is very relevant to the claim. It clearly leaves the claim with alot less strength, very little strength. Combined with the fact that he never said 600000 should go up, and never attempted to instigate or encourage that, to anybody`s knowledge.
----------------------
-
The non-Zionist is doing the mental backflips necessary for any non-Zionist, just read Ramban Sefer Mitzvot Mitzvah 4, he says the Mitzvah to conquer Eretz Yisrael applies in every generation as it did in Yehoshua's time its very straightforward
-
The non-Zionist is doing the mental backflips necessary for any non-Zionist, just read Ramban Sefer Mitzvot Mitzvah 4, he says the Mitzvah to conquer Eretz Yisrael applies in every generation as it did in Yehoshua's time its very straightforward
Right, and he uses the word "Conquer" not just "Settle".
-
I do not have a RAMBAN sefer at home,
I see the word conquer in an english translation of the relevant paragraph that judea mentioned once
The last sentence says the english word Conquest.
What is the hebrew word that the RAMBAN used?
What I will do is use bible concordance software - "bible works" to try to find the translation. I guess the other thing I could do is if I could get hold of Rabbi Chavel`s translation of RAMBAN. I heard from the rabbi gottlieb of shomrei yisroel in shiurim on religious zionism, that rabbi chavel is a RAMBAN expert.
what is the hebrew word the RAMBAN uses that you say means conquest. and not settle ?
Do you all here agree that this is an accurate translation of this part of the RAMBAN?
"
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 which the Almighty, Blessed Be He, gave to our forefathers, to Avraham, to Yitzhak, and to Yaacov; and not to abandon it to other nations, or to leave it desolate, as He said to them, You shall dispossess the inhabitants of the Land and dwell in it, for I have given the Land to you to posses it, (Numbers, 33:53) and he said, further, To Inherit the Land which I swore to your forefathers, (to give them,) behold, we are commanded with the conquest of the land in every generation."
"
I will put it to the non zionist.
but if you can really prove that it means conquest, then it is better, when I put the argument to him.
-
I am going to have a long lazy man bath - 3hr. So I won`t be responding in this thread for about 3 hours. I will look back at the thread in 3 hours, possibly respond. I will ask him about this/RAMBAN in about 7hrs time , if I am still awake, and I plan to be.
so if you can post what you can to make the case.. I will have more of a case to put to him.
thanks
-
by the way.. his challenge, of,
if the RAMBAN really believed in an obligatory mitzva of settling the land.. why did he leave it till when he literally had to flee for his life, before he actually did go live there?
still goes unanswered!
But the main thing is the word conquest..
-
by the way.. his challenge, of,
if the RAMBAN really believed in an obligatory mitzva of settling the land.. why did he leave it till when he literally had to flee for his life, before he actually did go live there?
still goes unanswered!
But the main thing is the word conquest..
He uses the word Kiboosh, which means conquering, ask any hebrew speaker.
The question as to why the ramban only went to Israel when he had to flee spain is no question at all.
People aren't perfect, Rabbis, even great ones do not do everything perfect.
Maimonides lived in egypt, despite the issur involved in that. He even wrote in a letter saying that I am doing a sin every moment of the day for living in egypt.
The fact that the Rambam did this does not change it from being a sin.
So, I don't see that as a question at all.
-
Also, he says clearly that this mitzvah is a chiyuv for every single Jew.
He uses the word chiyuv, so what you non-zionist friend says about the ramban not holdng that this is a chiyuv is completely incorrect.
-
is this word chayav in the text you mentioned?
and this word kiboosh, I was just checking what hebrew letters make it up.. I found it in the etymological dictionary of biblical hebrew by rabbi matityahu clark based on rabbi shimshon rephael hirsch. It does list conquer.. Most generally it defines it as subdue;subject forcibly.
kaf bet shin.
so that would supposrt you.
I placed the word KIBOOSH in brackets after the english word conquer.. I assume it is that word, right?
What about the word Chayav?
where is it?
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 which the Almighty, Blessed Be He, gave to our forefathers, to Avraham, to Yitzhak, and to Yaacov; and not to abandon it to other nations, or to leave it desolate, as He said to them, You shall dispossess the inhabitants of the Land and dwell in it, for I have given the Land to you to posses it, (Numbers, 33:53) and he said, further, To Inherit the Land which I swore to your forefathers, (to give them,) behold, we are commanded with the conquest(KIBOOSH) of the land in every generation."
-
The word chiyuv appears toward the end of the paragraph.
Let me quote it:
"Hee Misswath Ase, MithHayev kol Ehad mimenu w'afilu b'zman hagaluth"
"It is a positive commandment that obligates(mithhayev) every single person even during the time of exile."
The term Hiyuv is clearly used. As you can see, your non-zionist friend is either pruposely lying about the Ramban or he is simply ignorant of what he actually says and simply assumes that he beleived in the 3 oaths.
-
To be honest q_q, the nonzionist is clearly obfuscating the issue regarding Ramban. He bemoans the fact that Ramban didn't go to Eretz Yisrael until late in life. The point is that HE WENT. He wouldn't have gone if he thought it unimportant. He made a point of going there, even in old age. We all know how hard it is to leave a family behind, to travel a distant land before the advent of planes, etc, to engage a foreign culture and foreign peoples. As if any person doesn't have a yetzer hara? We all have it. All of these things also prevent us TODAY from going to Israel. Only we have it much easier than the Ramban had it, and he still went. And he commented that he couldn't even find a minyan when he got there. To think we have 6 million Jews in Israel, and we don't go. We are obligated, but it is each person's decision. It's not easy. I have a family here in the USA I have to deal with too.
The comment that the sefer was written by a grandson of a disciple of the Vilna Gaon is complete HOGWASH. Here's what wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kol_HaTor
"The Voice of the Turtledove" (a reference to Song of Songs 2:12) was written by Rabbi Hillel Rivlin of Shaklov a disciple of the Vilna Gaon . The text deals with the Geulah (Era of Redemption) and describes its signs vis-a-vis an evaluation of a proposed 999 footsteps of the Moshiach’s arrival. It was first published in Hebrew by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher in 1968 to whom the book was passed down over the generations. According to Rabbi Pinchas Winston,
"The original text of Kol HaTor was kept in the manuscript by the Rivlin family, descendants of Rabbi Hillel Rivlin, for over 200 years. In 1947, Rabbi Shlomo Rivlin, with the advice of the great Kabbalists of Jerusalem, decided to publish an abridged version of this lengthy and difficult treatise "
Thus, it was written by a great Rabbi Hillel Rivlin, who was a direct disciple of the Vilna Gaon. This is not in question. I have confirmed this fact of wikipedia on other sites as well. The Kol Hator explains itself, which you can find here http://www.yedidnefesh.com/kaballah/kol-hator/ We don't have a tradition of distrusting the mesorah or our great rabbis. His attitude here flies in the face of our very mesorah. How dare he suggest inauthenticity or dishonesty regarding this text and its authorship. It is because he is asking rhetorical questions and hasn't done the research. When YOU have to answer HIS questions, it means he doesn't even have the background knowledge on his own 'antizionist' opinion. It appears he's trying to do gymnastics so that he can resolve the matter superficially to fit his opinion.
But even still, this sefer is not relevant to the question so much. Why? Because the VILNA GAON INSTRUCTED HIS FOLLOWERS TO SETTLE THE LAND OF ISRAEL. A large group of families known as the "perushim" settled into Tzfat after their rabbi the Vilna Gaon passed away. I learned with a Rabbi who is a descendant of one of these families. Even ignoring the Kol HaTor, we still know the Vilna Goan's position on this matter. The Kol Hator only serves to confirm it further, as if we needed any further confirmation.
-
Here is from the intro, where it says that actually Rabbi Hillel Rivlin of Shklov was not only a close disciple of the Vilna Gaon but also his 'grand-nephew.' So they were related as well.
http://www.yedidnefesh.com/kaballah/kol-hator/0.htm
"There are probably two basic questions Jews have recycled and asked for literally centuries: Is it good for the Jews? And, when (and under what circumstances) is Mashiach coming?
In this scarcely known text by the Gaon of Vilna's grand-nephew and disciple, Rabbi Hillel Shklover, probably the best and most detailed answer extant to the second question is given."
-
q_q one of the things that turned me away from the Charedim, and no I wasnt raised one but I had some leanings that way as a teenager, is the widespread rewriting of history and even texts that they engage in in order to make it appear that theirs is the only legitimate Torah path. I will give you one example in 195 Rabbi Ben Menachem the brother-in-law to the Chazon Ish wrote a perush on the Mishne Torah called Perush HaMelech, in the introduction to the second section he says
"And if it is [appropriate] to see the hand of Hashem in the depth of [Hashem's] judgment, then obviously we should not ignore seeing the hand of Hashem in our miraculous salvation that we perceived with our very eyes after years of suffering in our Holy Land. Only a blind person will not see in what occurred here eight years ago the great hand of Hashem extending over us for a blessing; When Hashem, in his great mercy, delivered the many into the hands of a few and stood for us in our [moment] of trouble and we merited the rise of the State of Israel - which is the first flowering of our complete redemption - and the scattered ones of Israel are gathering from all corners of the earth and are rebuilding [the land from its] desolation. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to know that the great salvation and redemption will come to the nation of Israel after [Hashem's] great Name will be glorified and sanctified by us, and our recognition will grow and become strengthened that the hand of Hashem did all this and according to it will shall live. And we, all of us, are full of hope for the coming of the righteous redeemer, quickly in our days, and for the return of G-d's presence to Zion, our Holy city."
This only appears in the first printing after his death all subsequent printings have this passage removed. Similiar things have happened many times, what your anti-Zionist friend is attempting to do is this on a smaller level.
-
q_q one of the things that turned me away from the Charedim, and no I wasnt raised one but I had some leanings that way as a teenager, is the widespread rewriting of history and even texts that they engage in in order to make it appear that theirs is the only legitimate Torah path. I will give you one example in 195 Rabbi Ben Menachem the brother-in-law to the Chazon Ish wrote a perush on the Mishne Torah called Perush HaMelech, in the introduction to the second section he says
"And if it is [appropriate] to see the hand of Hashem in the depth of [Hashem's] judgment, then obviously we should not ignore seeing the hand of Hashem in our miraculous salvation that we perceived with our very eyes after years of suffering in our Holy Land. Only a blind person will not see in what occurred here eight years ago the great hand of Hashem extending over us for a blessing; When Hashem, in his great mercy, delivered the many into the hands of a few and stood for us in our [moment] of trouble and we merited the rise of the State of Israel - which is the first flowering of our complete redemption - and the scattered ones of Israel are gathering from all corners of the earth and are rebuilding [the land from its] desolation. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to know that the great salvation and redemption will come to the nation of Israel after [Hashem's] great Name will be glorified and sanctified by us, and our recognition will grow and become strengthened that the hand of Hashem did all this and according to it will shall live. And we, all of us, are full of hope for the coming of the righteous redeemer, quickly in our days, and for the return of G-d's presence to Zion, our Holy city."
This only appears in the first printing after his death all subsequent printings have this passage removed. Similiar things have happened many times, what your anti-Zionist friend is attempting to do is this on a smaller level.
Amazing story.
Another example is the fact that when the state was established both Rav Elyashiv who is considered by many to be the Gadhol HaDor and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach signed a statement saying that the establishment of the state is the beginning of the Redemption.
I asked a Charedi about this and he said "They were Choyzer." meaning "They changed their minds on that later on."
No proof was adduced for this unlikely supposition and probably in his mind none was needed. It is simply impossible that they didn't change their minds. You don't need to prove it.
Kind of like q_q_'s non zionist who told me that the Ramban says it is not a Chiyuv(obligation) to conquer and settle the Land of Israel despite the fact he clearly says it is a Chiyuv (obligation) even during the time of Exile.
Here's how our exchange went with him on the microphone and me typing:
Me: The Ramban says clearly that it is a mitzvah to conquer and settle the Land of Israel.
Non-Zionist: But he says it is not a Chiyuv.
Me: No, he doesn't. He says clearly that it is a Chiyuv even during the time of Exile.
Non-Zionist: But he says it is not a Chiyuv.
Me: I'm looking at it right now. He says clearly that it is.
Non-Zionist: But he says it is not a Chiyuv.
Me: Do you have the book open in front you right now?
Non-Zionist: No, But he says it is not a Chiyuv.
Me: I can quote it word for word, He says clearly that it is a Chiyuv.
Non-Zionist: And the reason that he says it is not a Chiyuv is because of the Three Oaths.
That is how it went. I think you can see the problem here.
-
He did not give much of a response to me either. He does not have the book in front of him, so he did not pretend either. Another person in the room said he will look into it and get back to me. I am sure Toras(the non zionist) will look into it too. We will see.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
I don't accept what you say that there is any difference of opinion between the Ramban and the Rambam. Rather the Ramban is merely explaining the Rambam. When the Rambam talks about tribute for the King and Kings in his chapter on wars, he does not mean that the rules only exclusively applies to Israel having a King and Israel can't wage wars without Kings. He never states this, rather you merely think he implies this to be so and this is not the case. As proof, in Chapter 6 he uses Joshua as an example, and he was not really a King (but interestingly enough the Rambam thinks he was considered like a King in Chapter 1 though). Also he quotes from Torah of Moses many verses to support his positions in those Chapters that all occurred before a King was chosen over Israel so him writing about a King is not required to wage a Milchamat Rishoot and even a Milchamat Mitzvah. Any leader is perfectly fine like the Shoftim waged wars and not all of them were appointed by G-d directly to be a Shofet, Moses and Joshua waged wars and they were not literally Kings, and if you say that G-d told them to do so then I will answer you that that none the less they were not Kings of Israel so these things obviously don't only apply for Kings.
Also I think I found an answer for the question of if a Prophet is needed or not. See this quote of the Rambam in CH1:10 י כיון שנמשח דויד--זכה בכתר מלכות, והרי המלכות לו ולבניו הזכרים הכשרים עד עולם: שנאמר "כיסאך, יהיה נכון עד עולם" (שמואל ב ז,טז). ולא זכה אלא לכשרים, שנאמר "אם ישמרו בניך, בריתי" (תהילים קלב,יב). אף על פי שלא זכה אלא לכשרים, לא תיכרת המלכות מזרע דויד לעולם: הבטיחו הקדוש ברוך הוא בכך, שנאמר "אם יעזבו בניו, בריתי; ובמשפטיי, לא ילכון . . . ופקדתי בשבט, פשעם; ובנגעים עוונם. וחסדי, לא אסיר מעימו" (ראה תהילים פט,לא-לד). It says that anyone who is a decendent of King David is considered valid for King until all eternity and therefore you can imply from the Rambam words that perhaps he doesn't need both a Prophet and the Sanhedrin to be crowned in this case and that answers the apparent contradiction between what he said about R' Akiva who appointed Bar Kochba without a Prophet. Was Bar Kochba a decendant of David? Someone answer please.
-
I don't accept what you say that there is any difference of opinion between the Ramban and the Rambam. Rather the Ramban is merely explaining the Rambam. When the Rambam talks about tribute for the King and Kings in his chapter on wars, he does not mean that the rules only exclusively applies to Israel having a King and Israel can't wage wars without Kings. He never states this, rather you merely think he implies this to be so and this is not the case. As proof, in Chapter 6 he uses Joshua as an example, and he was not a King (but interestingly enough the Rambam thinks he was considered a King in Chapter 1 though). Also he quotes from Torah many verses before a King was chosen over Israel to support his conclusions so him writing about a King is not required to wage a Milchamat Rishoot and possibly even a Milchamat Mitzvah.
Also I think I found an answer for the question of if a Prophet is needed or not. See this quote of the Rambam in CH1:10 י כיון שנמשח דויד--זכה בכתר מלכות, והרי המלכות לו ולבניו הזכרים הכשרים עד עולם: שנאמר "כיסאך, יהיה נכון עד עולם" (שמואל ב ז,טז). ולא זכה אלא לכשרים, שנאמר "אם ישמרו בניך, בריתי" (תהילים קלב,יב). אף על פי שלא זכה אלא לכשרים, לא תיכרת המלכות מזרע דויד לעולם: הבטיחו הקדוש ברוך הוא בכך, שנאמר "אם יעזבו בניו, בריתי; ובמשפטיי, לא ילכון . . . ופקדתי בשבט, פשעם; ובנגעים עוונם. וחסדי, לא אסיר מעימו" (ראה תהילים פט,לא-לד). It says that anyone who is a decendent of King David is considered valid for King until all eternity and therefore you can imply from the Rambam words that perhaps he doesn't need both a Prophet and the Sanhedrin to be crowned in this case and that answers the apparent contradiction between what he said about R' Akiva who appointed Bar Kochba without a Prophet. Was Bar Kochba a decendant of David? Someone answer please.
in answer to some of what you wrote.
your reference to chapter 10 verse 10. Is in my book, Chapter 10 halacha 7.
Different editions number the halachot differently, and before I recall you were numbering verses when you wrote a:b, which is very unusual.
I do not see it saying that anybody who is a descendent of king david is considered a King for all eternity.
If that were true, then we would have thousands of Kings in every generation. This is absurd. Furthermore, we have had Kings, King Saul for example. He was the only King in the time of King Saul. Similarly, King David was the only King in the time of King David. They were not just one of thousands of Kings who ruled at the same time.
What RAMBAM does say, in my translation, and this is consistent with what he says later..
1:7 "......Once David was annointed King, he acquired the crown of kingship. Afterwards, the kingship belonged to him and to his male descendents forever..... Nevertheless , his acquisition of te monarchy was conditional, applying only to the righteous among his descendents.
Then 1:8 says
"If a prophet appoints a King from any other tribe of israel and that King follows the path of Torah and mitzvot..."
So a King has to be annointed.
But just incase you think that Kings of the tribe of David are not appointed.
1:10 "Only a descendent of David may be appointed as King in jerusalem".
RAMBAM does not mention the messianic King as getting appointed.. (that may be because he already said Kings are appointed in 1:3). But anyhow, the messianic king e.g. Bar Kochba, is one we PRESUME is the messiah. We are not in that situation where we have a guy fighting the wars of G-d and we presume that he is the messiah.
It does not take a genius to work this one out.
Descendents of David can be Kings. IT IS POTENTIAL.
Descendents from other tribes can be kings too. IT IS POTENTIAL
They have to be appointed though. One person, appointed!
-
Combine this "Once David was annointed King, he acquired the crown of kingship. Afterwards, the kingship belonged to him and to his male descendents forever..... Nevertheless , his acquisition of te monarchy was conditional, applying only to the righteous among his descendents" with what the Rambam writes at the end of the first chapter where he makes a distinction between the anointing process of a non-Davidic King and a Davidic King in the last 2 verses of Chapter one vs the other distinctions between the two types of Kings. It is possible to see from this the possibility that there is a big difference between a Davidic King and a non Davidic King and perhaps the Davidic King doesn't need both the Prophet and the Sanhedrin. As proof, David the King was appointed by only Shmuel the Prophet in secret without the Sanhedrin. Although this is not a solid proof but mere speculation. Also what the Rambam writes is that only those descendants worthy may become King; not everyone of them. How do we know who is worthy? Obviously they are appointed by the Sanhedrin who determines this. Perhaps this is an answer to the contradiction. I prefer the words of the Ramban since he makes sense. I wished the Rambam would have been clearer as to not leave any doubt as to what he meant; but I can still see the Ramban in the Rambam.
-
still regarding your previous post, (while i was writing this you posted the response above)
I do not see anything in chapter 1 or chapter 6 that says Moses or Joshua were Kings.
The commentary I have (by rabbi eliyahu touger) says it , and refers to other things the RAMBAM has written, not in hilchot melachim. I do not have these books
I notice that in chapter 6, he refers to events in Moshe`s time, and says certain things as examples are applicable to milchemet reshut. Similarly, he refers to an example in Joshua`s time, where Joshua sends out offers of peace, (there is clearly a parallel here with what a King does).
It is a good question.. I think the answer, or part of the answer might be "muhleetzah". But even if it meant that Joshua and Moshe were like Kings. it is a STRETCH (And that`s a compliment) to say that therefore we are all like Kings or the whole tribe of david are like Kings, and we do not need to be appointed.
Again, you are taking a apparent PROBLEM, a QUESTION, with the RAMBAM and making wild conclusions that are invented, and contradict alot of other things that he has said. You just ignore the other things. Like 1:3, that only a sanhedrin and a prophet can appoint a King.
Now, if Moshe and Joshua are treated a bit differently(in the RAMBAM`s description), and the Messianic King is treated a bit differently(in the RAMBAM`s description). Then they are good questions but nothing to draw wild conclusions about. Nothing to CANCEL out everything else the RAMBAM said!!! If you want to take an apparent contradiction and treat it like that, then you may as well throw the whole book out. Because you are just ignoring bits you don`t like.
-
There is a contradiction in the Rambam and I'm trying to answer it. It is between what he wrote about Bar Kochba and what he wrote in 1:3. It is a good question since the commentators themselves were bothered by it and it is worth trying to find an answer. My answers are pretty good attempts since they piece everything together, but are a stretch like you say. You are free to try to find better answers.
The source for the Rambam saying Joshua was considered a King is this verse in the first Chapter:
ד [ג] אין מעמידין מלך תחילה, אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים זקנים ועל פי נביא--כיהושוע שמינהו משה רבנו ובית דינו, וכשאול ודויד שמינה אותם שמואל הרמתי ובית דינו.
"4 (or 3) We don't appoint a King to begin with, unless it is on the mouth of a court of 70 elders and on the mouth of a Prophet -- like Joshua that Moses appointed and his court, and like Saul and David that Samuel appointed and his court. "
In this verse he calls Joshua a King even though he was never officially a King!
-
Combine this "Once David was annointed King, he acquired the crown of kingship. Afterwards, the kingship belonged to him and to his male descendents forever..... Nevertheless , his acquisition of te monarchy was conditional, applying only to the righteous among his descendents" with what the Rambam writes at the end of the first chapter where he makes a distinction between the anointing process of a non-Davidic King and a Davidic King in the last 2 verses of Chapter one vs the other distinctions between the two types of Kings. It is possible to see from this the possibility that there is a big difference between a Davidic King and a non Davidic King and perhaps the Davidic King doesn't need both the Prophet and the Sanhedrin. As proof, David the King was appointed by only Shmuel the Prophet in secret without the Sanhedrin. Although this is not a solid proof but mere speculation. Also what the Rambam writes is that only those descendants worthy may become King; not everyone of them. How do we know who is worthy? Obviously they are appointed by the Sanhedrin who determines this. Perhaps this is an answer to the contradiction. I prefer the words of the Ramban since he makes sense. I wished the Rambam would have been clearer as to not leave any doubt as to what he meant; but I can still see the Ramban in the Rambam.
as i wrote this you posted a reply, so this refers to the post you wrote above the one above this. i.e. to the one i quote here.
You do not have to speculate on the distinction between a Davidic and Non Davidic Kings. (by the way, your speculation contradicts 1:3).
He actually gives the distinction.. Generally, Kings will come from David.
He says end of 1:9, it is possible for a King to come from other israelites, but the monarchy will cease from his descendents, for behold jeroboam was told 1 Kings 11:39 ""[I will afflict the house of David]... but not forever""
-
Well let's hear your answer to the contradiction. Is it still the same one you posted before or have you perfected it?
-
There is a contradiction in the Rambam and I'm trying to answer it. It is between what he wrote about Bar Kochba and what he wrote in 1:3. It is a good question since the commentators themselves were bothered by it and it is worth trying to find an answer. My answers are pretty good attempts since they piece everything together, but are a stretch like you say. You are free to try to find better answers.
I did answer it. In the previous thread where we discussed RAMBAM, and you got upset. Because I insulted you! The thread where you said you were busy studying medicine.
The source for the Rambam saying Joshua was considered a King is this verse in the first Chapter:
ד [ג] אין מעמידין מלך תחילה, אלא על פי בית דין של שבעים זקנים ועל פי נביא--כיהושוע שמינהו משה רבנו ובית דינו, וכשאול ודויד שמינה אותם שמואל הרמתי ובית דינו.
"4 (or 3) We don't appoint a King to begin with, unless it is on the mouth of a court of 70 elders and on the mouth of a Prophet -- like Joshua that Moses appointed and his court, and like Saul and David that Samuel appointed and his court. "
In this verse he calls Joshua a King even though he was never officially a King!
But that says that Joshua was appointed by a prophet and a court. So maybe he was saying that he was a King.
This is consistent with 1:3 that says a King can only be appointed by a prophet and a court of 71 elders.
-
Well let's hear your answer to the contradiction. Is it still the same one you posted before or have you perfected it?
yes, same answer.
I can improve it
You were claiming from the example of the messianic king in chapter 11, that a king can be appointed in every generation, because from that example, he does not have to be appointed.
my answer was that ch11 refers to a King we presume to be moshiach.
We do not have that situation today. Furthermore, it does not say whether he was appointed or not. And there is a good reason to not bother saying, that being that it says in 1:3.
<forget this>And perhaps also, it is relevant that we do not know the exact order things will happen in the messianic era. </forget this>
Well, I can improve on all that..
The messiah king who we presume to be the messiah, is the presumed messianic King. So he is not a King until he is appointed. He can be appointed, since Eliyahu HaNavi will come beforehand.
-
from the bar kochba example, we see that rabbi akiva`s understanding was that eliyahu hanavi (may) not precede moshiach immediately.
But we know he will come. And when he does, he can be appointed. (as messiah king, or in a weird scenario, perhaps as King not messiah)
Until then, he is the presumed messianic king.
-
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.
-
Lets not forget the Rambam was full of praise for the Hashmonaim who were not appointed by a Navi
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
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)
-
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.
-
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
what it does mean is that there is no basis IN THOSE CHAPTERS OF TEXT for a milchemet mitzva/reshut without a King.
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.
questions are being posed here about biblical characters who allegedly, while not appointed King by a prophet and sanhedrin, waged a milchemet mitzva/reshut..I would have to analyse this.. I only have further questions on that..
Based on a maimonidean I know, saying that halacha develops, and he often says references to bible text are just "muhleetzah", hooks of some sort. Were the wars they waged really considered milchemet mitzva and milchemet reshut, or just similar..
Was halacha in that area further developed between then and the gemara. (the rambam based his codification on the gemara. His work is a summary of the gemara)
(note- interestingly most charedim have biblical characters following halacha to the letter! I saw an article in the jewish tribune where avraham is obeying the laws of cheshen mishpat to the letter when purchasing the cave)
RAMBAM does not mention these characters that judea mentioned. So any perceived inconsistency is not within RAMBAM. But between RAMBAM and the Nach.
You admit yourself that the plain meaning of the RAMBAM seems inconsistent in the same way, and has these questions. It is you who is speculating, trying to resolve the issues in outrageous ways, and drawing outrageous conclusions.
A demonstration of how outrageous the conclusions are..
Is you want to remove the King, the tribute, e.t.c.
Why not remove the fact that this takes place on a large scale..
As I said
How about if A THUG. 1 THUG. provokes you, and you beat the hell out of him. Is that a milchemet mitzva?
You claim that by demanding that a King is required for these halachot, I am saying halacha does not apply in all times. Not true. We have many halachot that work on implications. When A happens, B happens. i.e. when a temple exists, we do this. Similarly here.
And as mentioned.
The fact that the RAMBAM refers to these in the title of the work is KING`S WARS. And there are only 2 types of war, and the only people he talks of waging them are kings (and (king?) Joshua who rambam says in 1:3 was appointed by a prophet and a sanhedrin, as a King is!). We cannot use this text as a basis for non kings waging wars.
That is not to say that we cannot wage war now.. I would hope that we can. But it is to say that this text is not a basis for that. Jewish life being in danger may be a basis..
You misread my question before.. about the thug. Not many thugs. 1 lone thug.
-
Actually my explanation is the simple meaning of the Rambam since when he defines wars in chapter 5, he does not say they require a King. Tribute to a King and other things talked about in Chapter 6 are not necessary since he didn't include them in the definition in chapter 5, so they are not necessary, but if you happen to have a King then there is tribute and other things. Your explanation of the Rambam contradicts the Torah and the Rambam himself.
You can not read Rambam or Talmud without first reading the Torah and comparing their words with the Torah, otherwise you will get misled. There are frequently 10 ways to read a verse of the Rambam or a verse of the Talmud and the only correct way to read them is to consult the Torah and see what they meant. Your explanation not only contradicts the Torah but the Rambam himself and he didn't say what you claim he did. He never said Tribute to a King is required and without a King there is no MM or MR so you have no proof. All he was saying is that if you have a King tribute is required.
-
Actually my explanation is the simple meaning of the Rambam since when he defines wars in chapter 5, he does not say they require a King. Tribute to a King and other things talked about in Chapter 6 are not necessary since he didn't include them in the definition in chapter 5, so they are not necessary, but if you happen to have a King then there is tribute and other things. Your explanation of the Rambam contradicts the Torah and the Rambam himself.
Neither chapter 5 or chapter 6 DEFINE milchemet mitzva and milchemet reshut. Like in a programming language specification.
But he describes them. And throughout chapter 5, he writes under the assumption of there being a King too. So too in Chapter 6.
(yes, I understand.. that you take that to mean that he is allowing a MM or MR to be faught without a King)
Let us reason together.
He does not explicitly say a King is required. It is not a definition. Likewise, he did not say an army of people is required. So I ask you again
You want to remove the King. OK, how about removing the army too?
If you fight a single lone thug that provoked you. Is that a milchemet mitzva?
How about JDL activities against the black panthers in america?
If you say that the JDL activities were not. Well, the wars we faught under Moshe were outside of israel. Were they milchemet mitzvot? Were they not?
He never said Tribute to a King is required and without a King there is no MM or MR so you have no proof. All he was saying is that if you have a King tribute is required.
He said neither of those things. Hence this argument between us. You have to use common sense and not wishful thinking.
Throughout chapter 5, the King leads the war. In almost every paragraph the King is mentioned. So we deduce, that a King can lead such a war. I already said about Chapter 6.
You want to argue things from Nach, that you do not need a King and a King does not need a prophet and sanhedrin, fine. But RAMBAM is not saying that.
In my questions to you, I have highlighted some problems with your loose way of reading RAMBAM.
Also, you have actually started out with the premise that israel`s wars with her neighbours are a milchemet mitzva. And it is valid.. So you tried arguing that we can appoint a King in every generation and make it so. Then you saw 1:3, so you briefly abandoned that idea. You then started to argue that you don`t need a King to do a milchemet mitzva. And then you seemed to speculate wildly that King David`s descendents are already Kings, and thus already appointed. You seemed to abandon that idea - maybe you will resurrect it again, or more likely you never abandoned it, you just put it aside for later use!
-
OK I admitted to you that I made a mistake and the Rambam requires a Prophet to appoint a King since he says so. I said this already. My only disagreement was if there was any exceptions to this rule given the contradictions between the Rambam and what he says other places and between himself and the simple reading of the Torah; perhaps we are misreading him or if that is not so then he is wrong like judeanoncapta wrote about the commentators that say he's wrong. I don't know how to resolve these questions, one answer was that perhaps the seed of David is different; but I have no proof. R' Kahane's Zs'l answer was that a Prophet is only required if we have a Prophet but if we have no Prophet it isn't required, but merely a Sanhedrin. This resolves R' Akiva with 1:3 but still begs the question as to why the Rambam doesn't say outright this. You have your own answers as well. No answer is particularly good at resolving these problems with the Rambam. But your reading of the Rambam does favor the simple meaning so I have no problem with your reading for this reason.
Also I'm saying that we don't need a King to wage MM and MR. The proof is many instances from the Tanach where we did so with no King during the times of the Shoftim. Plus the Torah of Moshe doesn't say we need a King to go to war, except for Amalek where this is indirectly implied as per the Rambam since it says when G-d gives you rest over your enemies and you have surrounded (the entire land of Israel) then you must wipe out Amalek. Also you admit that the Rambam does not say outright that a MM and MR require a King, you just thought he meant so and I say he doesn't mean so.
Yes, a King can be appointed in our time even according to your interpretation that a Prophet is always required since a Prophet can arise in our time before the Massiah arrives as we talked about before. We don't know what is the generation of Massiah until after the fact.
-
I didn't think it was possible, but we agree (on that disagreement).
You deserve a medal of honour, and we both deserve a vacation!