Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Ask Judea Torah Show 2
Dexter:
On your response to Kahaneloyelist in you previouse show when you said there was never an era of Democracy in the Bible:
What about when the masses wanted a king and Shmuel was against it but G-d agreed only because the messes, the people itself, wanted to ? I think that's maybe a primitive source of Democracy.
jdl4ever:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on February 05, 2008, 02:27:01 PM ---Regarding Rav Bar Hayyim`s answer to why RAMBAM did not include conquering eretz yisroel - or jewish sovereignty, as a mitzva. An answer to defend the position that the RAMBAM did want sovereingty, and he just omitted it.
Rav Bar Hayyim`s answer was that RAMBAM wrote hilchot melachim(laws concerning kings), and that implies soveregnty.
Is that a correct rendition of Rav Bar Hayyim`s answer and the position it defends?
I do not see how this answer works. Since hilchot melachim(laws concerning kings) implies sovereingty when we have a king. It does not imply sovereingty - Now.
--- End quote ---
I never understood why the commenators were bothered and still are bothered with the Rambam not listing conquering the land of Israel as a separate commandment since several commandments the Rambam does list already require conquering the land of Israel as a prerequisite. For example, he lists the commandment to not let idolatrers live in the land of Israel, that Levites shall have no portion of the land, levites shall not share in the spoil of the conqeust of the land, not to sell land in Israel to the Levites, resting the land on the Sabbatical year, dozens of commandments requiring the Temple, the law of a Milchemet Rishoot, appointing a Kohen to speak to the people going to war, not fearing Heretics at a time of war, the commandment to appoint a King of Israel, several commandments regarding the King of Israel like to not appoint a non-Jewish King etc. All of these commandments require conquering the land of Israel as a prerequisite so it is irrelevant if he didn't list this as a separate commandment, and if he did the question should be asked isn't it superfluous? And if some idiot would answer that the Rambam refers only to the Massianic age, then this individual has never read one page of Rambam since the Rambam clearly writes almost every one of these commandments as being for the present time period without Moshiach.
Also in Hilchot Melachim if you read it, he is talking about our time period and not specifically about Moshiach. Even in Hilchot Shabbat the Rambam talks about Milchemet Rashut and never menchans one word about Moshiach so he was clearly referring to our time period.
Tzvi Ben Roshel1:
Shalom Judea, you said that you were listining to Rabbi Mizrahi's Shiur - "when the Moshiah Comes" on www.Torahanytime.com - Please say your comments about the show, on this audio program. (agree, disagree, have a quation on, etc.) Thanks and good luck.
q_q_:
--- Quote from: jdl4ever on February 05, 2008, 03:04:40 PM ---
--- Quote from: q_q_ on February 05, 2008, 02:27:01 PM ---Regarding Rav Bar Hayyim`s answer to why RAMBAM did not include conquering eretz yisroel - or jewish sovereignty, as a mitzva. An answer to defend the position that the RAMBAM did want sovereingty, and he just omitted it.
Rav Bar Hayyim`s answer was that RAMBAM wrote hilchot melachim(laws concerning kings), and that implies soveregnty.
Is that a correct rendition of Rav Bar Hayyim`s answer and the position it defends?
I do not see how this answer works. Since hilchot melachim(laws concerning kings) implies sovereingty when we have a king. It does not imply sovereingty - Now.
--- End quote ---
I never understood why the commenators were bothered and still are bothered with the Rambam not listing conquering the land of Israel as a separate commandment since several commandments the Rambam does list already require conquering the land of Israel as a prerequisite. For example, he lists the commandment to not let idolatrers live in the land of Israel, that Levites shall have no portion of the land, levites shall not share in the spoil of the conqeust of the land, not to sell land in Israel to the Levites, resting the land on the Sabbatical year, dozens of commandments requiring the Temple, the law of a Milchemet Rishoot, appointing a Kohen to speak to the people going to war, not fearing Heretics at a time of war, the commandment to appoint a King of Israel, several commandments regarding the King of Israel like to not appoint a non-Jewish King etc. All of these commandments require conquering the land of Israel as a prerequisite so it is irrelevant if he didn't list this as a separate commandment, and if he did the question should be asked isn't it superfluous? And if some idiot would answer that the Rambam refers only to the Massianic age, then this individual has never read one page of Rambam since the Rambam clearly writes almost every one of these commandments as being for the present time period without Moshiach.
Also in Hilchot Melachim if you read it, he is talking about our time period and not specifically about Moshiach. Even in Hilchot Shabbat the Rambam talks about Milchemet Rashut and never menchans one word about Moshiach so he was clearly referring to our time period.
--- End quote ---
He mentions a King.
Isn`t the next King, King Moshiach?
Either way. One could argue, given the name of the book "Hilchot Melachim", that alot of it only applies when we have a King. Infact, I have hilchot melachim in english.. Flicking through, chapters 1,2,3,4 all talk about a King. And chapter 1, about appointing a King. And we can only do that with a court of 71 elders, and a prophet.
Well prophecy ceased. We cannot appoint a King. So what I am reading of ch1,2,3,4 cannot apply in our times.
We await Eliyahu HaNavi - a prophet - to bring us back to torah and herald the coming of moshiach. Maybe then he and the court of 71 elders can appoint the King moshiach.
Further, you mention milchemet reshut and milchemet mitzva..
they are mentioned in chapter 5.
Chapter 5:1, first words are about a King and him waging war or not waging war.
It says a King may not wage a war before a milchemet mitzva. Milchemet Mitzva includes a war to assist israel from an enemy which attacks them. So straight away we have the first verse talking **A KING** waging a war.
In chapter 6, it looks for a moment as if perhaps this does not involve a King, but it does.. It starts off saying before making war, peace must be offered.. Which involves them accepting the noachide laws .. AND SUPPORT THE KING`S SERVICE WITH THEIR MONEY!!!
So there you are, King again!
By 5:7 he is finished with wars. And
5:12, he talks of the importance of living in israel.. And that one should not leave except under certain conditions. as well as not leaving babylon (like ketuvot 111A) . The RAMBAM himself tried to live in israel. So there are a few things there that do not have anything to do with a King.
Unfortunately I only own hilchot melachim, Hilchot kiddush hachodesh and hilchot yesodei hatorah. I do not own hilchot shabbat. Nevertheless. As described in hilchot melachim, they are described under the assumption that there is a King. And as mentioned. A King can only be appointed by 71 elders **and a prophet**. And we do not have prophets in our time.
by the way.. as a little point, not that relevant. 4:8 rambam says "messianic king".. Not as a new topic either. Other verses he just says King and seems to be quoting from tenach, using examples of how old kings had to behave, to show how a King has to behave.
jdl4ever:
1. Proof that the Rambam talks about appointing a regular non Messianic King in our time: The Laws of Monarchy and Wars Chapter 11:8-9 is definite proof. http://forum.kahane.org/index.php/topic,1892.msg8288.html#msg8288
2. When the Rambam talks about a King and Milchemet Mitzvah, that is completely different than a Milchemet Rishoot. The Rambam's remarks in Hilchot Shabbat about Milchemet Rishoot say nothing about a King at all or the Moshiach. It simply says if the Jews decide to make a Milchemet Rishoot and/or besiege a city for this purpose they can fight on Shabbat but should not start the besieging of the city more less than 2 days before Shabbat. He says nothing about Moshiach or a King but so he clearly is talking about our time period.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version