Response from a non zionist, regarding RAMBAN, and vilna gaon 600000

[q_q_]

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""

[jdl4ever]

Well let's hear your answer to the contradiction.  Is it still the same one you posted before or have you perfected it?

[q_q_]

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.

[q_q_]

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.

[q_q_]

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. 

[jdl4ever]

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.

[kahaneloyalist]

Lets not forget the Rambam was full of praise for the Hashmonaim who were not appointed by a Navi

[q_q_]

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.

[jdl4ever]

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. 

[q_q_]

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

[jdl4ever]

When the Rambam first introduces the concept of Milchemet Mitzvah and Milchemet Reshoot at the very beginning he simply defines it as a war against the 7 nations and a war against other nations respectfully in Chapter 5.  He does not say in the definition itself that a King is required, but this is merely implied by you since the first words the Rambam says "when a King makes war he must first do Milchemet Mitzvah" and then the Rambam goes on to define what is a Milchemet Mitzvah.  You are getting mislead by the first few words in the verse to think that since the verse began with a King waging the wars, by definition they require a King; but this is not so.  The Rambam goes back and defines what the wars are in the next few words.  Look at the definition itself, he does not say a King is required but simply what I wrote before.  And if you say that a King is required for both wars then why does the Rambam specifically go out of his way to say that a war against Amalek requires a King first and proves it with a Torah verse? Wouldn't that be redundant acccording to you?  According to me, the Rambam lists the exception which is Amalek where a King is first required but this is not the case with the other wars.

And as to your question, if the Goyim want to attack us in Israel and we attack them that is considered a Milchemet Rishoot by definition.

[q_q_]

I was not referring to chapter 5.

I repeated the argument many times to you already.

Chapter 6.

Talks of any milchemet mitzvah or reshut, and it REQUIRES A KING..  (since it mentions offering peace, and them paying a tribute TO THE KING)

now if you want to remove the Tribute, The King. Well, then remove other things too and apply it to fighting a thug. It is distorting the RAMBAM.

And if he writes under the assumption that there is a King, and you say it applies without a King, then you have no basis. Just as removing more and applying it to fighting a thug.

[judeanoncapta]

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.

[q_q_]

I was not referring to chapter 5.

I repeated the argument many times to you already.

Chapter 6.

Talks of any milchemet mitzvah or reshut, and it REQUIRES A KING..  (since it mentions offering peace, and them paying a tribute TO THE KING)

now if you want to remove the Tribute, The King. Well, then remove other things too and apply it to fighting a thug. It is distorting the RAMBAM.

And if he writes under the assumption that there is a King, and you say it applies without a King, then you have no basis. Just as removing more and applying it to fighting a thug.

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)

[jdl4ever]

I've already answered your argument before. In Chapter 6, the Rambam does talk about tribute to a King, but that is not necessary for a Milchemet Mitzvah and Milchemet Rishoot since the Rambam defines what these wars are in Chapter 5 and he does not say they require a King, he merely says the definition of a MM and MR are that one is a war against the 7 nations and the other is not.  He never says they require a King.  Also the Rambam specifically singles out a war with Amalek as something you must have a King first.  according to you this problematic since is redundant.  The Rambam mentions tribute and other things applying to a King since this is Hilchot Melachim and the Rambam is going to apply every concept mentioned in this Chapter to Kings whether it is required to have a King or not.  He also talks about Kings having wives and concubines in these Chapters.  So are you going to tell me that since the Rambam talks about wives and concubines in the Chapter of Kings that from this we derive only Kings can have wives and concubines?  Not necessarily so.  And when he talks about giving honor to a King, does that mean a Torah Scholar doesn't require honor since the Rambam mentions honor by a King?  Your "proof" is not a proof at all

I am also not negating things the Rambam says, just reading him correctly;  you are just reading him very superficially since you want him to say your view on something and ignoring the outright contradictions such a view holds.   Your view has many contradictions in the Rambam's own words and in the Torah itself.  This will become apparent when you read different Chapters of the Rambam that repeat things mentioned in this Chapter, this time without mentioning Kings,  and when you read the Torah.   And that commentary you have printed does not give a half satisfactory answer to these questions.  It only answers how Joshua could be considered a King since that was before we entered Israel.  But anyone after him until Shaul wasn't a King.  And if you say they were, then a further question is that the Rambam said that a female can not be considered King, then how could Devorah the Prophetess be considered a King and wage a Milchemet Rishoot?   So either way there is no answer you can give and the Rambam must be saying like me.

Also, attacking a bunch of thugs in Israel who invade you is considered a Milchemet Reshoot whether you like it or not.

So in summary your "proof" from Chapter 6 is invalid due to a logical fallacy since you can't derive exclusivity from association.  Meaning, the Rambam must exclusively say that something only applies to a King to be a proof.  In the definition of the wars at the beginning of Chapter 5, he defines them without saying they exclusively apply to a King.  Anything applying to a King after this definition is not necessary, but only applies if you happen to have a King, if not then it doesn't matter since exclusivity was never stated by the Rambam anywhere.  Something talked about in the Chapter of Kings does not necessarily mean it applies only to Kings anymore than something talked about in the Chapter of Sabbath applying only to Sabbath.  The Rambam must say outright that this thing only applies to Kings or you must have a King first like he does for Amalek.

[q_q_]

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.   

[jdl4ever]

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.

[q_q_]

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!



 

[jdl4ever]

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.

[q_q_]

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!