JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: judeanoncapta on February 05, 2008, 11:45:54 AM
-
Hey, guys.
Sorry I have not been on the forum since I posted the audio for the 01/28/08 ASK JUDEA TORAH SHOW.
I had some personal business to attend to but now I am back.
Please post your questions here for this week's show.
Same rules apply as last week.
Let's start off with Chaim's question:
Was Noah righteous and pure or only righteous in comparison to the people of his generation?
In a better generation would he have been more or less righteous?
-
Shalom, Judea. You made a great show, thank you for answering my questions.
My question for this show is this:
How the Jews decide who is a great rabbi ? For exemple, the Rambam was punished with a Cherem in his life, but now he's considered to a great rabbi, how is that ?
-
hi
What were objections to the sanhedrin being reestablished back in Rav Yosef Karo`s time. Or any time in the past when there were attempts. Or no attempts.
Do any of those objections still apply today. Or have they all been cleared up? And if they have been cleared up, then how have they been cleared up?
shalom
-
Dear Judeanoncapta,
I have read a big part of the book of Hesekiel (יחזקאל). There is a long text about Tyrus.
Why is the part about one city so long? Had this city and her king a special role in gods plan?
Sincerly,
Ullrich
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I cannot comment on hilchot shabbat. But hilchot melachim, is still only talking about a King.
I notice whenyou say 11:8-9, you are referring to verses. When I had written ch x:y I meant chapter x, halacha y. But anyhow
It says he is a King.. fights the wars of G-d, compels israel to follow the torah, and should be presumed to be the moshiach (even though he may not be).
**We cannot have a King in our times.** We need a prophet for it, as he says earlier.
does compelling israel to keep the torah, mean forcing the whole of israel to keep the torah? Nobody is doing that.
And he says that person is presumed to be moshiach.
I guess MAYBE , MAYBE, it proves that RAMBAM thinks you can have a non messianic king(it seems to me that he is just talking about a King who one expects to the the messiah, and is only non messianic because it turns out he is not! ). But it does not prove that you can have it in our time. We need a prophet to appoint a King.
Maybe hilchot shabbat proves what you say it does. I do not have it to comment.
-
According to the Rambam, he does not say we can not have Prophesy in our time as other commentators do. But I will move on to another proof. What about the commandment "to not let idolatrers live in the land of Israel", that seems pretty clear cut that we must settle the land of Israel first to enforce this? Or what about the commandment that "levites shall not share in the spoil of the conquest of the land", this has the prerequisite that the Jews are conquering the Land of Israel. For them to do this they must first control a portion of the land. And if you answer that this only is supposed to happen in Massianic times, in Hilchot Melachim the Rambam doesn't write about the Jews going up to Israel from Galut with their appointed King and taking it over, he talks about the Jews already living in Israel appointing a King.
-
According to the Rambam, he does not say we can not have Prophesy in our time as other commentators do. But I will move on to another proof. What about the commandment "to not let idolatrers live in the land of Israel", that seems pretty clear cut that we must settle the land of Israel first to enforce this? Or what about the commandment that "levites shall not share in the spoil of the conquest of the land", this has the prerequisite that the Jews are conquering the Land of Israel. For them to do this they must first control a portion of the land. And if you answer that this only is supposed to happen in Massianic times, in Hilchot Melachim the Rambam doesn't write about the Jews going up to Israel from Galut with their appointed King and taking it over, he talks about the Jews already living in Israel appointing a King.
You are wrong about the RAMBAM. He does say prophecy ceased.
And I think it is possible to live in israel without soveregnty, to appoint a King, and then fight, conquer.
Aside from that the rest of my answer is not that clear.. I won`t post it here because it brings up questions to the point that judeaoncapita`s thread would be well and truly hijacked. And judeaoncapita needs this post to see what questions are asked..
I will create a new thread and reference it here, but excuse my starting post - response to you, the ideas I will mention in that post are very undeveloped. In that I ran into a problem in the way the RAMBAM is defining King.
hopefully , for the sake of judeanoncapta, the thread can get back to questions for his show!
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=16162.0
-
My last question for this show, Judea:
Haredi Jews are mostly against having pets as Cats and Dogs, I don't know if it's the same in the National-Religiouse Jews aswell, but I would like to ask what's the reason for that, if you know what's the answere ?