[Avodah] Herod and Shlomozion

[Chana Luntz]

Ira Tick itick1986 at gmail.com summarising and questioning the position of
RYBS as set out by RAF

> >5) The other distinction made between gerim and women was based on the
> >Netziv, who proved from the acceptance of Herod as a Jewish monarch
> >that a ger may serve with serara if the need arrises--his convert
> >status does not invalidate his position. This idea is interesting,
> >though no actual reason was given as to why that distinction should
> >be made. The real problem though is the proof in its support. 

And RAF responded:

> Herod had a lot of bad traits, Josephus is full of his blood thirsty
> escapades.  Of course Haza"l didn't like him. But all that is is
> irrelevant to the question of whether his kingship was halakhically
> valid, and the Netsiv says "Yes."  Look at the Netsiv for yourself.
> The Hasmoneans should not have taken the kingship, certainly not
> permanently.  But it did not make them invalid Kings.   If you revolted
> against them you were mored be-malkhut.   Ahav was king of Israel, yet
> Eliyahu haNavi ran before his Chariot out of Kavod!!!  You may be
> inappropriate yet valid.

Just to note that Rav Hertzog used precisely the same argument from
Shlomozion to say that this proves that a woman can validly be a queen where
necessary.

If you have a look at his section on sererah b'isha in his book techuka
l'yisrael al pi hahalacha  (Mosad Harav Kook edition  printed 1989) p102,
second paragraph headed "Shlomozion hamalka".  He points out that nowhere in
the Talmud is there any questions raised as the psul of a woman to be queen
vis a vis Shlomozion, and he contrasts this with the situation with Herod
(Baba Batra 3b) and Agrippa (Sotah 41a) where it was stated that that they
were posel.  He suggests that since they did not bring this Sifri (ie melech
v'lo malka) vis a vis Shlomozion, one can derive from this that Chazal
believed it was an asmachta b'alma.  He does question why at least they did
not raise it and clarify it as an asmachta b'alma and perhaps suggest it was
a drabbanan.  His answer to this is that perhaps this was because of the
honour of that tzadekes (ie Shlomozion) that they did not recall the matter
at all, since according to their opinion there was no issur m'tzad hadin.

[And of course, I might add, if Chazal had said something, there is a fair
chance that, unlike Herod, Shlomozion might have listened.]

That is, Rav Hertzog was clearly of the view, contra the Netziv, that Herod
was indeed posul as a king.  But the logic of his writing is that if you
were to hold like the Netziv that indeed Herod was valid, then as a kal
v'chomer so was Shlomozion.  That is, if you hold that Herod was a valid
king even though he should not have been appointed, then it would seem from
this that kal v'chomer so was Shlomozion.

I will try and discuss other aspects of RYBS's position as brought by RAF in
some later posts.

Regards

Chana



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100701/b08f30dc/attachment-0002.htm>