[Avodah] The Rosh ruled that a rav was a zaken mamre

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 03:12:10PM -0500, RCM wrote:
: Why not? Why wouldn't the curfew violators at the very least be
: considered mordim b'malchus and subject to execution even without
: kvetching in a risk to life?

Who said that everyone who defies the king on any small thing is a
moreid bemalkhus? We're both assuming things, which is how we ended
up in different places.

I'm assuming that just like a milkhemes reshus, attacking an enemy, must
be justifiable in terms of saving lives over all, so must every decision
a king makes to spend lives. And so, a moreid bemalkhus is someone who
must be stopped or made an example of because if their act is left as is,
it could snowball into anarchy. Thus the word "moreid".

The Rambam, Melakhim 3:8 writes that even if the king decrees that some
commoner (echad mishe'ear ha'am) should go to some place and he doesn't,
chayav misah. OTOH, the previous clause is "kol hammoreid bamelekh yeish
lamelekh reshus lehorgo". Would you read it that a king has permission
to kill someone who rebels against his authority, but someone who defies
his authority in any small way is *chayav* misah? Or, that even a small
defiance, when performed as rebellion (meridah) is sufficient?

Along these line, the Minchas Chinukh #295 says that moreid havei kerodeif,
in terms of mesirah being mutar.

Or the AhS CM 1:26. OT1H, "dekhol hamamreh pi melekh hava moreid
bemalkhus." OTOH, he writes later, "dinei negashos ein danin, raq im
haya likhvodo kegon she'echad dibeir kenegdo -- de'az dan oso hamelekh
af lemisah"...

So I can't really prove the point clearly, I'm just exposing my own
more humanistic biases.

But I don't see RCM offering a real basis for his assumptions either.

We need meqoros!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
micha at aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507