[Avodah] dina demalchuta

[Zev Sero]

On 19/07/2011 5:15 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 04:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> Pretty clear -- the reason why their contracts are binding is because
>>> DDD includes "hadinim nitzavu benei Noach".
>
>> Not "includes"; is included.  Dinim is the 7th mitzvah.
>
> DDD is the Jewish obligation to follow their dinim

No, it is *not*.  Where do you see any reference to an obligation?


> or as Rashi puts it
> explaining R' Tarfon, our obligation of uvi'arta hara'ah miqirbekha.

Rashi does *not* put it that way; you are simply making that up out of
thin air.

  
> However, this is tangential. You appear to be agreeing that any law passed
> under the 7th MBN is included under DDD.

No, I'm not saying that.  I don't even know what you mean by "included
under".


>>> The gemara happens to be
>>> an application to dinei mamunus, but Rashi's reason for why it works
>>> includes everything the 7BMN makes applicable to them in general.
>
>> And this is completely irrelevant.  All Rashi says is that their
>> contracts are valid, because the 7MBN obligate them to keep their
>> contracts...
>
> No, because 7MBN obligates them in the topic of the contract.

What does that mean?  What is "the topic of the contract", and where do
you see that in Rashi?



> A get is a contract

No, it isn't.  What's it a contract *for*?


> but they aren't included in the concept of qiddushin,
> so that's irrelevent. And notice his rationale is that contract law is
> just one small instance and anything 7MBN obligates them to address in
> their courts would be included.

Again, where in Rashi do you see that?   And "included in" *what*?
Contracts are not "included" in dinim, they *are* dinim, and Rashi points
out that Shmuel says their dinim are valid.  Rashi then explains that
the difference between contracts and gittin is that they're benei chiyuva
in one and not the other.


>> laws, or to a prohibition on breaking them?  You still haven't crossed
>> the gap between Shmuel's statement and this proposition.
>
> Rashi explicitly does.

Explicitly?!  He doesn't even cross it implicitly.  You have not yet
quoted a Rashi *anywhere* that says or implies any such thing.  Not one
single Rashi you have quoted says it, or implies it, or even indirectly
alludes to it.  Go on, show me a Rashi that says we (or they, for that
matter) must obey their laws, or are prohibited from breaking them.


> You're wiggling a peshat into Rashi was that neither ever given before
> nor fits the words.

That's exactly what you are repeatedly doing.


> He says the only reason why gittin are excepted

Excepted from what?  You mean the reason why their gittin are not valid.


> is because they aren't within 7MBN. He doesn't
> limit the rule to contracts, he excludes from a general principle those
> mitzvos that can't be chal on benei Noach.

Huh?  What general principle?  There is no general principle, there's
just a distinction between two different kinds of documents.  Those
documents in which they are benei chiyuva are valid, those in which they
are not are invalid.  What principle do you see here?  And more
importantly, where do you see any hint of an obligation or a prohibition?


>
>>> Not only R' Broyde (whose article I was summarizing in the post I linked
>>> to earlier this thread) reads it that way. RHS has a similar understanding
>>> of Rashi (Nidah 61a), that had Rabbi Tarfon actually determined the guilt
>>> of the Jews who asked them to hide him, he would have been obligated
>>> to turn them in.
>
>>             Rashi doesn't mention the idea of turning them in; the only
>> options R Tarfon considered were hiding them or not hiding them.  Rashi
>> merely explains why, if they were guilty, he would not want to save them,
>> and Tosfos explains that he was afraid that if he hid them and they
>> turned out to be guilty he'd be putting himself in danger.
>
> That's Tosafos, not Rashi. Rashi doesn't give a pragmatic reason, he
> gives a halachic one. RHS points out that this indicates a machloqes
> between them.

Tosfos is *explaining* the Rashi, not arguing.  And Rashi does *not*
mention a single word about turning them in.  Rashi doesn't say what
sort of reason he's giving.



> And it's RHS who says that Rashi would consider it an obligation,
> not I.   See <http://download.yutorah.org/1981/1053/735655.pdf>  pg 120
> (18th pg in the pdf) - 122.

I just looked there, and RHS does *not* say that there's a machlokes,
or that Rashi would obligate R Tarfon to turn them in.  Not only are you
putting words in Rashi's mouth, you're putting them in RHS's as well.



> Perhaps the reason why debating this feels like
> you're banging your head against the wall is because indeed, you're
> trying to support the unsupportable.

Not at all.  I know my position is logical; I keep demanding that you
explain the logical basis your position and you keep evading and
asserting.  Once again, Shmuel makes a very simple statement: that
the kingdom's dinim are valid.  If we have any doubt what that means,
we can look at the four examples in Shas where he is quoted, and
extrapolate from them.   But somehow you and several others have derived
from these simple words an obligation to obey the law, and a prohibition
on breaking the law.  And I keep challenging you to show *how* you have
derived it.  It came to its starkest earlier today, when RLL simply
asserted out of the blue that that is what the words mean!  Pretty much
my entire point is that the words *don't* mean that, and you need some
sort of logical process to get there from the words.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
zev at sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
		                            - Yitzchak Rabin