[Avodah] dina demalchuta

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 06:33:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> 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?

DDD is not an obligation? You want to say it's an issur against violating
their dinim? No problem. But also, a distinction without a difference --
you can't tell from Shemu'el's words whether it's an asei or a lav.

Personally, given RHS's tying this all to uvi'arta hara miqirbekha, I
would go with asei.

>> 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.

I am not making anything up -- in fact, I gave you a URL and page number
within the article for you to see where RHS says it. Now, you might,
impiously, say that RHS made it up. But given that he is one of the
planet's noted posqim, I'll take his word about what the chiyuv/issur
is over yours.

At least read the thing and argue against his points.

Using forceful language like "you are simply making that up" or last
post's "nonsense" doesn't make you more right. And actually, to many
readers, it sound like you're invoking the lawyer's proverbial last
argument. ("When you don't have the facts, hammer the law; when you don't
have the law, hammer the facts; if you don't have the facts or the law,
hammer the table.")

>> 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".

Our chiyuv/issur of DDD includes our compliance with any law passed under
the 7th MBN. That's an implication of either of our reads of the Rashi
in Gittin.

>>>> 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?

I already posted the Rashi:
    ...ho'il velo shaykhi betoras gitin veqidushin
    aval al hadinim nitztavu benei Noach...

So, a shetar that makes terms of dinei mamunus is binding, not because DDD
is binding, but because mamunus is one of the dinim nitztavu BN.


>> A get is a contract

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

I should have stuck to "shetar" rather than contract.

The gemara's whole point is to explain that what true for most shetaros
isn't true for a get or a shetar shichrur. Which other gemaros call a
"get shichrur", because the two words "shetar" and "get" are synonyms. See
also the mishnah on BB 160a, which uses "get" to mean "shetar". Look at
the whole discussion on Gittin 10b-11a, comparing get with other shetaros.

>> 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*?

In our chiyuv or issur of DDD, obviously. Isn't that the topic we and the
Rashi discussing?

> 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.

Dinim that benei Noach were commanded in includes AZ, shefichas damim,
mamunus, eiver min hachai, and having a safe society. Not just contracts.

>>> 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...

Only every acharon I quoted thinks so, I showed you the word I believe say so,
and all you do is quibble about wording that don't actually provide another
interpretation. Like not knowing what I was saying a set of laws would be
included in in a discussion of the legal scope of DDD. Or further down,
"excepted from what".

Give a word-by-word explanation of what YOU think Rashi is saying. Stop
pounding the table and say what you think and where you get it from.

>> 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.

Except I haven't given my own peshat, and you haven't show how it
doesn't fit.

>> 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....

No, he distinguishes between gitin and qiddushin on one hand and the
mitzvos benei Noach are obligated in, which are subject to DDD. Since
the 7th mitzvah is to have a just society, that's pretty general.

...
>> 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,

>From page 121, "The reason why Tosafot and the Sheiltot did not interpret
Rabbi Tarfon's comment the same way Rashi did, ..."

> 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...

I am trying to explain my position. YOu haven't cited a source, interpret
a Rashi, and your only quote of one of my secondary sources was to show
you missed the line I was referring to.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha at aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507