[Avodah] dina demalchuta

[Zev Sero]

On 19/07/2011 9:28 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> 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, it's neither one.  Not unless you show me a source that derives
such an obligation or prohibition from it.  This is what I've been
saying all along.  (And this is quite besides the whole chakira over
when DDD applies.  I'm talking about Shevur Malka's regime, to which
Shmuel was explicitly referring.)



> 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.

You can tell that it's neither one.


>>> 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.

You claimed that *Rashi* put it that way.  He didn't.  In fact DDD is
irrelevant to that whole sugya.  The only question is whether one is
permitted to save a rasha, especially at risk to oneself.  The gemara
doesn't even identify who was pursuing these alleged murderers; I don't
know where you got the idea that it was the government, because that's
just not there.  It could just as easily have been the victim's friends
and relatives, or the mafia, or anybody.



>>> 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.

*What* chiyuv/issur?  I maintain that there is no such thing.


> That's an implication of either of our reads of the Rashi in Gittin.

It certainly is not!  I don't see how *anybody* can read such a thing
into that Rashi.   *All* Rashi says is that if Reuven comes into Beit Din
with a document from a non-Jewish court, signed by non-Jewish witnesses,
attesting that Shimon owes him 100 dinar, Shimon cannot challenge its
validity on that basis.  Since Bnei Noach are commanded to have courts,
those courts' documents have facial validity.  That's all he says, and
how you derive what you said I don't understand.
  

>> 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.

What?!!!  That is the exact opposite of what Rashi said just a line
earlier.  The shtar is valid (*not* "binding"; that's not the question
the gemara is discussing) because DDD.  That *is* explicit in Rashi,
you can't ignore it.  Then Rashi explains why gittin are different;
one is a shtar and the other is a shtar, so if you accept one why not
the other?  And he explains that they are commanded on dinim, so their
dinim are valid; they're not commanded on marriage and divorce, so their
divorce decrees are mere pieces of paper.




>>> 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?

*NO*.  The gemara and Rashi are discussing the validity of shtaros.
Nothing else.


>> 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.

No, no, no, no, no.  Those are *not* dinim.  Where did you get such an
idea?!  How is "don't murder" a din?  What has it got to do with dinim?
If they are dinim, then what is the 7th mitzvah?



> Give a word-by-word explanation of what YOU think Rashi is saying.

I just have.   All I'm doing is translating the words, and not going
beyond them.   DDD is a huge chidush, an enormous chiddush.  Shmuel
gives no source, and no explanation.  The reason is so obscure that the
rishonim have to make wild guesses as to what it might be, which is why
their answers are all over the map.  And the fundamental rule about any
chiddush is that you cannot extend it beyond what it says.  Shmuel
doesn't say anything about obligations or prohibitions, and though the
gemara cites him several times, in different cases, none of them imply
an obligation or prohibition.  So anyone who asserts that such a thing
exists must prove it.


>> 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.

You have that exactly backwards.  The 7MBN are not "subject" to DDD.


> Since the 7th mitzvah is to have a just society

No, it isn't.  It's to have dinim.  Courts, resolving disputes with
their decisions.  Laying down rules deciding who owns what.  And it is
those dinim which Shmuel says are valid and admissible in Beis Din.



>>> 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, ..."

And look further, where he says there's no machlokes.  And there's *no*
mention of any notion that R Tarfon should ever have turned the alleged
murderers in.


-- 
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