[Avodah] dina demalchuta

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:27:52PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> 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...

Then what are you saying DDD is, if Shemu'el was neither telling us
what to do, nor what not to do?

...
>>>> 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...

I repeated other's claims -- R' Broyde and RHS, because they happened
to convince me. Thus saying I made things up meant you didn't catch
that I didn't say anything I considered new.

>                                  The only question is whether one is
> permitted to save a rasha, especially at risk to oneself...

The only question I'm interested in is how you read the Rashi so as
to reach a different conclusion than the one I gave. So take a step
back, stop trying to distract people by picking nits, stop trying
to refute my points, and present your thesis.

Until then, I have nothing to contribute. Right now, I have what I believe
is peshat in Rashi as given by people whose opinion of what DDD requires
is more authoritative than yours. Avodah, though, is not a place to just
play authority games, so explain your position.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
micha at aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)