<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/27/07, R' <b class="gmail_sendername">Micha Berger</b> <<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Just to connect RnCL's dots... Since Achav was not mibeis David, we are /not/<br>only talking about halachic government. Achav, an idolatrous king who ruled
<br>despite "lo yasir sheivet miYehudah" sets a pretty broad precedent.<br><br>I therefore would think that her speculation about whether Medinat Yisrael<br>qualifies as malkhus is a tangent. It's irrelevent if we have a maqor for
<br>showing respect for someone who is outside of "som tasim alekha melekh".<br><br>Or would one argue that a non-Davidic king is a qiyum of som tasim even while<br>being assur? I think it be mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah. You can't claim it's
<br>asei docheh lav, as otherwise there is nothing left of giving the melukhah to<br>beis David.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Since when is "lo yasir" an actual lav? Even according to the Ramban in Chumash who says that the Makkabim were punished for violating this, that does not make it an issur d'oraisa. He doesn't list it in his sefer hamitzvos, does he? (I mean this question seriously, not rhetorically.) I certainly understood that it was an ethical directive saying "here's how klal Yisroel should run", but a lav? (This is even leaving aside the Ran in Drashos (#4?) who argues on the Ramban and says that there is not even any issur in lo yasir, just a nevuah.)
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Michael</div></div>